SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch!

[Suburbia]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

[MT Treasurer]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

Precisely. In 2012, the voters had the chance to pick who they wanted to fill vacancies in the next four years... they picked a D. In 2016, voters had the chance again, they picked a D again.

Mhm.

[publicunofficial]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

I love the conservative meme of "Minorities in the Republican Party make lefty's heads explode lol XD!!"

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

Bring it on.  If the filibuster is useless, let's get rid of it.  We'll just skullf*** you on every single issue the next time we have the Senate.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

Bring it on.  If the filibuster is useless, let's get rid of it.  We'll just skullf*** you on every single issue the next time we have the Senate.

And the #McConnellRule will be around for years to come, of course.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

Bring it on.  If the filibuster is useless, let's get rid of it.  We'll just skullf*** you on every single issue the next time we have the Senate.

And the #McConnellRule will be around for years to come, of course.

I believe the last year thing was actually the Biden Rule...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

Bring it on.  If the filibuster is useless, let's get rid of it.  We'll just skullf*** you on every single issue the next time we have the Senate.

And the #McConnellRule will be around for years to come, of course.

I believe the last year thing was actually the Biden Rule...

I'm pretty sure the "Biden Rule" doesn't mean what you think it means...

[TJ in Oregon]

The Democrats will almost certainly filibuster and then the Republicans will remove the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees like the Democrats did for other federal judgeships and the people will continue not to pay attention to any of these procedural details.

[DavidB.]

Precisely. In 2012, the voters had the chance to pick who they wanted to fill vacancies in the next four years... they picked a D. In 2016, voters had the chance again, they picked a D again.

lmao

[Cashew]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

I wish. Mccain, Graham look serious about keeping it though.

[MT Treasurer]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

I wish. Mccain, Graham look serious about keeping it though.

Hmm, I guess it's possible, but I think they will cave in to McConnell if Democrats obstruct everything. Anyway, if Trump and McConnell make this an issue in 2018, the GOP should have enough votes in 2019 to repeal it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Filibuster.  Next.

Repeal of the filibuster. Next.

I wish. Mccain, Graham look serious about keeping it though.

Hmm, I guess it's possible, but I think they will cave in to McConnell if Democrats obstruct everything. Anyway, if Trump and McConnell make this an issue in 2018, the GOP should have enough votes in 2019 to repeal it.

You hope.

[KingSweden]

Probably not Diane Sykes. Her husband, Charlie Sykes, former conservative talk show host isn't fond of Trump. He should nominate a black or Latino conservative, and see the reaction of the Far Left.

Diane and Charlie Sykes are divorced.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We've already established that the president doesn't get to fill Supreme Court vacancies for his entire term.  Shouldn't we just wait until the next president takes office to fill this one?

That only applies during the last year of a president's term. Or at least, that was the official republican party line.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

We've already established that the president doesn't get to fill Supreme Court vacancies for his entire term.  Shouldn't we just wait until the next president takes office to fill this one?

That only applies during the last year of a president's term. Or at least, that was the official republican party line.

Is there any real reason not to extend it? No. There is none, because there was no real reason for the Republican party line in the first place. (And no, nor for whatever whataboutery the Democrats did at whatever point either.)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We've already established that the president doesn't get to fill Supreme Court vacancies for his entire term.  Shouldn't we just wait until the next president takes office to fill this one?

That only applies during the last year of a president's term. Or at least, that was the official republican party line.

Is there any real reason not to extend it? No. There is none, because there was no real reason for the Republican party line in the first place. (And no, nor for whatever whataboutery the Democrats did at whatever point either.)

Well, to be fair, even though it was invented in the heat of the moment with no possible opportunity to check that it was accurate at all, the "Let's not do SCOTUS stuff in the last year, it hasn't happened in a very long time for a reason" thing ended up having an O.K. historical basis. The only remotely recent time that a SCOTUS nominee was approved in the final year of a president's term was '88, and that doesn't exactly match the Scalia case because the vacancy originated in '87 (i.e. not the last year) and only took until '88 to fill because H.W's first choice was rejected. Before that, you have to go back to FDR. R's also got lucky when they learned that Biden had written something in '92 that could be used as evidence that the whole thing wasn't just some partisan idea.

