The only way Srinivasson works is if that's the one the Republicans are gonna use for their auto-rejection of the first nominee. He's not a reliable enough vote to be more than a sacrificial lamb IMO.
And before a 13 year-old moderate hero bravely tells me to take off my partisan blinders, the idea is not to put up someone who gives everyone the warm fuzzies because they're an agreeable
moderate
A Supreme Court vacancy that gets filled with someone the other side likes is a wasted vacancy. Republicans understand this which is why they appoint hacks like Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. Roberts is a wingnut, but he's also an example (from a Republican POV) of why it's dangerous to nominate someone the other side finds even remotely tolerable. The Supreme Court has already become a hack-stacked political entity anyway (and likely always has been to at least some extent), so I want vacancies to be filled with liberal hacks (or in this case a solid, well-credentialed liberal who can be marketed to the public as a moderate despite being nothing of the sort). I'd argue no one really takes the idea of original intent seriously except when it's convenient and I'm pretty sure none of the SC judges have any qualms about lawmaking from the bench, I'd rather them do so in a way that will line up with my political views.
I'm not wearing partisan blinders, I'm just a realist who understands how high the stakes are and is honest about it instead of pretending to want an objective judge who rules strictly based on the constitution (b/c no one *really* wants that, even if they think they do). Btw, if Clinton is elected, then I'd go even farther and say the vacancy should be filled by a Scalia-level liberal hack even if the nominee is unpopular with the general public.
I don't know if the right to privacy would actually cover a woman's right to choose, but if not, I want a court that will change that the moment it has the chance. I'm sure plenty of Republicans felt the same way about Bush vs. Gore (very few Republicans actually cared about what the law said there, let's be honest) or D.C. vs. Heller (the idea that the man who wrote that opinion spent his life claiming to be a champion original intent is insane).
