Much of the discussion on how President Obama could get the Senate to vote on a Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia centers on shaming. Tell the Senate to do its constitutional duty! Send them a nominee they already voted for – surely they’d be embarrassed to vote the other way this time! Or nominate a Senator – they’d never filibuster one of their own!
But shame is unlikely to work in this situation – or, at least, it’s unlikely to be enough. The stakes for this nomination are too high, and long-time Washington insiders like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are too accustomed to being called unprincipled, for shaming to persuade McConnell that he should fold his cards and permit a vote on an Obama nominee to go ahead. Any “traditional” nominee, like a highly-qualified federal appeals court judge, or a law professor, or even a moderate Republican Governor, seems very likely to go nowhere under the present unusual circumstances.
Rather than shaming, the White House should treat this like any other negotiation: offer the other side something they want in exchange for what you want, and try to come to an agreement. So. What does Mitch McConnell want?
That question is easy to answer: McConnell wants to keep his job. And, to keep his job, Republicans have to keep control of the Senate. It follows that Obama should nominate someone whose joining the Court would make continued Republican control of the Senate more likely. In exchange, McConnell would allow the nomination to come to a vote.
What sort of nominee would that be? One possible answer is a sitting Democratic Senator from a state where, should that Senator resign, the state’s Republican Governor has the power to name an interim Senator to serve until the next election. In that scenario, upon the nominee’s resignation from the Senate to join the Supreme Court, McConnell would gain one more Republican vote immediately (assuming that the Republican Governor names a Republican as interim Senator), and there would be a chance that the Senate seat would stay in Republican hands post-election.
In other words, putting such a person on the Supreme Court would allow Obama to replace Scalia with a Democrat, and would also help McConnell keep his job. At least three sitting Senators with solid legal qualifications meet this description: Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (both already mentioned elsewhere as possible candidates), and Tom Udall of New Mexico. Of those three, Booker, who is 20 years younger than the other two, African-American, and recently refused to rule it out, strikes me as the most likely candidate.
Many on the left will hate the idea of giving up a safe Senate seat in a year when Democrats have a decent chance of taking control of the Senate. But we have had over 40 years of a Supreme Court with five conservative Justices and four liberals, and the cost to voting rights and campaign finance regulation (to name only two of many possible examples) has been great. The risk to Democrats of making a “safe” nomination is that the nominee goes nowhere, and then a Republican wins the presidency, in which case the opportunity to shift the ideological balance on the Supreme Court could be lost for decades. Niccolò Machiavelli said that “all courses of action are risky, so prudence is not in avoiding danger (it’s impossible), but calculating risk and acting decisively.” In this case, the “Machiavellian” course of action may be the right one.
???
Truthfully I think that Trump as the Republican nominee has made the future less predictable (What if he causes them to lose the Senate? What if he wins?), and they should take this deal if offered.
I completely agree that Mr. McConnell and the GOP will stonewall any likely nominee, and I completely agree that attempts to shame them will fall off their back like water from a duck.
That’s the point.
In my view, the purpose of the shaming is to make it crystal-clear to voters in an election year what each party stands for. In my view, the existential threat to the Mr. McConnell and each of the several GOP senators from blue states is Donald Trump as the GOP nominee and a GOP majority in the senate that has flatly refused to even consider HEARINGS for nominee — even when the nominee being floated was a sitting Republican governor. That is the real threat, and I think we should NOTHING to mute or subdue it. Mr. McConnell has made his bed, and I think we Democrats should force the entire GOP to lie in it.
I think the best strategy for Mr. Obama is to put forward several eminently qualified nominations, and make absolutely sure that the entire world knows who has stalled those nominations.
I think Senate Democrats should NOT filibuster other business, just to make sure there is no mistake about which party is refusing to do its job.
If the GOP wins in November, then I think the Democratic minority in the Senate should bring everything to a dead halt. EVERYTHING — unless and until a nominee acceptable to Democrats is put forward.
