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

[Virginiá]

....then why did the people elect a Republican Senate in 2014? Surely they knew that some of the Justice's would croak too.

Try harder next time, Becca.

And people wonder why Democrats are favored to retain the White House. This kind of childish behavior on the part of Congressional Republicans is exactly why most people hate politics.

Again, we've been doing this for years. Why did we win the last midterms?

You're pushing these midterm wins pretty aggressively as if it was some sort of mandate, and maybe it was, except it wasn't from all the same people who elected Obama. Presidential elections and midterm elections have fundamentally different electorates.

You guys won 2010 and 2014 because of both the recession, PPACA backlash, and the fact that Obama is far more liberal than any president since LBJ, and that doesn't jive well with the older Silent/Boomer/GenX - Reagan generation(s) that is more conservative as a whole. These voters are much better distributed geographically and more reliable in showing up at the polls. However, there is a reason Obama was re-elected despite every precedent saying he should have lost. The Millennial generation is the most liberal generation in many, many decades and the non-white electorate is growing extremely fast and is extremely pro-Democratic. These voters show up in far, far less numbers in midterms.

So yeah, you guys won the Senate. But please, let's not pretend like that was the same people weighing in and saying they want Republicans to go against Obama on everything, including his nominations. Midterms skew much older, whiter and wealthier, which all benefit Republicans a lot more for now.

If you want to base your idea of what the people want on election results, then the highest turnout elections would be the most accurate, and for a number of years now, presidential elections are a lot more pro-Democrat than pro-Republican.

I only say this because you should stop acting like your party's big low-turnout midterm wins mean everything and somehow represent some sort of universal consensus in this country.

[Virginiá]

I don't like it one bit, but do you think Reid would have done any differently had Ginsburg passed away in early 2008?  At best, it would have been "nominate a pro-choice Clinton circuit court appointee if you ever want to see a vote."

You are probably right in that Democrats may have done similar things, BUT, if I recall correctly, a Democratic Senate did confirm Reagan's nomination (Kennedy) in his last year, 1988. So with that in mind, I think it's fair to say that there is more evidence that a Democratic Congress would be more fair than Republicans - Especially the current generation of Republican Congressmen. Didn't Democrats in 07, 08 also confirm a lot more nominations for Bush than Republicans have for Obama so far?

McConnell & friends basically ruined the Senate with filibusters so he could claim it didn't work and win more seats, which they did, and he proceeded to block most of Obama's judicial nominations and then finally, preemptively say, more or less, NO to a SCOTUS nomination. Based on his actions, I don't think that he ever planned to let Obama nominate anyone of significance from the day Obama was elected, assuming he had the power.

[Virginiá]

Senate Democrats did confirm Kennedy, but that was after they had voted down two more conservative nominees and left the seat open for over 6 months.  A Democratic senate also confirmed Thomas in late 1991, which was close enough to the election that they conceivably could have made noise about "letting the voters pick the new justice," but it was a 52/48 vote and they had 5 or so real ideological conservatives in the caucus back then.  Obama's not getting a reverse Thomas pick like Goodwin Liu through, but I think there's room for a deal on someone older and only as far left as Kennedy is right, particularly if they are e.g. an Asian or Hispanic woman, but it will be a tough needle to thread.

Obama is currently at 321 judicial appointments vs. 325 total for Bush.  That's mainly because of 2013-14, though, and there have been fewer confirmations than in Bush's last 2 years.  

So they did give Reagan quite a hassle? As long as they did confirm someone in the end (which they did obviously), then I suppose it's fine. I just have this feeling that they are going to try and block this until 2017 and not even attempt to really compromise. Their previous actions have made it difficult for me to think otherwise.

But, I do hope if they end up confirming someone, that Obama's pick be very pro-campaign finance reform. This will be only one of our possibly two chances for many years to get a bench that will vote to overturn bad campaign finance-related decisions.

[Virginiá]

One thing that's unclear to me is whether a "libertarian" or "populist" type moderate would have an easier time getting through.  In other words, would the last stand be on Citizens United/NFIB v. Sebelius or would it be on Roe/Obergefell?  We already know what a "libertarian" moderate would do because we have Justice Kennedy.  The latter scenario, where we end up with someone like John Bel Edwards or Jim Hood on the court is more interesting to contemplate.  Roberts can swing that way in some cases, but we haven't had a true populist on the court in quite some time.

That's an excellent question, actually. I hadn't considered that. Personally, I do not believe they will (or realistically could) confirm someone pro-choice. Pro-gay marriage is probably off the table as well. It would be really risky and difficult to go against those voters wishes like that, considering the reasons they are pro-life and anti-gay marriage. Could spell trouble in future primaries or the general election.

