The National Journal has a story today with this headline: "Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans Close Ranks on Scalia Seat."
This is not that hard to understand. Even if Obama names a so-called moderate, it will tilt the Court to the left. With Scalia, it was a 4-1-4 Court. With a "moderate" replacing Scalia, it becomes a 4-2-3 Court. The liberals only have to pick off one; the conservatives would have to get both. Any way you slice it, that is a tilt to the left.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican members have closed ranks against holding hearings or a vote on any nominee President Barack Obama puts forward for Justice Antonin Scalia's seat until after the November election. Emerging from a committee meeting on Tuesday, GOP members told reporters the "consensus view" was to take no action at all on Obama's upcoming pick. They formalized their position in a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, signed by every Republican on the committee.
This is not that hard to understand. Even if Obama names a so-called moderate, it will tilt the Court to the left. With Scalia, it was a 4-1-4 Court. With a "moderate" replacing Scalia, it becomes a 4-2-3 Court. The liberals only have to pick off one; the conservatives would have to get both. Any way you slice it, that is a tilt to the left.
And that assumes the moderate would actually be a moderate -- an assumption Republicans would be foolish to indulge. Far more likely is that Obama comes up with a liberal in disguise, or some supposed "centrist" who magically "evolves" on the Court. "Fool me once...," as they say.
Hey Bill: Do you think Nevada GOP Gov Brian Sandoval (whom your former boss put on the US District Court) could be fairly called a moderate?
If he were the Obama nominee, would you perhaps be open to encouraging at least a hearing?
Just curious as to your views (and others) on the latest name making the rounds.
I think he could be called a moderate on some days and a liberal on most. Like David Souter, but more political. See my post just now.
In dealing with Putin and the mullahs, Obama may be a fool, but not so in politics. The whole idea from the getgo was to tempt Republicans a bit (hey, it's just a hearing!), then a bit more (a Committee vote), then a bit more (a floor debate), then a bit more (a cloture vote), then...........well, you get the idea.
So do I and the people on my side, which is why we aren't going to start down that road.
Decencyevolves: Where and when does this end? If Hillary Clinton is elected in November but the Republicans retain a Senate majority, should the GOP insist that they only will confirm a Republican Justice? If Clinton then refuses, is it acceptable to wait her out until 2020 in the hopes that you can get a Republican President then?
In early 2014, the GOP used a blanket filibuster of all DC Circuit nominees in an effort to hold onto their control of the Circuit, even though they were a minority within the Senate. If the confirmation process becomes nothing more than an exercise in partisan political power, our system is truly broken.
Please quote where you said this or anything like it when either (1) Sen Obama tried his best to scuttle a floor vote for Sam Alito, or (2) when Harry Reid muscled through a change in the filibuster rules he had adopted in order to allow Pres. Obama to pack the DC Circuit.
And "quote" means "quote." It does not mean, "Well, I might not have SAID it, but that's what I thought deep in my heart."
Decency evolves. I sure didn't say anything like that. On the other hand: (1) Alito got his vote and got confirmed, which is entirely different from saying, buzz off, we won't consider anyone you name; and (2) when the Senate GOP minority decided to block everyone, regardless of identity, as an exercise of pure political power, what choice did the majority have?
The use of blanket filibusters will mean their destruction as a tool for the minority.
I've answered your question and given you an explanation besides. Care to answer mine?
"I sure didn't say anything like that."
Thank you.
So you're for playing nicey, but only when it will help Obama tilt the Court in the direction you want, and to bury Scalia's legacy along with him.
Again, I appreciate the candor.
As to your question about what choice Reid had about packing the DC Circuit: The choice to live with the rules he himself had adopted, as had every majority leader before him for decades.
As to your other question about where this ends: I don't think the side that picked through Robert Bork's trash looking for porn videos has even slight standing to bemoan the continuation of that kind of thing. But if you did have standing, the answer is: I don't know where it ends and neither do you. It's going to have to be a time that does not involve either unilateral disarmament, or a huge change in the direction of the Court. So it won't be now.