Scalia died

[arebelspy]

Passed away, apparently natural causes.

It will make the POTUS race all the more important (since it's unlikely senate confirms an Obama nominee quickly).

Thoughts?

[LeRainDrop]

Holy moly!  This is the first place I saw this!  I'm in disbelief at the moment.

[Gin1984]

It will be interesting to watch how the GOP members in the Senate behave.

[Kris]

My guess is that the Republican leadership is already getting everyone on board with a "reject anyone put forward" agenda because they won't be able to stand the idea of Obama getting to name one more justice.  So, with a 4-4 split, I don't know how this works... Do they keep discussing cases, and arrive at stalemates every time?

[sol]

It's still the first half of February.  There's almost 12 full months before a new President will be sworn in.  Shouldn't that be enough time to get somebody confirmed?  I'm sure they already have a short list.

Congress doesn't have to confirm someone "quickly" they just have to start their vetting process. The only reason they might possibly try to stall more than 12 months would be because they are hoping a Republican wins the Presidency, they find enough votes to reject the current President's nomination (not done since 1987), and they are hoping new President then nominates someone they like more.

[Kris]

And apparently politcal humorist John Fugelsang agrees with me. He just tweeted this:

"The people who are about to block the President from appointing a new SCOTUS judge remind you not to politicize the death of Scalia."

[arebelspy]

It's still the first half of February.  There's almost 12 full months before a new President will be sworn in.  Shouldn't that be enough time to get somebody confirmed?  I'm sure they already have a short list.

It should be, if they wanted it to be.  I don't see it happening.

[Kris]

It's still the first half of February.  There's almost 12 full months before a new President will be sworn in.  Shouldn't that be enough time to get somebody confirmed?  I'm sure they already have a short list.

It should be, if they wanted it to be.  I don't see it happening.

The longest it has ever taken for a supreme court justice to be approved is 125 days. Obama has 361 days left. I've already seen one GOP staffer say on social media that the party will block any nominee put forward.

[Tyson]

Hmm, another opportunity for the GOP to act shitty?  I see them taking full advantage!

[nereo]

It's still the first half of February.  There's almost 12 full months before a new President will be sworn in.  Shouldn't that be enough time to get somebody confirmed?  I'm sure they already have a short list.

It should be, if they wanted it to be.  I don't see it happening.

The longest it has ever taken for a supreme court justice to be approved is 125 days. Obama has 361 days left. I've already seen one GOP staffer say on social media that the party will block any nominee put forward.

I would be absolutely shocked if any nomination was approved before the next Presidential election.  THere isn't anything in the Constitution that says the supreme court must funciton with 9 judges - indeed it frequently does so with fewer, not only when there is an absence, but also any time a judge recuses themselves from a case.

The GOP led house and senate has no interest in approving anyone, even if they agree with him, because it will seem like a win for the democrats. I imagine in their eyes it would be no worse even if another democrat wins in November.  Instead it's likely to become another political football.  Obama will nominate some sacrificial goat who gets their based riled up when the republicans are seen to delay and deny.  THe republicans will use whatever happens to drum up their base about how this is an absolutely crucial election, and they must take back the white house and hold onto both the house and the senate.

speaking of which, there always seems to be the refrain "this is the most important election ever!" every single election cycle.  It's easy to get caught up in this mentality, but is this really any more (or less) important than immediately before both world wars, or during the cold war, or the civil war, or .... 

just sayin'.

[Kris]

Aaaannnnndddd here it goes. Stay classy, GOP.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/minutes-after-scalias-death-right-wingers-seek-to-block-nominee-obama-hasnt-even-appointed-yet/

[boy_bye]

Don't the Republicans need to look like they are able to accomplish something? Seems like the optics of blocking someone would be pretty bad for them.

If they do obstruct, can't Obama just wait for the next recess, put his middle fingers up, and make a recess appointment? Then the next Congress would have to approve or not, and it may very well be a different landscape then ...

[johnny847]

My guess is that the Republican leadership is already getting everyone on board with a "reject anyone put forward" agenda because they won't be able to stand the idea of Obama getting to name one more justice.  So, with a 4-4 split, I don't know how this works... Do they keep discussing cases, and arrive at stalemates every time?

In the case of a tie vote, the lower court's decision stands without creating any SCOTUS precedent.

[nereo]

Aaaannnnndddd here it goes. Stay classy, GOP.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/minutes-after-scalias-death-right-wingers-seek-to-block-nominee-obama-hasnt-even-appointed-yet/

when exactly did news stories basically become just a collection of tweets linked together by a few sentences? Anyone else annoyed by this trend?

[LeRainDrop]

Don't the Republicans need to look like they are able to accomplish something? Seems like the optics of blocking someone would be pretty bad for them.