As far as whether the republicans would have taken the same line had Scalia died in 2015, that's an open question. It is easier to find examples of second-to-last-year confirmations than it is to find examples of last-year confirmations - We have Thomas in '91, Stevens in '75, Rehnquist and Powell in '71, and of course there's no Biden paper to the rescue here. Also, McConnell did seem to have to do some level of whipping his caucus into shape - I seem to recall Grassley being somewhat open to hearings for a couple days and then reversing that position, and then Hatch had that whole line where he specifically cited Garland as a fine man who Obama would never nominate, but by the time Garland was actually nominated the party had him under control. Murkowski basically dodged the question for a while before definitively coming out against Garland in April, though she still met with him afterward to "discuss issues important to Alaska". Then there was that hot moment where Jerry Moran of all people said hearings should be held, only to take it back a week later. It's impossible to know whether any of these people would have been more "anti-McConnell" if he didn't have the last year line to fall back on. If it was 2015 and not 2016 when Scalia died, perhaps there would have been more of a resistance to a "don't approve anyone" proposal, one that couldn't be quieted down (as) easily. It's impossible to know.


Of course, there were those few choice senators who, late in the campaign after everyone had basically forgotten Garland existed, floated the idea of never approving any Clinton nominee. But that was never the official view of the republican caucus and shouldn't be taken as such.
 

[GLPman]

Has Trump met with any other candidate aside from Pryor?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

We've already established that the president doesn't get to fill Supreme Court vacancies for his entire term.  Shouldn't we just wait until the next president takes office to fill this one?

That only applies during the last year of a president's term. Or at least, that was the official republican party line.

It doesn't matter.  The important thing is that the people have a chance to make their voice heard in 2020 before any nominee is confirmed, regardless of whatever qualifications s/he may or may not possess.

[EnglishPete]

We've already established that the president doesn't get to fill Supreme Court vacancies for his entire term.  Shouldn't we just wait until the next president takes office to fill this one?

That only applies during the last year of a president's term. Or at least, that was the official republican party line.

Is there any real reason not to extend it? No. There is none, because there was no real reason for the Republican party line in the first place. (And no, nor for whatever whataboutery the Democrats did at whatever point either.)

Well, to be fair, even though it was invented in the heat of the moment with no possible opportunity to check that it was accurate at all, the "Let's not do SCOTUS stuff in the last year, it hasn't happened in a very long time for a reason" thing ended up having an O.K. historical basis. The only remotely recent time that a SCOTUS nominee was approved in the final year of a president's term was '88, and that doesn't exactly match the Scalia case because the vacancy originated in '87 (i.e. not the last year) and only took until '88 to fill because H.W's first choice was rejected. Before that, you have to go back to FDR. R's also got lucky when they learned that Biden had written something in '92 that could be used as evidence that the whole thing wasn't just some partisan idea.

Do you think that there would have been any chance of the Dems approving a Trump nomination if they had won a majority in the Senate. During the campaign Trump produced a list of twenty one potential SCOTUS nominees which the Heritage Foundation had helped prepare for him. He promised then, and he shows every sign of keeping to that promise now, that under no circumstances would he nominate anyone for SCOTUS that wasn't on that list. Can you really see a Democrat majority Senate approving a judge right wing enough to be approved by the Heritage Foundation? Would that be any more likely than a Republican majority senate approving a nominee like Merrick Garland who is too left wing to get on a Heritage Foundation list?

The last time that a Supreme Court nominee nominated by a President from one party was confirmed by a Senate with a majority from the other party was Clarence Thomas over a quarter of a century ago. That was difficult enough and partisanship has only increased since then.  I suspect there will never again be a SCOTUS nominee nominated by a President from one party and approved by a Senate with a majority from the other party.

[SteveRogers]

We've already established that the president doesn't get to fill Supreme Court vacancies for his entire term.  Shouldn't we just wait until the next president takes office to fill this one?

That only applies during the last year of a president's term. Or at least, that was the official republican party line.