I think the more likely scenario is that the Democrats win the presidency in November, and win a majority of the Senate as well (because I think many GOP voters sit out a nomination of ANY of the current candidates).
In that context — newly-elected Democratic president and new Democratic Senate majority — I think the first order of business is the nomination and confirmation of a liberal-left Supreme Court justice.
I think all three Democratic senators should stay right where they are.
If Democrats win the presidency and retake control of the Senate, great. In that case, the new president will get to replace Justice Scalia with a more liberal judge, and things will have worked out great.
But if a Republican wins the presidency, don’t kid yourself. There will be no vote in the lame duck session, regardless of what tactics the Democratic minority tries. If the GOP still controls the Senate, then a historic opportunity to change the Court will have been lost. And if the Democrats control the Senate, I think the Court is likely to remain shorthanded for a very, very long time. Quite possibly years.
Pick your poison.
I agree with your assessment of the alternatives. Perhaps I differ with you about the values and probabilities we assign to the various outcomes.
I am making the perhaps rash assumption that the GOP nominee will be one of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio — very likely Donald Trump. I assume that the Democratic nominee will be either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders — very likely Hillary Clinton.
In my view, a scenario where Donald Trump is elected president and the GOP maintains its control of the Senate is a catastrophe. I view the consequences of that outcome as so extreme that control of the Supreme Court becomes a minor nit. We are talking about a candidate that the UK Parliament actually considered banning because of his extreme statements about Muslims.
If the shinola is going to hit the fan in 2017, then nothing we do now matters anyway. So in my view it makes more sense to do the right thing now, and trust that GOP opposition to that will only help give us a larger majority in November.
If America looks at Donald Trump and an obstructionist Mitch McConnell and GOP Senate Majority and says “Yup, that’s the government I want”, then our problems are so profound that the makeup of the Supreme Court really doesn’t matter.
which is a Democratic president and a Republican-controlled Senate – status quo, more or less. Would McConnell hold hearings in that case? Probably. Would a Republican Senate approve anything close to a liberal Justice? I doubt it. There would very likely be a filibuster, and even if there were enough Lindsey Grahams to break it (dubious at best), there probably aren’t 50 votes to confirm.
It is actually (remarkably) true that the last time a Republican Senate approved a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court was 1895. That’s in part historical accident, but it will surely be used by the GOP to show that they don’t have to vote yes.
In that case, I do think we’re looking at an understaffed Supreme Court for years. And that’s a very bad thing.
In that scenario, we Democrats filibuster EVERY vote. We refuse to allow ANY Senate business to proceed. None.
I think Barack Obama and Harry Reid have been far, far too gentile in dealing with out-of-control GOP obstructionists.
for that, at least based on past experience. Furthermore, depending on how this nomination plays out, it strikes me as possible that whoever controls the Senate on day 1 of the new session nukes the filibuster all together. If the GOP stays in control, Democrats could lose most or all of their ability to obstruct Senate business.
Obama should pick a sympathetic nominee and demand hearings and a vote. Congress is despised and the Democrats should not pass on the opportunity to run against them.
The absolute worst thing the President can do is to collude with the unpopular Congress for the benefit of one of its members. That would be a horrible message to send; ie, “we can’t co-operate for the good of the public, but we can make a deal if it helps one of the elite.”
McConnell can’t afford to alienate the crazies.
I could be wrong, and Kentucky is bluer than it seems, but the crazies are going to get crazier as the year progresses, and McConnell already can’t control them. I can’t see them supporting a senator any more than anyone else. And when it comes to negotiations with the GOP, the Obama Administration doesn’t have a good track record.
I think Obama will stretch this process out a little longer, and then nominate someone, maybe someone the next nominee will be comfortable with.
David, I see your point, but it’s asking us to give up too much. We’d be in effect buying a Supreme Court seat. That’s just going to lead to inflation next time.
I repeat, and I know it’s difficult to get someone through, but: we lead the world in lawyers. Surely we lead the world in legal scholars as well? There must be a “Democratic Roberts” that they can’t vote against. There must be several dozen of them.
