Scalia just died (really). How will this affect the race?

[DrScholl]

The Senate doesn't have the privilege of picking whoever they want for the court.

If the candidates don't mention it themselves, it at least comes up in debates on cable news, written articles, etc. It's part of the job and Obama should be allowed to fulfill it.

But we do have the privilege of shooting down anyone Obama tries to appoint. Obama has the right to nominate whoever he wants, but not to flat out fully appoint them.

If the Senate blocks a reasonable nominee, Obama should call them out every single day on it. Every single day.

He'd sound like an idiot and nobody would care

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

[MT Treasurer]

Moderates exist in America. They are some that are tired of the left-right crap.

But not in the Senate or in the Supreme Court. Face it: A vote for Heidi Heitkamp is a vote for Harry Reid and liberal policies. A vote for Cory Gardner is a vote for Mitch McConnell and conservative policies. I don't know why voters get fooled by "moderate" Senate candidates every election cycle (especially in red states). If you're a Republican or conservative, you should vote for Rick Berg over Heidi Heitkamp and if you're a Democrat or a liberal, you should vote for Alexi Giannoulias over Mark Kirk. It's really as simple as that. Atlas probably thinks that Michael Bloomberg will be appointed to the SCOTUS lol.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

[Asian Nazi]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

[DrScholl]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

Maybe you guys should have won the last elections then.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Moderates exist in America. They are some that are tired of the left-right crap.

But not in the Senate or in the Supreme Court. Face it: A vote for Heidi Heitkamp is a vote for Harry Reid and liberal policies. A vote for Cory Gardner is a vote for Mitch McConnell and conservative policies. I don't know why voters get fooled by "moderate" Senate candidates every election cycle (especially in red states). If you're a Republican or conservative, you should vote for Rick Berg over Heidi Heitkamp and if you're a Democrat or a liberal, you should vote for Alexi Giannoulias over Mark Kirk. It's really as simple as that. Atlas probably thinks that Michael Bloomberg will be appointed to the SCOTUS lol.

You act like the members of both parties have no free will. The agenda is going to be drastically different if the tipping-point senator is a Heitkamp-type than it is if they are a Murray-type.

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

It would be laughable for the GOP to try to explain away not approving a Sandoval-type.

[DrScholl]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

And the Senate has the right to disapprove it. The founders never intended to give the president quasi-absolute power here.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

Maybe you guys should have won the last elections then.

maybe you guys should have won the last presidential election then, if you don't want obama to make an appointment

[DrScholl]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

Maybe you guys should have won the last elections then.

And maybe you guys should have won the 2012 election if you wanted Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court.

In all likelihood, this stunt will cost Republicans the 2016 election, so it really is plus for Democrats. Thanks.

[Asian Nazi]

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

Liberals have been predicting that the sheep--I mean American voters will see the light and toss out the "obstructionist" GOP for half a decade.  The American people just don't care about your whining.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

Maybe you guys should have won the last elections then.

maybe you guys should have won the last presidential election then, if you don't want obama to make an appointment

Presidents don't confirm Justices. They just name a name.

[DrScholl]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

And the Senate has the right to disapprove it. The founders never intended to give the president quasi-absolute power here.

Please, I never said that the Senate didn't have that right, stop making things up. My point is that this whole stunt will do nothing but cause Republicans to lose the Presidency and the Senate.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

Maybe you guys should have won the last elections then.

And maybe you guys should have won the 2012 election if you wanted Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court.

In all likelihood, this stunt will cost Republicans the 2016 election, so it really is plus for Democrats. Thanks.

Yes, you're a great prognasticator! AMAZING! Just ask recently reelected Senator Mark Udall.

Or wait....

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

And the Senate has the right to disapprove it. The founders never intended to give the president quasi-absolute power here.

Please, I never said that the Senate didn't have that right, stop making things up. My point is that this whole stunt will do nothing but cause Republicans to lose the Presidency and the Senate.

Yet you imply that the Republicans should accept a Liberal nominee....

[DrScholl]

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

Liberals have been predicting that the sheep--I mean American voters will see the light and toss out the "obstructionist" GOP for half a decade.  The American people just don't care about your whining.