Is there any real reason not to extend it? No. There is none, because there was no real reason for the Republican party line in the first place. (And no, nor for whatever whataboutery the Democrats did at whatever point either.)

Well, to be fair, even though it was invented in the heat of the moment with no possible opportunity to check that it was accurate at all, the "Let's not do SCOTUS stuff in the last year, it hasn't happened in a very long time for a reason" thing ended up having an O.K. historical basis. The only remotely recent time that a SCOTUS nominee was approved in the final year of a president's term was '88, and that doesn't exactly match the Scalia case because the vacancy originated in '87 (i.e. not the last year) and only took until '88 to fill because H.W's first choice was rejected. Before that, you have to go back to FDR. R's also got lucky when they learned that Biden had written something in '92 that could be used as evidence that the whole thing wasn't just some partisan idea.

As far as whether the republicans would have taken the same line had Scalia died in 2015, that's an open question. It is easier to find examples of second-to-last-year confirmations than it is to find examples of last-year confirmations - We have Thomas in '91, Stevens in '75, Rehnquist and Powell in '71, and of course there's no Biden paper to the rescue here. Also, McConnell did seem to have to do some level of whipping his caucus into shape - I seem to recall Grassley being somewhat open to hearings for a couple days and then reversing that position, and then Hatch had that whole line where he specifically cited Garland as a fine man who Obama would never nominate, but by the time Garland was actually nominated the party had him under control. Murkowski basically dodged the question for a while before definitively coming out against Garland in April, though she still met with him afterward to "discuss issues important to Alaska". Then there was that hot moment where Jerry Moran of all people said hearings should be held, only to take it back a week later. It's impossible to know whether any of these people would have been more "anti-McConnell" if he didn't have the last year line to fall back on. If it was 2015 and not 2016 when Scalia died, perhaps there would have been more of a resistance to a "don't approve anyone" proposal, one that couldn't be quieted down (as) easily. It's impossible to know.


Of course, there were those few choice senators who, late in the campaign after everyone had basically forgotten Garland existed, floated the idea of never approving any Clinton nominee. But that was never the official view of the republican caucus and shouldn't be taken as such.

NO. No it really, really did not. That's just completely backwards logic. The fact that there hadn't been any SCOTUS confirmations in the last year of a term since FDR (except for the time that there totally was) IN NO WAY supports the idea that there was some sort of long-standing tradition or understanding that the Senate wouldn't confirm in the last year of a presidency. It just means that it so happens that it'd been a while since a Justice happened to die in the fourth year.

[The Other Castro]

Pryor seems like the favorite but my dark horse pick is Gorsuch.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The fact that our country spends almost half the time in presidential campaign mode is a big problem with American political culture already. Making the last year of each four-year term even more of a political state of exception is not helpful.

[MarkD]

We've already established that the president doesn't get to fill Supreme Court vacancies for his entire term.  Shouldn't we just wait until the next president takes office to fill this one?

That only applies during the last year of a president's term. Or at least, that was the official republican party line.

Is there any real reason not to extend it? No. There is none, because there was no real reason for the Republican party line in the first place. (And no, nor for whatever whataboutery the Democrats did at whatever point either.)

Amen!

The main reason I am an independent now is because both the Ds and Rs have turned the Supreme Court into a blatantly political institution, with both sides vying  to see who can control it, rather than either party adhering to the ideal that the Supreme Court should be objective and neutral (note that I did not say "moderate;" there is a difference).

The last Supreme Court Justice who was truly dedicated to rendering ideologically neutral, objective interpretations of the Constitution was Hugo Black, retired in Sep. 1971. The Court has had nothing but mediocrities ever since. And I did not vote for either Trump or Clinton precisely because I knew, based on their own statements, that both would continue the Court on its path of mediocrity.

I hope the nominee is not Judge Pryor, who has said that Roe v. Wade was one of the two worst decisions ever - which is correct - and that Miranda v. Arizona was the other - which is absolutely incorrect.

[The Other Castro]

Ayyy look at that, CBS sources say Neil Gorsuch is a leading candidate, and that the focus is on him, Pryor, and  Hardiman (with Gorsuch seen as less of a fight than Pryor).

https://twitter.com/JanCBS