I could see that being the case but I'm not sure it will work as a strategy. I guess it will depend on who is nominated and what happens between now and November. It does appear that those five states in question (New Hampshire, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania) are in risk, but in four of the five, the Democrats are polling ahead of the Republicans at this point (all but New Hampshire).

(02-18-2016 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans amaze me with their uncanny knack of picking the worst possible fights. This is one that they can't win. If he had any sense, instead of showing his a**, McConnell would have met quietly with Obama and said, hey, if we can agree on a moderate, I can get him through the senate.

Of course, McConnell couldn't lead a bunch of ducks to water.

+1

(02-19-2016 11:16 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I could see that being the case but I'm not sure it will work as a strategy. I guess it will depend on who is nominated and what happens between now and November. It does appear that those five states in question (New Hampshire, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania) are in risk, but in four of the five, the Democrats are polling ahead of the Republicans at this point (all but New Hampshire).

Not sure where your polling data is coming from. The only Senate race with any polling in 2016 (according to Real Clear Politics) is New Hampshire, where Ayotte has turned a deficit late 2015 into a few percentage points (presumably just outside the margin of error). Everything else is at least 3 months old, so not sure how reliable it is.
source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...ls/senate/

I like going to Larry Sabato's summaries of the various elections. He tries to keep it rational until the data points a certain direction, which is usually helped by actually having candidates to put against each other. He puts Illinois and Wisconsin in the leans Democrat column, but still has Pennsylvania and Ohio in the leans Republican column. New Hampshire is a toss-up, while Nevada (with Harry Reid retiring) and Florida (Rubio not running for reelection) as toss-ups.
source: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystal...16-senate/

Candidates will eventually sort out trends in each state, too, once those are better known. Wisconsin and NH are pretty well set, but the others need set challengers. And the national coattails remain to be figured out, too. Should be interesting, but there would appear to be 7 states in play in the Senate this year. And a strong enough difference in engagement could put a seat like Arizona (for the R) or Colorado (for the D) in play.

I think Obama is going to nominate Sri Srinivasan, unless Srinivasan decides he doesn't want to be nominated under the current conditions. I wouldn't blame him.

But he's considered a moderate, has worked for Republicans, and was confirmed 97-0 last time the Senate considered him.

Over/under on how many minutes after his nomination until Trump makes racist/xenophobic comments about him?

Edit: Several key Senators now confirming that they will refuse to meet with the nominee. Grassley refuses to discuss it with Obama. Wow.

How about this as a concept?

Republicans agree to confirm a moderate for this seat (Srinivasan, Nevada Governor Sandoval for a couple of names that have been mentioned) in exchange for democrats agreeing to nominate another moderate (or support one if a republican wins in November) to replace Ginsburg?

Hell, go ahead and agree on Srinivasan and Sandoval to replace Scalia and Ginsburg, and then make it happen when the time comes.

Replacing Scalia and Ginsburg with two moderates would leave the court pretty much in the same place ideologically as it was before Scalia's death, and might go a long way toward starting to reduce some of the extreme polarization. Plus it would give republicans an opportunity to look statesmanlike.

(02-24-2016 06:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How about this as a concept?

Republicans agree to confirm a moderate for this seat (Srinivasan, Nevada Governor Sandoval for a couple of names that have been mentioned) in exchange for democrats agreeing to nominate another moderate (or support one if a republican wins in November) to replace Ginsburg?

Hell, go ahead and agree on Srinivasan and Sandoval to replace Scalia and Ginsburg, and then make it happen when the time comes.

Replacing Scalia and Ginsburg with two moderates would leave the court pretty much in the same place ideologically as it was before Scalia's death, and might go a long way toward starting to reduce some of the extreme polarization. Plus it would give republicans an opportunity to look statesmanlike.

Republicans looking statesmanlike... good luck with that.

Anyway, I don't see any reason for the Democrats to cave like you've proposed. The court shifted conservative when Alito replaced O'Connor. With the sitting President, a currently open seat, a likely win in November, and another seat (Ginsburg's) likely to open early in the next President's term, the Democrats hold all the cards here.

In these circumstances, would be absurd for Democrats to agree to a strategy that doesn't accomplish even a slight ideological shift.

(02-24-2016 06:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How about this as a concept?

Republicans agree to confirm a moderate for this seat (Srinivasan, Nevada Governor Sandoval for a couple of names that have been mentioned) in exchange for democrats agreeing to nominate another moderate (or support one if a republican wins in November) to replace Ginsburg?