I’d rather shame McConnell that way, and hope for the best in the election, than use one branch to pay for another.
that they “can’t” vote against. That’s the point. They’ll only vote if there’s something in it for them – for McConnell specifically.
We approved Roberts, despite misgivings, because he had a long legal career and was known to all parties. As Orrin Hatch famously put it, someone who couldn’t vote for Roberts couldn’t vote for any Republican nominee. Some opinions did differ, but he was still confirmed handily.
I appreciate your realpolitik approach here, and you might be right, but there’s still some politic (no k). I’m hoping they have some shame left. On the shutdown, for example, cooler heads prevailed and let Cruz be the outlier. Why not the court, if the nominee is beyond reproach?
For one thing I think it’s worth reminding them that they still have TWO justices, Thomas and “Scalito,” in the Scalia mold. Nino is obviously irreplaceable, but crikey, they got two cover bands for him. They don’t need a third.
If they want to broker … ask them to go double or nothing and impeach Kennedy. 🙂 Surely they have some buyer’s remorse there.
I think McConnell’s statement was foolish, practically and politically. He should have kept his mouth shut, see who was sent over, begun the vetting process, and THEN decided on a vote. That could EASILY have taken until early November….
Now, if Obama nominates Robert Bork himself, he has announced there will be no vote. And too many people have never been taught civics, will not understand the process, and will view Justice Bork’s confirmation as further evidence of the bipatisan Establishment Trilateral Commission K Street cabal. Many/Most Trump voters aren’t actually Republicans as the party is far too liberal for them. This give to get strategy epitomizes what they are looking to smash.
So even if practical, it can’t happen.
to people like Sen Kelly Ayotte. She either needed delay to shore up her base or would have cracked and insisted on a vote (I’m sure she and McConnell know which one).
I agree that absent the situation of the 4 swing state senators he should have just stalled without saying anything.
…Let’s reward people for not urinating in public… Hell, why don’t we just stop taking anything for granted and simply stop expecting civilized behavior? Think of all the rewards we can give out for not randomly kicking other people in the shins… All the extra tips the waitstaff will get for not spitting in the food… Instead of tickets for speeding we’ll simply reward everybody for not killing each other on the highway!
… Whatever happened to just doing your job…??
If the political process is broken, attempting to circumvent that by breaking it further, purely for the sake of an outcome, is neither likely to fix the process or to end the way you want. This is clear dereliction of duty on the part of the Republicans. That’s it. It is no different than if Obama napped in the Oval Office everyday from 6am to 6 pm. That we can’t force them to do their duty also means we shouldn’t try to entice them to do it either…
… the only thing we can do is point it out. I suggest the use of munificent sarcasm. We know all the tricks: dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and… satire. Let’s, at the least, take the fight to them and if we go down, we go down swinging… I feel pretty certain that’s what Lincoln, FDR, Truman, RFK, MLK, LBJ and that fella named Gandhi would have done.
year after year that Harry Reid never even tried to pass a budget ?
The government’s finances are also a major responsibility of the Senate.
Do you honestly think that the average swing voter is going to vote a certain way because Sen McConnell is not moving a nomination forward? Most aren’t going to know/care, and the rest will probably assume that if the shoe was on the other foot, the Dems would do exactly the same thing.
… overall, since every instance of budgetary delay could be traced to Republicans trying to shut down the government. So, it wasn’t so good for the Republicans and is, in fact, just another example of what I have been saying: we shouldn’t reward people for doing their job.
True. That’s why efforts to shut down the government made the Republicans look like the idiots they are. This is the same issue, only more cut and dried.
It was up to him to introduce a budget, and he didn’t.
Maybe in your “I only see one side of the issue” mind it could be traced back to Republican efforts, but that wasn’t clear to most people.
Note that in November 2014 the Democrats in the Senate got CRUSHED. CRUSHED by the voters. Obviously the voters didn’t think the Republicans were the idiots, but the Democrats.
will be a problem for the Republicans. The problem won’t come from their base. It will come from the middle who will have to make decisions. Obama’s approval is slowly on the rise in the general electorate. The GOP’s approval remains in the toilet.
