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

[The Other Castro]

RIP FF

What the  exactly???

Freedom fighter?

F[inks]k Face.

[The Other Castro]

RIP FF

What the  exactly???

Freedom fighter?

F[inks]k Face.

Look, the man just died.  He has a family.  You may strongly disagree with him, but he was not a criminal.  We're all talking about the consequences, but show some respect here.

I was just trying to think of the most accurate term that FF could mean for Scalia. It sure wasn't freedom fighter.

[SteveRogers]

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.

But look at the statements from Mitch McConnel and the rest,  they aren't taking issue with any particular nominee. They aren't waiting for Obama to nominate someone and then manufacturing a pretext to oppose them. They're dropping all pretenses and going straight to saying that it's sonehow fundamentally wrong for the President to nominate anyone. That is indefensible.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Important question: Are there any further opportunities for Obama to veto a funding bill and force a government shutdown prior to the election?  This might be the best chance to get the senate to cave on a fairly liberal nominee.  A few weeks of D+10-15 generic ballot polls like we saw during the last shutdown would give Obama state senate R's a lot of second thoughts.

If Obama shuts down the government by vetoing funding bills to force the Senate to approve his nominee, those aren't the poll results you'll be seeing.

[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.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Very disappointed in some of the posts I'm reading here. A person dying is not cause for celebration.

I'm really almost in disbelief with some of you people.

[Higgs]

Very disappointed in some of the posts I'm reading here. A person dying is not cause for celebration.

I'm really almost in disbelief with some of you people.

Yes, it's quite disgusting no matter how much you disagree with him.

Couldn't agree more. RIP Scalia

[Asian Nazi]

You people cheer when my people die so I'll cheer when yours do.

[Higgs]

You people cheer when my people die so I'll cheer when yours do.

Who are your people?

[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.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Get rekt Scalia. Satan will be glad to finally meet this trainwreck of a judge.

Scalia is with Jesus.

[Xing]

Didn't care for the guy, or his opinions. Still, though, it's tragic that he died. My thoughts go out to his family, RIP.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Obama should nominate Sandoval, let them block one of their own.

I'd vote to block Sandoval. Take a guess why....

[Ljube]

Mitch McConnell says no replacement until January 2017.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just in case anyone thought this election wasn't partisan enough.

I find McConnell's comments very premature.
1.) He should show respect towards Scalia's death, and not make any serious comments/decisions on anything related to a replacement until the guy is at least buried. (This goes for everyone in DC.)
2.) He should wait to see what the President does, or who he may nominate. To just say that it is a dead issue (no pun intended) until January is disrespectful to the Constitutional process & looks like complete obstructionism.

LOL. Only Dem hacks think this way.

[Ljube]

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.

If anything, this will increase their chances of retaining the Senate and winning the Presidency.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Time for the Convention of States my friends.

Yes please

[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.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

RIP FF

What the  exactly???

Freedom fighter?

F[inks]k Face.

Look, the man just died.  He has a family.  You may strongly disagree with him, but he was not a criminal.  We're all talking about the consequences, but show some respect here.

Not a convicted one, at least.

[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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Obama should nominate Sandoval, let them block one of their own.

I'd vote to block Sandoval. Take a guess why....

Because he's a Hispanic.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Obama should nominate Sandoval, let them block one of their own.

I'd vote to block Sandoval. Take a guess why....

Because he's a Hispanic.

Nope..... I'd be ok with a Hispanic on the court. Next guess as to why I'd vote to block Sandoval

[Why]

Obama should nominate Sandoval, let them block one of their own.

I'd vote to block Sandoval. Take a guess why....

Because he's a Hispanic.

Nope..... I'd be ok with a Hispanic on the court. Next guess as to why I'd vote to block Sandoval

You disagree with him on an issue you are not willing to compromise.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No Republican can in this day and age vote to put a pro-choice majority on the court and survive.

The elections are too polarized and base turnout is just too important.

[Kingpoleon]

^You're not a libertarian
(Pro-life and anti-SSM)


Also, does anyone know if either Jack Conway or Andy Beshear is pro-life?

[Smash255]

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.

One of the key differences is an up or down vote was actually held.  In this case, Mitch seems to be dismissing the idea of even giving this a chance for a vote without even knowing who the nominee is.  Bork,was very controversial, but still recieved an upor down vote, it failed 42-58 with even six Republicans voting against his nomination.