Scalia dies on quail hunting trip

[Omega18]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the case, and the "best" part is, that Senaturd can remain anonymous. It's the ultimate troll.

While the "rule" is not a formal one in the first place and the Senate has was to get around that block when it wants to, it clearly doesn't apply when talking about a Supreme Court nominee or for that matter to judicial nominees in general to the best of my knowledge. (The "rule" is understood to only apply to non-judicial political appointees and basically be a way to compel a response from the current administration, particularly with regards to providing information. It has been traditionally understood that there were limits on what a Senator could demand using this power.)

[Tribble]

How long could the Republicans theoretically stall an appointment? Could they go so far as to continue to block appointments if the next president is a democrat?

I could see a Democrat president winning and the Republican Senate making up some B.S. about how in order to preserve "balance, democracy and freedom etc" in the courts the next Supreme Court appointment must be a conservative, and continue to block as long as possible.

[Gaidin]

I suppose they never have to stop the 9th if a Democrat gets elected.

[Omega18]

How long could the Republicans theoretically stall an appointment? Could they go so far as to continue to block appointments if the next president is a democrat?

I could see a Democrat president winning and the Republican Senate making up some B.S. about how in order to preserve "balance, democracy and freedom etc" in the courts the next Supreme Court appointment must be a conservative, and continue to block as long as possible.

Theoretically there is nothing actually stopping them, (other than realistic long term political consequences) but in practice it seems highly unlikely to occur in 2017 given the favorable Senate map for Democrats this election cycle. Basically there are a significant number of Republican Senators either up for re-election or leaving open seats in either red states or swing states while there are essentially no Democratic Senators up for re-election or vacating true red states this election cycle. Especially given past election trends (plus the actual practical political consequences of blocking a nominee for virtually the whole year by that point), its very hard to see a scenario where you're not looking at least at a 50 to 50 Senate with a Democrat elected to President. Even a tied Senate with a Democrat President puts the President in the drivers seat due to the Vice-President breaking Senate ties and allows the Senate to negate the filibuster rule and vote in the nominee on a 51 to 50 vote if it becomes necessary.

For that matter even in a scenario where Senate Republicans manage to still end up with a very narrow 51 to 49 lead I can't see a moderate Senator such as Susan Collins, or at least one or two other Senators elected from swing or blue states agreeing to that degree of a prolonged blockage of any nominee. (If nothing else for many of them there is practical issue that they are not going to be re-elected if they pull off such a stunt which is going to alienate a whole bunch of moderate and independent voters by basically clearly implying their previous vote for President was wrong and should not be respected.) Now if Bernie Sanders gets elected and selects an individual with exceptionally left leaning positions that person might be blocked, but that's different than sticking with a position that they won't accept any nominee at all.

As was somewhat noted previously in this thread, it is also true even in a theoretical case of long term deadlock, the status quo of 4 to 4 rulings would significantly tend to favor Democrats over time given the extent to which the lower court composition has been reshaped under Obama.

Edit: In fact the Senate map is so favorable for Democrats I could see a theoretical scenario where even if Democrats managed to lose the Presidency, Senate Democrats get a 50 to 50 tie and decide to force through Obama's nominee from January 3rd when the new Senators take office prior to January 20th when the new President would be sworn in.

[Simon_Jester]

I may be mistaken in this case, but I am reasonably certain that political appointees can be held up by a single senator and there is no way a overiding that other than convincing them to change their mind. Unless SCOTUS appointees have a different procedural requirement then a single jackass, Cruz, got prevent any nominees for the remainder of the term.

How do you see that working, exactly? I am not aware of any such rule or condition that actually could block things indefinitely.

How long could the Republicans theoretically stall an appointment? Could they go so far as to continue to block appointments if the next president is a democrat?

They can try to keep at it.

The biggest risk associated with this is what scholars politely call a "constitutional crisis." We're already skating on the edge of one thanks to the past five years of congressional obstructionism- persistent inability to pass a budget, and the debt ceiling, being the biggest offenders because they affect ALL parts of the federal government's ability to function.

What it comes down to is the side effects of cumulative damage that a disloyal opposition inflicts on the ability of the machinery of government to keep running. If the machine breaks down, responsible people not from your party start stepping in to make it run again, and will generally view you as being at best an irrelevant thing to be bypassed and at worst an active threat to the safety of the country.

If the Republicans keep doing this sort of obstructionism into the next presidential term, the most likely long term results are:
1) Republicans in swing states, and the relatively few remaining "cross-color" Republicans who still win elections in mostly Democratic states, get voted out of office because they are seen as responsible for all sorts of crises that have consequences at the local level.
2) If this doesn't happen, and keeps not happening... The new president will find a way to do their job without relying on the Republicans in Congress. WIth the result that the US will slide further down the road toward a presidential dictatorship, because Congress has for all intents and purposes abdicated rather than do its duty.
3) If that doesn't happen, the result is that the US government gradually decays into this sort of bizarre shambling wreck of useless chaos, because it is unable to change or adapt to new situations like the deaths of its senior executives, or the need for a realigned budget. The effects of this are unpredictable, in my opinion.