The country is trying to move forward, the GOP insists it won’t move at all. The Supreme Court nomination will be another black mark against an embarrassingly bad party. It will matter.
what the Supreme Court does, who is on it or how someone gets nominated.
This is 2010, but I can’t see it improving in the last 6 years:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/two-thirds-of-americans-cant-name-any-us-supreme-court-justices-says-new-findlawcom-survey-95298909.html
I’ll use a different verb this time, but it’s hard to think this would be
when sixteen short months ago the GOP was SPANKING the Dems in the Senate, despite all the budget shutdown shenanigans.
I agree for Portman-Ayotte-Johnson-Kirk it’s an issue, but hard to tell which way for them.
…, merri-extra-ordinary-mack-guy… know anything about what the average voter has a clue about?
Antonin Scalia died. It was on CNN. People are talking about it. Ordinary, average, every-day, people are expressing opinions about it. Average voters read newspapers. They watch TV. Even the idjits who watch Fox News know this is a big deal.
Maybe you’re just upset they’re not listening to you…
1. All evidence (2014 election) points to the fact that voters don’t punish Republicans in Congress for their “blocking Obama” actions.
2. Here’s the link I posted in my the other comment
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/two-thirds-of-americans-cant-name-any-us-supreme-court-justices-says-new-findlawcom-survey-95298909.html
..when the only riposte is to make fun of your name.
But, really, not to more than the already-very-committed ideological voter. Liberals have been trying to make it a big issue for decades, and though they have had some limited success, it is no game changer.
To the extent that they have had that limited success, it was through some good old fashioned dark threats. “If we don’t elect a Dem, the composition of the court will change for the worse and they will overrule Roe v. Wade!” That got the checkbooks open, and conservatives groused that they were unable to duplicate the energy.
I think that right now the shoe is on the other foot. Conservatives get to scare their activists: “They are going to overrule Heller!” while liberals have “we can change the court for the better and accomplish various things that we haven’t even thought of yet!”
I think the energy favors the right on this. All of these political strategies might try to find some ways to blunt that. I don’t mean run and hide– all of the rest of the political dynamic favors Dems and they might as well fight the fight. But the energy on this particular issue wil favor the right.
has no clue about the Supreme Court. Like most of us here, I’m not an average voter, and I still wish I knew more about SCOTUS. The issue, however, doesn’t require a lot of understanding on the part of voters. It depends whether the obstruction contributes to an anti-Republican narrative.
There are some signs that the issue is harming Portman and Toomey:
I can’t agree with your comparison to 2014. Like 2010, which was also disastrous for Democrats, it was an off-year election. The demographics of the electorate are significantly different during presidential years. As we know, minority voters are increasing and white working-class voters are decreasing. Only by 1 or 2 percent of shares of voters, but still significant. With Trump as a nominee, voters of color will be out in force. Sane people aren’t going to want Trump’s finger on the trigger of nuclear weapons, and they aren’t going to want him choosing a SCJ.
There’s still a long way to go, but the GOP brand is already taking a hit, one way or another. It takes a hit if Trump is the nominee, it takes a hit if he isn’t because he’ll be lobbing bombs or running independently.
David authored a post that said Obama should make a deal
I concurred
Petr commented that making a deal was the wrong choice- a fight was a better option
I further supported David’s point by pointing out that voters probably didn’t care and that Republicans hadn’t suffered any voter wrath for their actions to date (implying they probably wouldn’t now).
I agree presidential election years are different. If your “super-low information only comes out in presidential years, and always votes Dem” voter is worked up this year about the Supreme Court in particular, I would be surprised. High turnout favoring the Dems in these years is a fact whether there’s anything going on in Congress or not.
As to those specific Senate races I’m sure they worked the numbers. Some of the base gets mad because you want to let Obama do something vs. undecideds who swing to the opposition. I don’t know the better answer. I bet it’s close.