Hell, go ahead and agree on Srinivasan and Sandoval to replace Scalia and Ginsburg, and then make it happen when the time comes.

Replacing Scalia and Ginsburg with two moderates would leave the court pretty much in the same place ideologically as it was before Scalia's death, and might go a long way toward starting to reduce some of the extreme polarization. Plus it would give republicans an opportunity to look statesmanlike.

As I posted before, it wouldn't be in Obama's (or the Democrats') nature (and track record) to nominate anyone other than a hard-left ideologue for the post. Even if they did do the first part, when Ginsburg or someone else dies/retires, if still in power they'd come up with some justification to nominate another hard-left ideologue to replace her/him. We've seen them run this play before (raise taxes and the debt ceiling, then forget to cut spending, etc.). You seem to be confusing "looking statesmanlike" with "getting rolled".

Anyway, what's going to happen is that the position will remain unfilled until after the election and presidential inauguration, at which time President Trump will nominate Ted Cruz for the spot, and he'll quickly be confirmed by the new Senate....

(02-25-2016 07:40 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  As I posted before, it wouldn't be in Obama's (or the Democrats') nature (and track record) to nominate anyone other than a hard-left ideologue for the post.

This is a good point. Only Republicans nominate consensus-minded centrists like Scalia.

Seriously though, Kagan and Sotomayor are "hard-left ideologues"?

(03-01-2016 01:30 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 07:40 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  As I posted before, it wouldn't be in Obama's (or the Democrats') nature (and track record) to nominate anyone other than a hard-left ideologue for the post.

This is a good point. Only Republicans nominate consensus-minded centrists like Scalia.

More accurately, Scalia was nominated because he was, as the record shows, a brilliant jurist regardless of ideology. Compare the number of citations his opinions have in legal textbooks as compared to....

Quote:Seriously though, Kagan and Sotomayor are "hard-left ideologues"?

From what I've read, at least Kagan can put together a vague sort of argument, although they tend to be relatively lightweight and heavily constrained by leftist ideology; Sotomayor has been just a disaster. That makes Obama 0-for-2 in picking substantive justices for the Supreme Court, which inspires little faith that any subsequent picks he might make will be any better, a track record which the Senate will no doubt take into account.

(03-04-2016 02:09 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 01:30 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 07:40 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  As I posted before, it wouldn't be in Obama's (or the Democrats') nature (and track record) to nominate anyone other than a hard-left ideologue for the post.

This is a good point. Only Republicans nominate consensus-minded centrists like Scalia.

More accurately, Scalia was nominated because he was, as the record shows, a brilliant jurist regardless of ideology. Compare the number of citations his opinions have in legal textbooks as compared to....

Quote:Seriously though, Kagan and Sotomayor are "hard-left ideologues"?

From what I've read, at least Kagan can put together a vague sort of argument, although they tend to be relatively lightweight and heavily constrained by leftist ideology; Sotomayor has been just a disaster. That makes Obama 0-for-2 in picking substantive justices for the Supreme Court, which inspires little faith that any subsequent picks he might make will be any better, a track record which the Senate will no doubt take into account.

The ruling on Obama nominations seems to be a bit early and subjective, no? I'm not sure how many Justices have cemented their place in history in just six years...

And all of the Justices are selected for their intellect - you cannot get to that position without a seriously fantastic legal mind. While Scalia's was brilliant, I'd have to imagine his nomination by a conservative President is not coincidental, and I would imagine that his citations are more prevalent because he had a fairy set opinion regarding textualism, wrote well, and was very opinionated. The combo of those three make his opinions a bit more interesting, IMO.

Also, what is your measure for substantive? Are any other of the Justices currently on the Supreme Court substantive? If so, what makes them so and these two you highlighted not?

(03-01-2016 01:30 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 07:40 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  As I posted before, it wouldn't be in Obama's (or the Democrats') nature (and track record) to nominate anyone other than a hard-left ideologue for the post.

This is a good point. Only Republicans nominate consensus-minded centrists like Scalia.

Nobody nominates consensus-minded centrists. That's how we end up with such a polarized court.

I don't know where the great jurists are any more. The third branch was supposed to be the least political, but has turned out to be in many ways the most.

Although I am aware of at least one case last year where the breakout was Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, and Sotomayor, with the dissent being Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan. I worked on an amicus brief in favor of the side that prevailed.

