SCOTUS nominee expected as early as this morning EDIT: looks like it's Garland

[Orser67]

Don't you think we should be replacing the conservative leader with someone just as conservative?

The last two times in which there was a Supreme Court vacancy in which the retiring justice's ideology was different from the president, the president attempted to appoint someone ideologically similar to himself. In 1991, Bush appointed the very conservative Thomas to replace the the very liberal Marshall. In 2006, Bush appointed the conservative Alito to replace the moderate O'Connor. And even in 1990, Bush attempted to appoint a conservative (Souter) to replace the very liberal Brennan, though Souter drifted into the liberal bloc. Why should this time be any different?

[Orser67]

You guys blocked Ike from a SCOTUS pick in 1960 because it was an election year.

I've never heard this claim before. Who was Eisenhower trying to replace?

Edit: Actually, the Democrats didn't block any of Ike's picks. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution against recess appointments made in election years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/

[Orser67]

It would be interesting if Clinton wins the nomination, and two strange coalitions form. A coalition of centrist Democrats and establishment Republicans might try to confirm Garland, while a coalition of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans might oppose his confirmation. Obviously this is getting ahead of things, but the potential ramifications for the lame duck Congress are definitely worth thinking about (and we could see a somewhat similar fight over the TPP). I also wonder if Obama would withdraw Garland's nomination after the election (if Clinton wins), if that is even possible.

[Orser67]

This guy is against the rights of people to keep and bare arms as witnessed by Judge Garland wanting to reconsider the ruling D.C. vs Heller

Voting to rehear a case doesn't necessarily mean that he wanted to change the ruling. A conservative judge (A. Raymond Randolph) also voted to rehear the case, and he probably was in favor of the result of the case. The DC Circuit Court's ruling was a huge deal, and it's common for the entire court to hear rehear major cases in en banc.

It's fine if people oppose Garland for his views or judgments, but Garland's vote to rehear a case is not evidence of his views one way or the other, no matter what Carrie Severino says.

[Orser67]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/jerry-moran-merrick-garland-supreme-court-hearing/index.html

Jerry Moran (R-KS) has called for hearings on the Garland nomination. That's three Republicans (but none on the Judiciary Committee).