It’ll be epic when Trump makes Geraldo the new Chief Justice, but then loses his reelection bid to Oprah, who fills the two vacancies in her extended 3 terms of office with Eric Holder and a more qualified candidate, Cesar Millan. It’s hard to take the US seriously any more.
But in all seriousness this will probably backfire on the GOP when President Hillary puts in some 38 year old far left law professor who is instantly confirmed by the Democrat senate.
Judge Judy over Geraldo.
Judge Judy would give a Kennedy and Thomas heart attacks. Two more open seats to fill.
Now it occurs to me to wonder: Suppose HRC is elected but by some miracle the GOP retains control of the Senate. Why don’t they just refuse to hear any nominee from then on? 10 months isn’t that much less than 48 months, after all.
There will be another Republican president… eventually. And whatever stall tactics they employ now will be fair game.
So they will continue to refer to this as an election year exception. As silly as that may be.
If fairness, the Democrats are reaping what they sowed, based upon the past positions of Biden and Schumer and by rejecting Bork. It wasn’t intended to be this way, but the judiciary has been politicized, so it’s not surprising that political positions (which could endure for decades) are also subjected to a political mandate.
What I love is that their argument of wanting to let the people decide is totally contradicted by their eagerness to go ahead and confirm Garland if a Dem wins the election. So what they are saying is “We want the people to decide unless they decide they want a liberal in which case the people don’t get a say in this.”
I wish the Senate, both sides of the aisle, would just go back to having hearings, asking questions, and then voting (imagine that!) on the nominee. That satisfies the Constitution, and everyone does their due diligence.
But no. Everyone is so incensed by everyone else because the stakes seem so high all the time that there can be no compromise. It sounds well and good when you’re blocking someone who is anathema, I guess, but then you can’t really bitch when the other side does it. But of course, you can do it, because after all THEY are the evil ones, etc.
Democracy like ours does not work if you constantly demonize the other guys.
You mean reaping Biden’s promise to support any moderate candidate?
Bork. It wasn’t intended to be this way
Bork was hardly the first SCOTUS nominee rejected for holding unpopular opinions. The first was John Rutledge. He was nominated by George Washington.
Bork was pretty extreme, as you’ll recall they approved someone after him. At no point did they say “we’ll never appoint anyone ever, no matter what” which is EXACTLY what the GOP is doing right now. And if HRC wins, you can bet they wont approve whoever she picks regardless of what they say.
Basically they want to be able to appoint a super-conservative if they win, but a moderate if they lose. Obama is offering them a moderate right now, but they wont take it and if they lose the election you can bet your ass any liberal Clinton puts up will be rejected and filibustered till the end of time. It’s bullshit and everyone knows it. It has nothing to do with Biden. It has to do with the GOP obstructing everything because they can, just like they have for literally everything for 8 years now.
Biden never refused to hear a nominee, he just talked about the possibility. Bork was a legitimate rejection. Neither is anything like refusing to perform the actual duty.
Bork at least had a hearing. Some of these GOP Senators aren’t even meeting with the current nominee.
I think naming a moderate is a mistake. If Hillary wins, they’ll rush him through, if Hillary loses, they’ll block and get a radical Republican.
Obama should have named a radical, so Hillary could name another radical. (and we need radical left to counter radical right)
BTW if Hillary wins and you get a Dem Senate, the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees will be used. There will not be compromise. The only way I think Garland gets on the court is if Hillary wins and Republicans keep the Senate.
Garland would actually be a pretty good Justice. Replacing Scalia with Garland would be enough on its own to move the Court left. Believe it or not, Democrats (Clinton and Obama) don’t place political ideology as their primary criteria for nominating judges.
Paper from William and Mary law school: http://tinyurl.com/ho9qg2f
However, ideology has not played a determinative role in the Clinton and Obama nominations. Instead, both presidents veered away from nominees whose strong liberalism would prompt confirmation battles and toward nominees who embraced the rhetoric of judicial restraint, had rich personal histories, and were perceived as less ideological. Reflecting the tendency of Democrats to place interest group politics ahead of ideology, Clinton and Obama also put substantial emphasis on racial and gender diversity in judicial nominations, including Supreme Court appointments. As Mark Tushnet has put it, “Democratic presidents tend to pursue a demographic strategy rather than an ideological one for Supreme Court nominations.”
One way to characterize the Clinton-Obama appointments is that, incomparison with the appointments of earlier Democratic administrations, the average ideological position has not changed a great deal but the variation has been reduced. Unlike earlier Democrats (who appointed strong liberals as well as conservatives), Clinton-Obama appointees are all moderate liberals.
If R’s don’t confirm before November and D’s win, I suspect his name will get withdrawn and Clinton will submit her own nominee.
I just checked the text of the Constitution and it specifically refers to the President as a ‘he’. Makes one wonder if these Republican clowns would try to argue that a HRC presidency is unconstitutional.
If they ever actually read the Constitution they definitely would.
I would think she would have to, if for no other reason than to be her own president. There are other reasons too, of course.
If they try, then I’d love to see their heads explode when HRC comes out as the first transgender president.
Gotta love that they are replacing the constitution literalist Scalia by completely shitting all over the literal wording in the constitution.
Question
Would it be possible for the administration to sue the GOP leaders who have not performed their constitutional duty to hold hearings? I mean, this is a question that I think the 8 person supreme court could hear.
I don’t think so - although there is some case law pertaining to it (I googled it a while back.)
They could also try a discharge petition (bringing a bill to the floor without co-operation of leadership.) This is (very rarely) done in the House, but it probably can be done in the Senate too. I don’t know if that’s subject to filibuster - if so, can’t happen. If not, might happen, but it would be tough to find four Republican senators willing to go along with it.