I, and about 5000 pundits didn’t think they would see Trump nailing this by Super Tuesday. I have no idea what his effect will in in November.
Most of the safe GOP seats have, as the only threat, primaries from the right. That means that most of these people are specifically elected to obstruct.
I don’t think they have paid much of a price, and indeed seem to have received a dividend for this in 2010 and 2014.
They will keep running this play until the Dems figure out a way to stop it. That’s why I don’t like the notion of a deal here. I don’t want a deal. I want a fight. This has been my principal disappointment with Obama. You don’t start by negotiating. You start by kicking their teeth in, repeatedly. Then, you switch feet. Then you negotiate.
That got a chuckle out of me. Hadn’t heard that one before.
Here are some others who fit that description (legal background plus GOP governor):
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Ed Markey
Bob Menendez (NJ)
Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
Tammy Baldwin (WI) (also, 54)
Only Warren and Udall seem to have a legal career of enough distinction to be offered for any kind of jurist position with a straight face, though. Udall is too old. Warren is too important.
in nominating Menendez:
Mr. McConnel, tell what we have to offer you so that you approve a justice. Anything you want, you just name it.
I kind of hope that this administration is out of the habit of pre-emptively surrendering to McConnell in an effort to seem reasonable.
is that Cory Booker (for example) would very likely be a superb Supreme Court Justice, at least from my perspective. He’s a very smart guy. He’s a pretty solid progressive on important issues that tend to arrive at the Court. He’s young enough to be there a long time. On the surface, anyway, he looks like a better choice than, say, Sri Srinivasan, who fits the highly-qualified appellate court judge mold perfectly, but also appears to be a moderate at best.
The line about surrendering assumes that, by doing what I’m proposing, Obama would get a less good Justice than if he nominated someone else. But I really don’t think that’s true. Yes, there’s a cost. I’m saying it’s worth it.
I’d rather see Booker on the Supreme Court and a NJ Senate seat thrown into question, than a moderate Republican like Brian Sandoval (yes, I know he’s out of contention) advanced as a “compromise” candidate who could maybe garner a few GOP votes because he’s sort of conservative. I don’t want another conservative on the Court. The opportunity to reshape the Court in this way comes along once in a generation … maybe in a lifetime.
I just don’t think McConnell will play, and Reid et al. are just too invertebrate to put any pressure at all on McConnell. I think it would be more likely that Reid et al. wind up pressuring the other way, to withdraw Booker or whomever and submit someone more “reasonable” and you wind up with a nominee that you REALLY don’t like.
I guess I just don’t have any confidence at all that this administration and these Senate Democrats could pull something like that off without getting fleeced.
.
a very, very corporate lens. He’s with us on the social issues, and state vs. federal authority (ie the Medicaid ruling on ACA), etc., but would he be some force for reining Wall St in if a big case came up? I’m not so sure.
That said, hell yes I’d like to see him on the court when the alternative was Scalia. I just get a little sad when people are looking at Booker as some liberal bastion, because that he ain’t.
Also, I think Booker’s so young that the prospects of him getting on the court is a lot less than Udall. Udall’s probably less liberal than Booker, and at 68 may only serve on the court for 10-12 years, if we’re lucky. So that, plus the ability to appoint a Republican to the Senate in a state that’s easier for Republicans to win statewide than New Jersey makes Udall seem like a much likelier pick.
And, were I Obama, I’d nominate him tomorrow.
This is a guy who swore to undermine Obama from day one.
Compromise is a word found only in the vocabulary of those who have no will to fight.
So everything is a gamble. At his 50-50 odds, I say sure given the calculus you made above. But what you didn’t mention is that nominating Warren or Booker will highly energize the base because both are popular high profile candidates: that’s a huge benefit. Never squander a crisis, said the Wretch Emmanuel, proving that a stopped clock is right twice a day: this is a good gamble to take. I’d leave Udall to one side, however: he won’t energize folks as much.
Baker doesn’t get to appoint Warren’s successor, except on an interim basis.
Warren’s a bit old for a SJC nominee, right?