[Simon_Jester]

I may be mistaken in this case, but I am reasonably certain that political appointees can be held up by a single senator and there is no way a overiding that other than convincing them to change their mind. Unless SCOTUS appointees have a different procedural requirement then a single jackass, Cruz, got prevent any nominees for the remainder of the term.

How do you see that working, exactly? I am not aware of any such rule or condition that actually could block things indefinitely.

How long could the Republicans theoretically stall an appointment? Could they go so far as to continue to block appointments if the next president is a democrat?

They can try to keep at it. In the (perhaps unlikely) event that they retain the power to do so...

The biggest risk associated with this is what scholars politely call a "constitutional crisis." We're already skating on the edge of one thanks to the past five years of congressional obstructionism- persistent inability to pass a budget, and the debt ceiling, being the biggest offenders because they affect ALL parts of the federal government's ability to function.

What it comes down to is the side effects of cumulative damage that a disloyal opposition inflicts on the ability of the machinery of government to keep running. If the machine breaks down, responsible people not from your party start stepping in to make it run again, and will generally view you as being at best an irrelevant thing to be bypassed and at worst an active threat to the safety of the country.

If the Republicans keep doing this sort of obstructionism into the next presidential term, the most likely long term results are:
1) Republicans in swing states, and the relatively few remaining "cross-color" Republicans who still win elections in mostly Democratic states, get voted out of office because they are seen as responsible for all sorts of crises that have consequences at the local level.
2) If this doesn't happen, and keeps not happening... The new president will find a way to do their job without relying on the Republicans in Congress. WIth the result that the US will slide further down the road toward a presidential dictatorship, because Congress has for all intents and purposes abdicated rather than do its duty.
3) If that doesn't happen, the result is that the US government gradually decays into this sort of bizarre shambling wreck of useless chaos, because it is unable to change or adapt to new situations like the deaths of its senior executives, or the need for a realigned budget. The effects of this are unpredictable, in my opinion.

[Omega18]

Basically there are a significant number of Republican Senators either up for re-election or leaving open seats in either red states or swing states

A bit of a serious typo here, I meant to say a significant number Republican Senators either up for re-election or leaving open seats in either blue states or swing states this election.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Somewhat irrelevant, but seen on Facebook this morning:

"Scalia: claims to be pro-life, dies anyway."

[The Romulan Republic]

Best case scenario (albeit perhaps not the most realistic)- Republicans obstruct a replacement just long enough that Bernie gets to put a proper progressive socialist on the court for the next thirty years or so. That would be just delicious.

[Knife]

Yeah, this is an easy win for Obama and the Democrats, although not an automatic 100% win. All Obama has to do is appoint a center left candidate and the GOP Senate can either 1) block it and allow the DNC, Obama, and the Democratic Presidential candidates to use it as a hammer to slam the GOP senate and the GOP Presidential candidates over obstruction and for bonus points allowing a significant portion of the cases to revert to lower court decisions where most of them are more liberal in tone or 2) forces the GOP to nominate a center left justice skewing the political divide on the court.

The only way to lose on this is to either appoint a super liberal that when the GOP rails against and spooks some moderates and centrists or totally capitulates and appoints a conservative to get something through the Senate.

[Edi]

Right on the nose, Knife.

For comedic variety, the opinion on the right wing side is that McConnell's poison pill demand is somehow a graceful way out for Obama because trying to get anything through GOP obstruction would hurt his standing and "it would be seen as an attempt to reconciliate with the Republican base".



As if there was anything short of spontaneously combusting that Obama could do to improve their opinion of him...

[Elfdart]

... or totally capitulates and appoints a conservative to get something through the Senate.

Given Obama's habit of punting on 1st down, I'd bet my money on this option.

[Purple]

I wonder how the Trump card effects the thinking in congress about this issue. Like they could try and block Obama now but what if come next term they have to vote on someone proposed by president Trump?

[Simon_Jester]

Most of the people who would try to block an Obama appointee right now would honestly probably not have that much trouble with a Trump appointee.

[Purple]

Until he goes and appoints a horse.

[Knife]

... or totally capitulates and appoints a conservative to get something through the Senate.

Given Obama's habit of punting on 1st down, I'd bet my money on this option.

He has zero reason to do so though. He is coasting home, no elections left for him, has no big donors to appease, nothing to worry about but his legacy, which would not be strengthened by a conservative SCOTUS judge. It would just be bizarre for him to do so.

[Gaidin]

... or totally capitulates and appoints a conservative to get something through the Senate.

Given Obama's habit of punting on 1st down, I'd bet my money on this option.

I know we're playing to the first 6 years of his term. But the last year has sort of invented it's own "zero fucks given" meme for a reason.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wonder how the Trump card effects the thinking in congress about this issue. Like they could try and block Obama now but what if come next term they have to vote on someone proposed by president Trump?

I would think the question "what if we have to vote on someone proposed by President Sanders" would give them more concern, if not for the disproportionate pathological hatred the Right seems to have for Obama even over other liberals. Obama, for all the far Right's hysterical lying about him, has often tended towards caution, moderation, and compromise. Sanders... not so much.

