Support NeoGAF

[Laevateinn]

Article XII of the Constitution states that only Republicans are allowed to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. Why do you hate America, OP?

 

[Blader]

If Hillary wins and Dems take back the Senate, Garland will be confirmed in the lame duck session. Republicans would be frightened of Hillary replacing Garland with a more liberal choice (many of them like Garland already), and they'll save face with the public by saying they always wanted the election to be a referendum on SCOTUS and that they'd be giving the Dems a hearing because they won.

Can Obama rescind his recommendation at this point? Would he be willing to do so?

He could but he wouldn't. He'd be immediately accused of playing politics after accusing the GOP of doing the same all year, and it'd also be against his own sensibilities. He genuinely wants Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court. If he wanted to replace Scalia with a raging liberal, he'd have done so in six months ago.

 

[shintoki]

They'll stonewall for eight years if they have to.

Hell, if Notorious RBG steps down they're back to a conservative majority.

I would say Anthony Kennedy is just as likely to step down too. He's bit younger, but approaching 30 years of being on the chair.

While I doubt it will hurt the party even if they stonewall for the entire 8 years. They do need to play it a bit more careful this election or else they could be in for some serious damage, tanking their party for another term. They are back pedaling on Trump hard and possibly another R candidate running could split the vote among the state races too.

Ideally if Clinton does get elected, RGB can step down and replaced with someone younger and if she gets her second term. I could see Kennedy stepping down too.

 

[killer rin]

I'd be surprised if they didn't at least attempt to contest the new Supreme Court picks until the next election

 

[exmachina64]

I'd be surprised if they didn't at least attempt to contest the new Supreme Court picks until the next election

Won't matter as long as the Democrats take the Senate in the fall. What are they going to do? Appeal to the SC, saying Democrats shouldn't be allowed to fill vacancies on the court?

 

[pgtl_10]

Are the Republicans going to lose the Senate? If not, then Hillary has less leverage.

 

[kirblar]

Obama put up Garland (the oldest option) knowing there was a big chance he wouldn't actually get confirmed.

 

[echoshifting]

Won't matter as long as the Democrats take the Senate in the fall. What are they going to do? Appeal to the SC, saying Democrats shouldn't be allowed to fill vacancies on the court?

Democrats don't even have a shot at a supermajority, so the GOP can still filibuster supreme court nominee hearings (hell, Obama did it). If voters reward their obstruction in 2018 they could easily ride it out into 2020 with renewed hopes for the presidency.

 

[superdeluxe]

Surprised Congress is not running to try and get Garland approved. They have to know there is a strong likelihood that Trump won't win.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

GOP is still going to try and see if they can stifle any of Hillary's requests like they did with Obama. They were still amazingly effective at doing so, and beyond Trump I can see them doing it again if they retain House and Senate control.

They have an amazing grassroots base that won't waver because they're so staunchly conservative they will still vote Republican for their rep, but perhaps not for Trump.

Which is why if the RNC decides to switch over it's support to maintaining their hold over the House and Senate, the DNC needs to get it's act together and try to advertise the democrat brand while it's still in the spotlight to get people to vote for House and Senate members to counter their efforts. Otherwise it will take ANOTHER four years before they have an opportunity to get potential liberal voters to "care" about politics again.

 

[TheOMan]

The fact that they've got this far means:
1) They have set precedent that this is a legitimate tactic.
2) There's much more ability to continue to do it indefinitely.

I see no reason they shouldn't dig their heels in and just keep going until it actually cost them something. Their voting base doesn't care.

I disagree. I think now that they know they can get away with it they are going to do this with every appointee (unless Dems take back the Senate). VOTE!

Sad, but probably correct.

 

[LegendofJoe]

I disagree. I think now that they know they can get away with it they are going to do this with every appointee (unless Dems take back the Senate). VOTE!

This, I want Ginsberg's replacement to be a young fire spitter that will mentally dominate Thomas and Alito and place all of the unconstitutional, regressive BS passed by Republican legislatures in danger.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Obama put up Garland (the oldest option) knowing there was a big chance he wouldn't actually get confirmed.

Counterpoint: Obama nominated Garland because he is incredibly qualified.

 

[robochimp]

If Hillary wins and Dems take back the Senate, Garland will be confirmed in the lame duck session. Republicans would be frightened of Hillary replacing Garland with a more liberal choice (many of them like Garland already), and they'll save face with the public by saying they always wanted the election to be a referendum on SCOTUS and that they'd be giving the Dems a hearing because they won.



He could but he wouldn't. He'd be immediately accused of playing politics after accusing the GOP of doing the same all year, and it'd also be against his own sensibilities. He genuinely wants Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court. If he wanted to replace Scalia with a raging liberal, he'd have done so in six months ago.

There will be one last push on Garland before November and then his nomination will be withdrawn before or shortly after the election. Obama doesn't need to give any opportunities to save face.

 

[PanicFreak]

I think they will continue to hold out until the people have a choice to fill it in the 2020 general election.