I don’t know how they replace senators in NJ.
the NJ system is similar to ours, though I think there the interim can serve a bit longer. Here, Baker would indeed appoint the interim, who wouldn’t be in office long, but if it’s timed correctly, long enough to be there for the first day of the next congressional session, which could be extremely important.
And yes, both Warren (66) and Udall (67) are, realistically, too old. Booker’s the only truly viable choice, IMHO.
the age may make it easier for either to get through confirmation.
McConnell may be likelier to accept the pick, knowing the Republicans would get another crack at it in 10-12 years, than they would Booker, who could serve for 20 years… and still be younger than either Warren or Udall.
Given the Demographic changes of the country, and the increasing likelihood of electing Democrats, I’m not so opposed to a shorter term pick if it even helps a little in getting the pick through. Given the age of some of the other SCOTUSs, and the likelihood that either Hillary or Bernie will be our next President, we’re playing this game with a few more cards in our hand.
nt
He’s a stand-up guy, but he’s 67, and relatively unknown around the country. He’s a very unlikely choice; I included him because he does indeed check all the boxes.
Even better than my outside he box approaches. Especially true in light of the New York Times revelation that McConnell was raising money to run ads for Republican incumbents distancing ham elves from Trump. He has no scruples, like our local legislative leadeship, he wants power for it’s own sake and doesn’t care how he maintains it.
This is something Obama can offer and Booker will be perfect from a standpoint of a minority candidate, strong social progressive but someone Wall Street is comfortable with. Similar to Sandoval but better since it’s a great one for one trade to hedge their bets and get us an actual moderate liberal rather than the moderate conservative Sandoval would’ve been.
… that this… err… ‘tactic’ were to be legit, what makes you think McConnell will drop his efforts to stymie a black mans job by acquiescing to a whole other job for a whole ‘nother black man??
Maybe McConnell is just stone racist??
He gets a free Republican Senator in a blue state as an insurance policy against a Trump win in exchange for elevating a Wall Street friendly progressive minority candidate to the Supreme Court. Booker passed on his best shot for president (this cycle) and will likely be off the radar by 2024 (Kamala’s year).
And with a KKK endorsed racist at the top of the ticket you don’t think the GOP Senate will try and make amends?
A KKK endorsed racist at the top of the ticket might be something McConnell finds no reason to make amends for. He has to cop to having done something wrong — and there is not indication McConnell or the remainder of the GOP does so much as recognize a problem — before you can offer ‘amends’.
When are you going to learn? You can’t will a future into existence (WTF is “Kamala’s year”???) and justify it post hoc in a liberal doppleganger to the Dubya methodology. You can’t just decide McConnell is going to act in accordance with your conscience and then ask me if I think he’s going to be shamed by Trump. No, in fact, I don’t think he’s going to want to make amends most especially if he’s an unrepentant racist. DERP
Rob Blagojevich was impeached and removed from office for corruption including the solicitation of bribes for political appointments, including the Senate seat left vacant in 2008 after Barack Obama’s election as president, and was also convicted and sentenced to fourteen years in federal prison.
I get the value of reshaping SCOTUS.
But I think the odds of HRC16 are quite high. And I think the odds of a Dem Senate grow by the day, both because of SCOTUS obstruction and Trump at the top (or GOP dump Trump with consequences). At this point, wait and see but I’d play for keeps, not allow a GOP Senate a half win for dereliction of duty.
Remember that the makeup of the Court was in flux before Scalia’s death. There are three other justices that could leave before the end of the next president’s term has ended, Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy. For the conservative era to truly end, a Democrat must be elected president.
This blatant example of Republican obstructionism will increase voter turnout and serve the Democrats’ interests well in November.
McConnell is smart enough not to be exposed for the partisan hack that he is by accepting this deal. He will pretend to stand on principle to the end. I don’t see how he backs down now, short of a revolt in his caucus.
Moreover, Booker isn’t that liberal particularly on corporate issues, and the others, Udall and Warren, are good right where they are.
