Reuters is reporting he'll announce his nominee tomorrow, and it's likely going to be either Sri Srinivasan or Merrick Garland (both are current justices on the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals - Garland is chief justice of that court). Both men are considered moderate, although from what I can tell, Garland might be a little bit more to the left than Srinivasan??

My guess is he'll pick Garland because he won't want to hang Srinivasan out to dry. Neither nominee is expected to receive a Senate hearing. Actually the Democrats might get more political traction if they nominate Srinivasan but I'll stick with my prediction that Garland gets the nomination as he's been passed over twice now already by Obama when he nominated Sotomayor and Kagan.

Karl Marx?

Good luck

Media is talking about pressure on Republicans. I think the only pressure on Republicans would be if they gave the nominee a hearing. They wouldn't survive the next primary.

Obama's appointment is irrelevant.

If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

I'm naming one tomorrow too.

Hopefully Clinton will just renominate whoever Obama nominates if they don't get a hearing this year.

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

That makes no sense.

GOP may pay a price in the general if they don't hold hearings and vote up or down. A majority of folks want a hearing.

(03-15-2016 10:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

That makes no sense.

Revenge often isn't very fair or logical. Payback is hell.

I think NIU is saying if the Republicans win the presidency, then the Democrats in the Senate should wait to give a hearing to Dennis Rodman or Gary Busey, or whomever Trump nominates. But that can't happen for all practical intent unless they regain a majority in the Senate in November. Which could happen, if some Senators in some swing states lose (like Illinois where Democrats are almost out-numbering Republicans 2 to 1 in the primary vote tonight).

This is why the nomination is not irrelevant. It may swing the Senate back to the Democrats.

(03-15-2016 10:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

That makes no sense.

Revenge often isn't very fair or logical. Payback is hell.

That's not payback, that's petty.

I know what NIU is saying and I'm saying that's stupid.

Two of the key Senate races were decided tonight. Tammy Duckworth will face (I) Kirk in Illinois, and Ted Strickland (who John Kasich defeated in the Ohio Governor race in 2010) will face (I) Portman in Ohio. I think Duckworth will win, but Portman will be re-elected (Strickland is 74, kind of old to be running against an incumbent in my opinion). There are some other tight races too, but folks like Portman and Kirk will be under pressure to give a hearing to the nominee.

(03-15-2016 10:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  GOP may pay a price in the general if they don't hold hearings and vote up or down. A majority of folks want a hearing.

Red meat for a primary opponent.

Republicans probably need to start thinking about what their own primary voters think for a change and stop worrying about what "Candi the Millennial Girl" might think about them if they don't properly service Obama.

If Obama was smart and wanted to milk this for maximum political capital, he would nominate Srinivasan, a moderate who Republicans have no real reason to object. But he is an ideologue whose legacy is dependent on judicial activism, so expect another FAR left candidate.

(03-15-2016 11:00 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  GOP may pay a price in the general if they don't hold hearings and vote up or down. A majority of folks want a hearing.

Red meat for a primary opponent.

Republicans probably need to start thinking about what their own primary voters think for a change and stop worrying about what "Candi the Millennial Girl" might think about them if they don't properly service Obama.

Winning the primary doesn't amount to much if you lose the general.

(03-15-2016 10:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

That makes no sense.

Revenge often isn't very fair or logical. Payback is hell.

That's not payback, that's petty.

Ha that is rich. Not holding hearings is petty. Giving them a dose of their own medicine is petty and it is payback.

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

Republicans are just following the suggestions of Biden and Reid.

(03-15-2016 10:33 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I'm naming one tomorrow too.

And its every bit as relevant.