 

[funkystudent]

It's a horrible, terrible look, and not something that the GOP will want to have on their back going into midterms where they are going to be hoping to salvage their party.

Isnt not doing shit, being a giant roadblock to any kind of sensible progress and then blaming it all on the democrats kind of the Republicans MO though?

Realistically I see 2 options.

More then likely - They dig in and dont do shit for years.

Highly unlikely - They go with Obama's pick as seen as their lesser of two evils instead of letting Hilary do it.

 

[zethren]

This is Republicans we're talking about here; you know, the fuckers that shut down the govt. cause of Obamacare.

I would love to see them try and defend this decision if so.

 

[Sean C]

Democrats don't even have a shot at a supermajority, so the GOP can still filibuster supreme court nominee hearings (hell, Obama did it).

Any nominee filibuster will result in the filibuster being eliminated. Both sides understand that, after what happened with the other levels of judicial nominations.

 

[exmachina64]

Democrats don't even have a shot at a supermajority, so the GOP can still filibuster supreme court nominee hearings (hell, Obama did it). If voters reward their obstruction in 2018 they could easily ride it out into 2020 with renewed hopes for the presidency.

I keep forgetting this.

 

[FStubbs]

You know, if Garland was a moderate before, he's a liberal now. It'll be impossible for him not to have, in the back of his mind, tremendous resentment against the GOP.

 

[echoshifting]

Any nominee filibuster will result in the filibuster being eliminated. Both sides understand that, after what happened with the other levels of judicial nominations.

Yeah, that's an option, and it will be interesting to see what happens there.

 

[rjc571]

After everything we've seen from the GOP, people STILL expect them to act in a rational matter? I expect that after Hillary is elected, the GOP will spend her entire term trying to get her impeached for wearing the wrong color shoelaces.

 

[Maxim726X]

If they do that it makes them look weak before the elections. I don't see it happening unless they completely turn on Trump and throw him under the bus, conceding that they don't want him to win and focusing on the down ticket candidates.

Yep.

They can't do it. They're painted into a corner thanks to they're 'never agree with Obama on anything' schtick, so they'll have to play this out.

 

[minor effort]

Can Obama rescind his recommendation at this point? Would he be willing to do so?

I don't think he would do that just to play politics and delay nominating someone another six months. Obama seems to genuinely respect this aspect of the job, and cares that the SCOTUS has been short a member for half a year now.

Obama is unlikely do that because he's a better president than any current Republican could hope to be.

 

[Meowster]

Ideally, Garland would be appointed before Hillary goes into office and then Hillary gets ready for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's successor. But I don't think RBG plans on retiring? But this is just the ideal scenario. Garland would make a great contribution to the Supreme Court. Republicans may seem to like him in general but he's more liberal than people here give him credit.

 

[outunderthestars]

We've actually had this thread already.

Assumption was they'd try accepting Obama's guy as quick as possible before Hillary can appoint someone more liberal.

This is what I would imagine as well.

 

[echoshifting]

Ideally, Garland would be appointed before Hillary goes into office and then Hillary gets ready for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's successor. But I don't think RBG plans on retiring? But this is just the ideal scenario. Garland would make a great contribution to the Supreme Court. Republicans may seem to like him in general but he's more liberal than people here give him credit.

She might. There have been signs for and against, and of course she hasn't said anything either way. It's definitely not a sure thing. But I believe she is the oldest Justice at the moment, and she made a public statement imploring people not to vote for Trump. She's never done anything like that before.

 

[Brinbe]

Dig in their heels indefinitely. At this point, they'd rather suffer the possible negative consequences from progressives to moderates in the ballot boxes, than ever give in allowing in nominees. If Dems take back Congress in a big way, then it's all moot anyway. But this could have terrible ramifications going forward, especially if there are multiple vacancies.

 

[Megadragon15]

They won't. The Republicans will say the will of the people was heard and they voted for them not to appoint Supreme Court Justices under a Clinton Administration, assuming they retained Congress.

 

[gutter_trash]

Hillary should pick the most Liberal judges she wants.

Republicans didn't confirm Garland.... Tough luck.

 

[boiled goose]

It'll be a dickish thing to do. I doubt he'd do it.

He should start threatening to do that now.

 

[Clefargle]

So this is the first time a prez candidate has not shown tax returns since '76

And seems like it will be (or is?) the longest period a judge has gone unconfirmed

Any other records being set this election?

Both of two candidates with the highest unfavorable ratings ever?

 

[The Albatross]

Depends on how Congress goes. If Republicans hold their numbers, they'll put up a fight into q2 2017, but if they lose numbers and loose a chamber then it goes about as quick as the appointment.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

One thing I've noticed is, for the past 24 years, that all the presidents since Bill have held office for 8 years.

As long as Hillary doesn't fuck up, then the Republicans will have no choice but to elect a justice for the supreme court.

 

[Master Yoshi]

Feels like the Senate is fucking Helms Deep, and Hillary is Gandalf coming down the mountainside with the Rohirrim.

 

[Aerogamer]

Within a few months of being sworn in if not before.