Plus, I don't think Obama could nominate someone pro-life or anti-gay marriage either, even if they were liberal on a lot of other respects. Those have been important issues lately to both sides. Now, Roe is pretty important to me, but I'm pretty sure we will still have additional chances yet to prevent a possible majority decision on that. Reversing decades of terrible decisions on money in politics and voting rights is more important, in my opinion. Without fair elections, we lose so much more.

[Virginiá]

How does this make a democratic victory likely?

Think about how the events would logically play out. Obama nominates somebody, conservatives freak out, attempt government shutdown, etc.

A government shutdown is about money, monetary issues, not about values or the Constitution. You can't slam the Constitution in the head of government workers. However if they're told they won't get any salary, there's no reason for them to work.

I was actually thinking it would happen the other way around, with Obama refusing to sign any spending bills until the Senate did its job and worked with him to confirm a nomination. It's not a good thing to do, but from a liberal perspective this is very important. The Senate Republicans stalling until they have a chance to usurp what should have been Obama's nomination shouldn't even be legal.

On top of that, there is a good chance such a shutdown could be framed as Republicans' fault. Obama could probably pick any number of unreasonable things in the budget worth vetoing over as an "official reason".

[Virginiá]

No, a shutdown of this type would see the blame pinned straight on Obama. You'd even see MSNBC blaming him for ruining Democrats' November chances, and his approval would likely crater to the thirties. There would be conspiracy theorists on this very forum taking about how Obama is trying to keep Hillary/Bernie out of the White House.

Seriously, this would put him at or below the level Ted Cruz was at in 2013, but without the time to rebound that Cruz and the GOP had before the next election. After a few weeks of GOP + 12 polls on the generic ballot and polls showing the GOP presidential candidates well ahead in all the Bush '04 states plus New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and perhaps a few more), this would stop.

But this type of behavior would be extremely uncharacteristic of the president, and I highly doubt he would do it.

Why, though? You didn't even suggest a reason. In 1995 - 1996 government shutdown, Clinton vetoed spending bills that went against his core priorities and Republicans ended up getting most of the blame. Republicans again got the blame in 2013. If Obama conveyed reasonable excuses to the public of why he was vetoing the budget, then there is no reason to think they would turn against him, especially after the last shutdown only years prior was definitively Republicans fault. In this case, Republicans would be refusing to their job on something extremely important.

There is just very little reason to think it would turn out anything like what you're saying.

[Virginiá]

A spending bill is entirely unrelated to a Supreme Court nominee. This is why Obama would look like a petulant child if he were to just decide to veto all spending bills because he didn't like the fact that he wasn't getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed.

Well I did specifically state that Clinton vetoed spending bills and the public still sided with him. Given that, there's more evidence it wouldn't hurt Obama than not. Everything you're saying is speculation. And I wouldn't really discount using the SCOTUS nomination as a reason, either. Republicans trying to steal a nomination that isn't theirs to make isn't a minor thing, especially after you guys got to shape the court for generations.

[Virginiá]

He vetoed spending bills because he disagreed with what they contained. His position was more popular and Newt was a blundering fool in the public sphere.

OBama vetoing a spending bill over something totally unrelated is a completely different ball game.

CNN earlier today: "No more confirmations until the next President takes office" - Chuck Schumer in JULY 2007.

I also said Obama could take a stand on any number of actual issues the budget will inevitably contain, and Republicans would know why he is doing that. Given these past budgets, he will have no problem with that. Worst comes to worst, the GOP drops whatever Obama decided to object to vigorously and Obama walks away with major concessions, or the GOP caves and confirms someone. Though, all this assumes they actually hold sham hearings at the very least.

As for the that comment - it's irrelevant. As long as each side eventually confirms a nominee put forth by the president in power, then it really doesn't matter what various leaders of both chambers say (or said) at one point or another. If McConnell wants to drag this out all year while slamming Obama over god knows what, then fine, as long as he eventually confirms one of Obama's picks.

The problem here, as stated a million times, is McConnell flat out refusing to even allow consideration of Obama's nominees, regardless of who they are. Holding pointless hearings only to deny every single one so as to delay until 2017 would also be just as wrong. There is no modern precedent for what McConnell and other Republicans are suggesting. It's bs, and anyone who supports their actions needs to consider that this would set an ugly, new precedent resulting in worse fights in the future, and it is blatantly unfair to the other half of this country that has both had enough of the eternal conservative SCOTUS majority and wants Republicans to stop obstructing the president they elected by almost 5 million votes.