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

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.

....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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.

We were elected to control the Senate, not you guys. And we get to confirm/deny nominees to the court. So yeah, that's how the system works.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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

[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.

[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...

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.

So, elections only matter when Democrats win. Good to know!

[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

Such a person doesn't exist.

Surely they do. You really only need to get McCain, Portman, Ayotte, Murkowski, and a few other safe moderates (Graham, etc) to cross the aisle. Cruz and company don't matter as long as the nominee is a relative centrist.

[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

Good luck with all that, you people will need it. lol.

Thanks for giving us the Obama Justice Department. They just subpoenaed the Clintons the other day!  

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Could Obama try a recess appointment?

He could, but that'd be as bad for the Dems as if the GOP shot down a centrist with broad bipartisan support.

[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

That has to be the dumbest thing I've read all day. Obama could nominate Jesus Christ to the Supreme Court and the Republicans wouldn't even confirm him.

Read my above posts about how a centrist can be nominated.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Could Obama try a recess appointment?

Only if McConnell is stupid enough to allow the Senate to go into recess.  I doubt he is.

Yeah, they are going to hold down the fort all the way through January.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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?

Because nobody showed up to vote. That's the only reason Republicans ever win any election since 2010.

So, Democratic voters are lazy and uneducated? Ok.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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

I disagree. This is the Supreme Court, this can be framed extremely badly for the GOP.

Yep. Republican obstinacy will be of great benefit to D candidates from the nominee on down to state-level races, by driving out D turnout, and pushing D-leaning independents and non-voters to vote D.

Most Democratic voters don't even know who Scalia is. They aren't going to turnout for a SCOTUS seat. They only care about free college and muh student loans.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Time for the Convention of States my friends.

You do realize that this will backfire big time on the Tea Party right?