I wonder if it would help to require a 2/3 majority to approve supreme court justices, like treaties. I would never require 2/3 for executive department positions (I have my own ideas about how I would change that). But if you had to get 2/3 to confirm, that would almost force both extremes to lean toward the middle, instead of the extremes, with such appointments. I'm divided on whether I would extend that to all judicial appointments, but part of me says yes. Maybe a 60% supermajority for lower courts and 2/3 for the supreme court. I think it may be the only way to return to the original concept of the courts as the non-political branch.

Of course, what it would take for anything like this to happen would be for a party in power to decide voluntarily to reduce its own power. I don't see that happening in our system, although I can think of about 1000 places where it would be a good thing for that to happen.

(03-04-2016 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2016 01:30 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 07:40 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  As I posted before, it wouldn't be in Obama's (or the Democrats') nature (and track record) to nominate anyone other than a hard-left ideologue for the post.

This is a good point. Only Republicans nominate consensus-minded centrists like Scalia.

Nobody nominates consensus-minded centrists. That's how we end up with such a polarized court.

I don't know where the great jurists are any more. The third branch was supposed to be the least political, but has turned out to be in many ways the most.

Although I am aware of at least one case last year where the breakout was Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, and Sotomayor, with the dissent being Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan. I worked on an amicus brief in favor of the side that prevailed.

I can't remember the author, but someone noted that a strength of the Warren Court was that the members had been politicians. Warren was governor of California and Thomas Dewey's running mate in 1948 (which is probably why he was appointed). Hugo Black had been a Senator, William O. Douglas was chairman of the SEC. They knew how to compromise.

(03-04-2016 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody nominates consensus-minded centrists.

Except, apparently, Obama.

(03-16-2016 12:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody nominates consensus-minded centrists.

Except, apparently, Obama.

Things are getting juicy!

I really wonder if any interviews will take place. If they don't, I have to imagine a lot of incumbents going up for reelection in 2016 will be feeling the heat.

(03-16-2016 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody nominates consensus-minded centrists.

Except, apparently, Obama.

Things are getting juicy!

I really wonder if any interviews will take place. If they don't, I have to imagine a lot of incumbents going up for reelection in 2016 will be feeling the heat.

Ayotte's said she'll meet with him - and explain her position when they meet. Not sure how much of an interview it will be. We'll see on others.

The incumbents are going to feel the heat, no matter what, unless he's confirmed. So, is it better to hold the line or go through a process that will likely still reject him?

(03-16-2016 03:09 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody nominates consensus-minded centrists.

Except, apparently, Obama.

Things are getting juicy!

I really wonder if any interviews will take place. If they don't, I have to imagine a lot of incumbents going up for reelection in 2016 will be feeling the heat.

Ayotte's said she'll meet with him - and explain her position when they meet. Not sure how much of an interview it will be. We'll see on others.

The incumbents are going to feel the heat, no matter what, unless he's confirmed. So, is it better to hold the line or go through a process that will likely still reject him?

At least if you go through the process, you can explain how you wanted to confirm but didn't do to X, Y, and Z. Not even holding hearings doesn't give you any ammunition against claims that you are intentionally being negligent about the duties that you, an elected official, agreed to perform.

That's my opinion, at least.

I also don't understand why Repulbicans would also want to risk potentially having another Democrat and a more heavily Democrat-ically influenced or controlled Congress decide on a Justice when the Justice now nominated is not the antithesis of Scalia.

Evidently, Garland would continue one minor anomaly of the current court: it would remain a court with no Protestants. Not all that long ago, such a result would have been unthinkable; and it certainly is statistically surprising.

(03-16-2016 12:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody nominates consensus-minded centrists.

Except, apparently, Obama.

I wouldn't call him a consensus-minded centrist. Just a whole lot better than socialists/communists Kagan and Sotomayor.

Although I have to admit, the case where I was involved in an amicus brief last term was decided 5-4 and Sotomayor was one of the majority, so perhpas I should look upon her more favorably (the lineup was Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor in the majority, Scalia, Thomas, Kagan, Ginsburg dissenting, probably one of the oddest alignments ever). This is one reason why the court doesn't alarm me as much as it does a lot of people.

Interesting to watch this little chess game play out. So many factors and more than the usual uncertainty due to the field of candidates for President, the Senate possibly changing hands after the election, and if Trump gets in no one really knows what he might do. The only certainty is the Hillary would nominate someone ten times worse then what we're looking at now.

A real shame apparently Scalia didn't take better care of himself and possibly hang around longer. If one of the older liberal justices had gone instead, this wouldn't be that big a deal.

Gonna be an interesting summer and fall, that's for sure.