I don't think Republicans antics helped them any in the 2012 election. Trump as the nominee and a long vacancy on the Supreme Court is a recipe for disaster. The American people just don't care for your insanity.

[Gass3268]

Justice Committee Chairman Senator Grassley is now saying that Obama won't get to appoint a new Justice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

Liberals have been predicting that the sheep--I mean American voters will see the light and toss out the "obstructionist" GOP for half a decade.  The American people just don't care about your whining.

I don't think Republicans antics helped them any in the 2012 election. Trump as the nominee and a long vacancy on the Supreme Court is a recipe for disaster. The American people just don't care for your insanity.

Yeah, they totally are more in line with the likes of Kay Hagan and Mark Udall. Oh wait...

[DrScholl]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

Maybe you guys should have won the last elections then.

And maybe you guys should have won the 2012 election if you wanted Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court.

In all likelihood, this stunt will cost Republicans the 2016 election, so it really is plus for Democrats. Thanks.

Yes, you're a great prognosticator! AMAZING! Just ask recently reelected Senator Mark Udall.

Or wait....

I corrected your spelling. Maybe I don't get the predictions right all the time, but I'm fairly confident that 2016 will not be a good Republican year if they nominate a crazy person and spend the whole year leaving a vacancy on the court.

[DrScholl]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

And the Senate has the right to disapprove it. The founders never intended to give the president quasi-absolute power here.

Please, I never said that the Senate didn't have that right, stop making things up. My point is that this whole stunt will do nothing but cause Republicans to lose the Presidency and the Senate.

Yet you imply that the Republicans should accept a Liberal nominee....

When you have the Senate Majority Leader pre-emptively shutting down any discussion of filling the vacancy, that is just wrong. It isn't about rejecting the nominee, it's about not even holding any hearings.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

Maybe you guys should have won the last elections then.

And maybe you guys should have won the 2012 election if you wanted Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court.

In all likelihood, this stunt will cost Republicans the 2016 election, so it really is plus for Democrats. Thanks.

Yes, you're a great prognosticator! AMAZING! Just ask recently reelected Senator Mark Udall.

Or wait....

I corrected your spelling. Maybe I don't get the predictions right all the time, but I'm fairly confident that 2016 will not be a good Republican year if they nominate a crazy person and spend the whole year leaving a vacancy on the court.

We aren't doing anything. We didn't kill Scalia. We will confirm the best person for the position. The balls in your court. Hopefully Obama will be competent for once and nominate somebody who can make everyone happy.

Also, while we have our issues with Trump, your nominee is just as likely to end up in the big house as she is in the White House. Remember that

[Mr.Phips]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

And the Senate has the right to disapprove it. The founders never intended to give the president quasi-absolute power here.

Please, I never said that the Senate didn't have that right, stop making things up. My point is that this whole stunt will do nothing but cause Republicans to lose the Presidency and the Senate.

Yet you imply that the Republicans should accept a Liberal nominee....

Yes , just like Democrats accepted Kennedy and Thomad under Reagan and Bush 41.

[DrScholl]

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

Liberals have been predicting that the sheep--I mean American voters will see the light and toss out the "obstructionist" GOP for half a decade.  The American people just don't care about your whining.

I don't think Republicans antics helped them any in the 2012 election. Trump as the nominee and a long vacancy on the Supreme Court is a recipe for disaster. The American people just don't care for your insanity.

Yeah, they totally are more in line with the likes of Kay Hagan and Mark Udall. Oh wait...

A midterm and a presidential election are different. I recall everyone thought Obama re-election would lose because Republicans won big in 2010. I'm still amused at how devastated Romney was at his loss.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

And the Senate has the right to disapprove it. The founders never intended to give the president quasi-absolute power here.

Please, I never said that the Senate didn't have that right, stop making things up. My point is that this whole stunt will do nothing but cause Republicans to lose the Presidency and the Senate.

Yet you imply that the Republicans should accept a Liberal nominee....

When you have the Senate Majority Leader pre-emptively shutting down any discussion of filling the vacancy, that is just wrong. It isn't about rejecting the nominee, it's about not even holding any hearings.

I agree that such actions are wrong. Give Obama a chance to nominate a Justice, and give us a chance to send Goodwin Liu or Merrick Garland down in flames.