If we win in November, we’ll get our Supreme Court nominee next term as well as another one or two. Otherwise we’re in deep trouble for a host of reasons.
While I certainly can understand the desire to hedge against the chance of another hard right justice being place on the court, I also believe part of Progressives’ setback on many of these similar types of confrontations (particularly over the last 8 years) lie in our “far too quick” willingness to negotiate and bargain for compromise versus standup for our core principles.
In the last few days, new Public Policy Polling (PPP) surveys in Arizona, Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina found that voter anger over their Republican Senators’ unwillingness to consider a replacement for Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court could help make those seats competitive for Democrats this fall.
The surveys found approval vs. disapproval ratings for: John McCain at 26/63, Roy Blunt at 25/48, and Richard Burr at 28/44. Only Chuck Grassley is on positive ground and his 47/44 spread is down considerably from what we usually find for him.
Independents in Arizona say 61/18 they’re less likely to vote for John McCain because of this issue, and it’s 55/16 for Richard Burr with them in North Carolina, 55/20 for Roy Blunt with them in Missouri, and 48/24 for Chuck Grassley with them in Iowa.
Strong majorities of voters in each of these states want the Supreme Court vacancy to be filled this year. It’s a 56/40 spread in favor of filling the seat in Iowa, 56/41 in Arizona and Missouri, and 55/41 in North Carolina.
What’s particularly important in the numbers is the strong support for filling the seat among independents – it’s 60/38 in Missouri, 59/37 in Arizona, 58/38 in Iowa, and 55/38 in North Carolina. Voters by a 34 point margin in Arizona and Missouri, a 21 point margin in North Carolina, and a 14 point margin in Iowa say that they’re less likely to vote for their Republican Senators this fall if they refuse to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court no matter who it is.
The surveys also found that voters were angry over the Supreme Court issue in New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and might punish Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson for it this fall.
Some might argue that because the PPP primarily surveys on behalf of Democrats, their research result are suspect, it should be noted CNN and Quinnipiac University polls reflected similar results on the issue particularly in Ohio where voters strongly disapprove of Portman’s decision to block the nomination or hearings.
The SCOTUS blockage coupled with the possibility (probability?) of the Republicans nominating Donald Trump could bode well for Democrats in the general election.
The Republicans, if nothing else has been revealed by their 2016 primary campaigning performance, are in complete disarray. They have clearly demonstrated that they miscalculate the public’s reaction to their calibre and conduct of POTUS candidates. They really are not very smart folks – they can not even reach consensus of how to stop Trump. Blocking a SCOTUS nomination process is just another example of their lack of insight in to the mood of the majority of Americans.
While I don’t reject the idea of brokering a compromise to secure nominee receiving a hearing, I am also reminded (when we consider dealing with Conservatives) of what Christopher James Gilbert said about “compromise”:
“Most men either compromise or drop their greatest talents and start running after, what they perceive to be, a more reasonable success, and somewhere in between they end up with a discontented settlement. Safety is indeed stability, but it is not progression.”
There should be no deals on who is to be placed in nomination, period.
The White House is vetting federal appellate judges Merrick Garland and Sri Srinivasan as possible nominees to the Supreme Court to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia, the New York Times reported on Friday.
who is a friend of Chuck Grassley.
she was brutally beaten. Her face shows the marks.
(Obviously, not a remark on her competence).
Srinivasan. A brilliant legal mind. Seems technocratic. A minority. And a basketball player. On the 9th circuit. Approved 97-0. I could be wrong, but he sounds like the kind of guy Obama would love.
Garland’s 10-15 years older than preferred. He could do 20 years. No rule against it.
I don’t see the advantage of Kelly. The third woman in a row by Obama? Unless she has something very particular to offer, I don’t see it.
is the Grassley connection. He was effusive at her last confirmation hearing. Would be hard for him to deny her any hearing at all this time.
David, you underestimate the level of discipline of the Republican mind.
Take out your Newspeak dictionary and look up he definitions of doublethink and blackwhite.
We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Though I do disagree with the notion that a third woman isn’t an important accomplishment.