Or maybe the Republicans are by and large in the "Sanders can't win" crowd.

[Knife]

I'm sure a bunch of them are still in that weird bubble and don't think there are more than 10 or 12 actual liberals in the country.

[Flagg]

Yeah, this is an easy win for Obama and the Democrats, although not an automatic 100% win. All Obama has to do is appoint a center left candidate and the GOP Senate can either 1) block it and allow the DNC, Obama, and the Democratic Presidential candidates to use it as a hammer to slam the GOP senate and the GOP Presidential candidates over obstruction and for bonus points allowing a significant portion of the cases to revert to lower court decisions where most of them are more liberal in tone or 2) forces the GOP to nominate a center left justice skewing the political divide on the court.

The only way to lose on this is to either appoint a super liberal that when the GOP rails against and spooks some moderates and centrists or totally capitulates and appoints a conservative to get something through the Senate.

Right on the money.

And Obama wouldn't even appoint anything more than a center-left candidate, anyway. Plus, as was said, he's not punting on first down, anymore.

This is about legacy, and he wants his legacy to be "the guy that saved the economy, killed Bin Laden, and changed the political landscape for the better". If he can swing the court from right to left, then he'd get 2 of 3.

I mean he doesn't want the reality of "enabling future torture regimes, a bigger wealth gap, and staying in Afghanistan forever at the cost of retired military, seniors, and the disabled who constantly got fucked on their (our, in my households case) COLA amount, getting 0 this year" as his legacy any more than Reagan wanted "being a traitor who sold weapons to Iran in order to support fascist South American death squads who overthrew democratically elected Governments he didn't like and had breath that stank of jelly beans and Maggie Thatcher's cunt".

I will never forget Obama lying for his entire presidency about withdrawing from Afghanistan and in his budgets fucking the poorest, but if he gets this right, most of the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging American populace will believe the lie.

[amigocabal]

You know, I kind of feel McConnell has a point here. Would we be so happy about the prospect of an outgoing Republican president appointing a Supreme Court judge, for life, with less than a year to go before they leave office? And it's not as if the Obama administration's record on civil liberties is exactly stellar anyway.

Doesn't fucking matter. The President appoints Judges for the Supreme Court, not the teeming masses of shit-flinging howler monkeys driven by soundbytes that is the general population.

And likewise, the Senate decides who and who does not get confirmed. Rejection of Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court dates back to the George Washington administration.

[General Zod]

You know, I kind of feel McConnell has a point here. Would we be so happy about the prospect of an outgoing Republican president appointing a Supreme Court judge, for life, with less than a year to go before they leave office? And it's not as if the Obama administration's record on civil liberties is exactly stellar anyway.

Doesn't fucking matter. The President appoints Judges for the Supreme Court, not the teeming masses of shit-flinging howler monkeys driven by soundbytes that is the general population.

And likewise, the Senate decides who and who does not get confirmed. Rejection of Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court dates back to the George Washington administration.

They're playing Russian roulette by rejecting any nomination since they can't guarantee they're going to retain a majority stranglehold by November.

[Flagg]

You know, I kind of feel McConnell has a point here. Would we be so happy about the prospect of an outgoing Republican president appointing a Supreme Court judge, for life, with less than a year to go before they leave office? And it's not as if the Obama administration's record on civil liberties is exactly stellar anyway.

Doesn't fucking matter. The President appoints Judges for the Supreme Court, not the teeming masses of shit-flinging howler monkeys driven by soundbytes that is the general population.

And likewise, the Senate decides who and who does not get confirmed. Rejection of Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court dates back to the George Washington administration.

Yeah, they advise and consent. How is "We won't even hold hearings, waaa waaa fart" advising and consenting? It's funny, the Rethuglicans pound and thump the US Constitution only second to the King James Bible and just like the Bible they like to pick and choose which parts they adhere to.

Unfortunately for them, unlike with the made up bullshit Christian Bible, there are actual consequences to trying to pick and choose from the legal document called the US Constitution. The one they swore to uphold and protect, as opposed to undermine and obstruct. Unfortunately for the USA it will be political, as opposed to legal ones. But thems the breaks when your "Democratic Republic" is really a fascist oligarchy.

[Ralin]

Yeah, they advise and consent. How is "We won't even hold hearings, waaa waaa fart" advising and consenting?

"We think this person is unacceptable because you like him and he's vaguely liberal. We advise that you go with (insert person hostile to Obama)"

Seems pretty implicit that if their consent is required to chose a justice they have the authority to withhold it at their discretion. It's almost like we shouldn't have elected so many Republicans.

[Gaidin]

Yeah, they advise and consent. How is "We won't even hold hearings, waaa waaa fart" advising and consenting?

"We think this person is unacceptable because you like him and he's vaguely liberal. We advise that you go with (insert person hostile to Obama)"

Seems pretty implicit that if their consent is required to chose a justice they have the authority to withhold it at their discretion. It's almost like we shouldn't have elected so many Republicans.

Except what they're grandstanding about is kinda like this. They're uhhh...not advising.