A: Because Gov. Sandoval, though like David Souter nominally a Republican, is a liberal, a buddy of Harry Reid, and a guy who's so political he resigned a federal judgeship after serving less than four years in order to run for governor (giving Obama the seat to fill).
The idea that a Republican Senate would go in the tank for Mr. Sandoval is a Scalia anti-matter pipe dream (which of course is why the press is pumping it).
I thought this paragraph from a Politico article quite revealing:
But even compared to Kasich, Sandoval's record wouldn't be easy [for Republicans] to embrace if you're running for president. The tax increases Sandoval signed have since funded a landmark overhaul in public education--likely to become his signature achievement and a bold gamble meant to turn around what is frequently ranked the worst state education system in the country. Yet education is simply the most recent of a long list of Sandoval's conservative heresies: The abortion rights governor has embraced Obamacare; lauded immigration reform and DREAMers; fiercely championed renewable energy; and taken lesser known actions on police body cameras, driver's licenses for undocumented aliens and multiple moves to squelch Republican-led tort reform.
The idea that a Republican Senate would go in the tank for Mr. Sandoval is a Scalia anti-matter pipe dream (which of course is why the press is pumping it).
Once again: It's not about the particular nominee. It's about whether the electorate in a little over eight months should have a say in the direction of the Supreme Court for the next generation.
So am I right to assume this means, Bill, you believe the GOP should not even hold a hearing to consider the record of a judge nominated by the last GOP prez, unanimously confirmed by a GOP-controlled Senate, and who is arguably the most popular GOP Gov in the nation?
Just confirming that you do not think the Senate should even conduct a hearing for a candidate like this who, unless I misunderstand use of the term, really does seem to be a moderate.
As a perhaps related question: are you really confident that a future Prez Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton would pick someone better "on the merits" for this open spot? (Note my bias, since Sandoval is an OSU Law grad).
I answered this in my comment just now to your earlier question on another thread.
The process of picking a replacement is political, for sure. The Constitution makes it thus. Accordingly, I have no problems IN THAT SENSE with Obama's political calculations, which is all this current trial balloon is (unless you think Sandoval is the best qualified person to sit on the Court, a proposition never heard anywhere before this morning).
I likewise have no problems, in that sense, with the Republicans withholding consent in any way they choose.
As to thinking about who should sit it Justice Scalia's seat, that's easy too: A person of great learning and spectacular intellect who adheres to the Justice's view of unyielding obedience to the Constitution.
I have no confidence that, may God in heaven forbid, either The Donald or Sec. Clinton would nominate someone better. But I have 100% confidence that the electorate should have a say in the direction of the Court. I actually think the citizens, rather than the elite, should decide how they will be governed. (If you remember, the Slate article last July thought that was the main reason my arguments had a chance of winning the sentencing "reform" debate).
I mourn Justice Scalia's death and I was shaken by it. I fear for the country without him. But if anything good can be said to arise from the situation we now confront, it's that the people have a chance to decide for themselves, in November, how their Constitution will be interpreted.
I am not particularly impressed with Sandoval's legal qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court. I don't care if he didn't go to Yale or Harvard. But, from what I have read, his legal resume is uninspiring, especially to sit on the Court.
But, in light of the apparently rock-solid "no hearing" coalition, a nomination of a less than stellar person is not unexpected.
No one with Supreme Court qualifications (whether a "living constitutionalist" or an originalist) is going to be interested in being nominated. Why would they? Who would want to be a mere pawn in this political battle?
No truly qualified candidate would ruin their chances for a future Supreme Court seat by getting enmeshed in political warfare. Best to wait out the war and see who is left standing in January 2017.
If it is not about a particular nominee, but about providing the electorate a voice in the process then why is the Constitutional structure of executive nomination followed by senatorial advise and consent itself not an appropriate means to provide that voice?
I know it's a talking point to bring up the citizenry's right to participate in this process, but the citizenry did put Obama in office for four years, which necessarily bestowed the power to nominate individuals for consideration and elected Senators for their respective terms thereby bestowing the power of confirmation. How is the mere thought of permitting the President and the Senate to exercise their official duties an affront to voters. It may be permissible for the Senate to refuse to hold a confirmation hearing, but your statement about the electorate's right indicates it is mandatory--a position which conveniently shuts down discussing the merits of any potential nominee.
Once a new President is in office it will be less than a year before a third of the current Senate faces regular elections, will holding a confirmation hearing before the electorate votes on those Senate seats be denying a voice to a substantial amount of the electorate?
-- "If it is not about a particular nominee, but about providing the electorate a voice in the process then why is the Constitutional structure of executive nomination followed by senatorial advise and consent itself not an appropriate means to provide that voice?"
It IS an appropriate means. I never said otherwise. The dispute is about timing, not just means. The consent (or decision to withhold consent) may be given at any time the Senate chooses, using its own standards, just as a nomination may be made at any time the President chooses, using his own standards.
-- "I know it's a talking point to bring up the citizenry's right to participate in this process..."
Nice to see you belittle the opposing argument by dismissing it as a "talking point."
-- "It may be permissible for the Senate to refuse to hold a confirmation hearing, but your statement about the electorate's right indicates it is mandatory--a position which conveniently shuts down discussing the merits of any potential nominee."
I choose my words; you don't. At no point did I say it was "mandatory." I think it's wise and preferable to the alternative, and that is sufficient.
I repeat: Do not put words in my mouth.
And saying that it "shuts down discussing the merits of any potential nominee" is breathtakingly false. The merits of a half dozen potential nominees have been discussed from coast to coast for more than a week. When the nomination is made, that will generate yet more discussion. Discuss away. It's fine with me.
-- "Once a new President is in office it will be less than a year before a third of the current Senate faces regular elections, will holding a confirmation hearing before the electorate votes on those Senate seats be denying a voice to a substantial amount of the electorate?"
Electing one third of the Senate has nothing approaching the democratic gravity or consequence of electing a new President. I would as as a footnote that most of that one-third of the Senate will be the same people, while it is certain that the President elected in November will be someone other than Barack Obama.