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

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

So who will Obama appoint?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Why would a shutdown or even a filibuster be necessary? The Reps can simply vote down anyone they find too liberal for the slot.

They just have to keep from losing five votes, and this isn't the cabinet - very few GOP Senators are going to vote for an Obama SC nominee in this climate. Especially as Obama even voted down
Roberts to replace Rehnquist. He hasn't earned Presidential courtesy on SC nominees in his last year.

They will probably do a formal filibuster to play it safe - The "Reid Nuclear Option" contained an exception for SCOTUS nominees - you still need 60 votes to override a filibuster on a SCOTUS nominee - so that's an allowance of thirteen for the republicans. Much safer than the allowance of three they'd have without it. (A 50-50 tie would be broken by Biden in Obama's favor)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Everyone keep an eye out for this guy: Sri Srinivasan

Next Supreme Court Justice, calling it now.

Name the 14 republicans who would be willing to vote for him. (Supreme Court nominations in ELECTION YEARS aren't the sort of nonpartisan affair his appeals court nomination was.)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This just raised the stakes for both sides - I think Republicans have to re-think if they want to go ahead with Trump and risk losing the Presidency and SCOTUS. I think Dems have to think if they want to take a chance of nominating Sanders and losing ALL branches of govt. My gut says Cruz and Clinton get second looks from people that may not have been strong supporters.

Most republicans, including establishment stalwarts, feel Trump is more electable than Cruz.

What happens if the new President isn't a Republican?

We will have 8 Supreme Court justices until someone else dies, at which point, we will have 7 Supreme Court justices.

So you think it's reasonable to leave vacancies on the court until a Republican is elected President? That's nuts, but whatever.

No, allowing supremacy of Obamabots is nuts. If Obama nominated a real, impartial, centrist justice, that would be acceptable. But he won't.

The President gets to nominate judges, that's how the system works. Let's not even pretend like Republicans would approve anyone other than an extremely right-wing judge. Their idea of fair and impartial is the complete opposite of the what the words mean.

Obama is going to at least try a clear liberal nomination. That's not any more impartial.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

There are no moderate Supreme Court Justices or Senators. Why is that so hard for Atlas to understand? lol

Moderate is a very subjective term......

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

My God, the GOP is already predictably despicable. As if the public didn't know Obama could be appointing more justices when they reelected him in 2012. This always comes up in presidential elections and the public has ALREADY DECIDED what should happen in this instance - Obama gets to make the appointment that should be approved as long as the qualifications as there. Utterly ridiculous.

I honestly don't remember either candidate ever campaigning in the GE on SCOTUS in 2012, and it was never brought up in the GE debates.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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

Yes, but the advice and consent clause is there for a reason.

[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.

[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.

[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....

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

TNVol, declaring Heitkamp as liberal as Cruz is conservative is beyond dumb.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

OK I just read the Senate is in recess until Feb. 22. Obama has nine days.

McConnell can call that off at any time, and that's assuming Obama actually wants to try this obviously ethically wrong action.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hopefully it gets some voters who were flirting with Bernie back to reality. It could hurt Trump for the same reason.

As for the general, probably a wash. The GOP will get plenty of bad news cycles for their obstructionism, but it will probably also raise turnout and party unity, even for an "unconventional" nominee like Trump.

Hillary's not inevitable. Deal with it.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hopefully it gets some voters who were flirting with Bernie back to reality. It could hurt Trump for the same reason.

As for the general, probably a wash. The GOP will get plenty of bad news cycles for their obstructionism, but it will probably also raise turnout and party unity, even for an "unconventional" nominee like Trump.

Hillary's not inevitable. Deal with it.

Uh...okay? Not sure how this is relevant to my post. She is though.

You said "accept reality". Yeah, you were referring to Bernie's electability, but I assume there was some of your desire to see as big of a primary hillaryslide as possible. And on Hillary's primary inevitablility, it's not looking so sturdy after NH. Her campaign is already lowering expectations on NV and may even lose there. And Bernie doesn't need to win SC, so that leaves it up to TN/VA/OK/MA on Super Tuesday.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I think this is definitely good news for Hilldog in the primary because she's widely perceived as more electable, but I also think it's good news for Sanders if he somehow makes it through to the general because, though Sanders' floor is pretty high anyways in this polarized age, NO Democrats will defect or stay home now no matter who the Republican nominee is.

Sanders getting to choose Scalia's replacement isn't going to magically wipe away the fact that he's a socialist. The attack ads to keep up defections write themselves: "Sanders wouldn't just appoint another Ginsburg, he'd appoint a real radical who would declare capitalism unconstitutional." Yeah, maybe not accurate, but no one seriously cares about the accuracy of TV Ads.