I think you've got the implication backwards.  If the Republicans need to look like they can accomplish something, then blocking confirmation of any Obama appointee would be considered a successful accomplishment for their supporters.  As others above have noted, blocking confirmation for the period of time remaining in Obama's term would be incredibly unusual.  Thus, for them to be able to do that would be an achievement in the view of the people they want to impress.

[boy_bye]

Don't the Republicans need to look like they are able to accomplish something? Seems like the optics of blocking someone would be pretty bad for them.

I think you've got the implication backwards.  If the Republicans need to look like they can accomplish something, then blocking confirmation of any Obama appointee would be considered a successful accomplishment for their supporters.  As others above have noted, blocking confirmation for the period of time remaining in Obama's term would be incredibly unusual.  Thus, for them to be able to do that would be an achievement in the view of the people they want to impress.

I dunno ... the wackjob element of the party would love that, but aren't there like a silent majority of reasonable Republicans who are sick of this obstructionist, running out the clock shit? They can't win with *only* the wackjob vote, can they?

[Kris]

Don't the Republicans need to look like they are able to accomplish something? Seems like the optics of blocking someone would be pretty bad for them.

I think you've got the implication backwards.  If the Republicans need to look like they can accomplish something, then blocking confirmation of any Obama appointee would be considered a successful accomplishment for their supporters.  As others above have noted, blocking confirmation for the period of time remaining in Obama's term would be incredibly unusual.  Thus, for them to be able to do that would be an achievement in the view of the people they want to impress.

I dunno ... the wackjob element of the party would love that, but aren't there like a silent majority of reasonable Republicans who are sick of this obstructionist, running out the clock shit? They can't win with *only* the wackjob vote, can they?

I think these days, on most issues the Republicans in Congress consist of a) the whackjob vote; and b) the people who are too scared of their whackjob constituents to try to be reasonable.

So yeah, I think they can win with only the whackjob vote.

[Jack]

I dunno ... the wackjob element of the party would love that, but aren't there like a silent majority of reasonable Republicans who are sick of this obstructionist, running out the clock shit? They can't win with *only* the wackjob vote, can they?

They've been winning on only the whackjob vote for quite a while now already.

[boy_bye]

I dunno ... the wackjob element of the party would love that, but aren't there like a silent majority of reasonable Republicans who are sick of this obstructionist, running out the clock shit? They can't win with *only* the wackjob vote, can they?

They've been winning on only the whackjob vote for quite a while now already.

And through redistricting and restricting voter rights ...

[mrpercentage]

Don't the Republicans need to look like they are able to accomplish something? Seems like the optics of blocking someone would be pretty bad for them.

I think you've got the implication backwards.  If the Republicans need to look like they can accomplish something, then blocking confirmation of any Obama appointee would be considered a successful accomplishment for their supporters.  As others above have noted, blocking confirmation for the period of time remaining in Obama's term would be incredibly unusual.  Thus, for them to be able to do that would be an achievement in the view of the people they want to impress.

I dunno ... the wackjob element of the party would love that, but aren't there like a silent majority of reasonable Republicans who are sick of this obstructionist, running out the clock shit? They can't win with *only* the wackjob vote, can they?

Yes, we are called independents. We can't make up our mind if we want Trump or Sanders

[maizefolk]

My guess is that the Republican leadership is already getting everyone on board with a "reject anyone put forward" agenda because they won't be able to stand the idea of Obama getting to name one more justice.  So, with a 4-4 split, I don't know how this works... Do they keep discussing cases, and arrive at stalemates every time?

In the case of a tie vote, the lower court's decision stands without creating any SCOTUS precedent.

And despite the fact that the closely split decisions get a lot of press, lots and lots of supreme court cases get decided by broader margins, so the court would likely continue to function reasonably similarly to how it had previously.

Looks like there about been 562 Supreme Court cases argued since the start of 2008 (so essentially during the time Pres. Obama has been in office). 121 had a one vote margin (so 5-4 or 4-3*). If we assume Scalia was equally likely to be on the majority or minority side that means 60.5 of those cases or ~10% of the time, his vote was the reason a case didn't end in a tie. So until a new justice gets appointed about 90% of the time, the court will make the same decision it would have made with him on the bench, and 10% of the time, it won't overrule the lower court. Add on the assumption that when Scalia was in the majority, the court was equally likely to be overturning the lower court or agree with the lower court and you get about 5% of supreme court cases having a different outcome until a new justice is appointed. Then the difference could be anywhere from 0-10% of cases decided differently depending on how similar or dissimilar the new justice's legal reasoning is to that of Scalia.

*Can happen when judges recluse themselves from a case.

Source of the data: The Supreme Court Database, courtesy of Wash U: http://scdb.wustl.edu/data.php?s=1

[Kris]

Well, it's official. Mitch McConnell says the seat will be held hostage by the Republicans until after the election.

I honestly don't know how any Republican voter can with a clear conscience agree with this.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129879/mitch-mcconnell-says-will-no-scalia-supreme-court-replacement-president-obama

[Paul der Krake]

Lines of questioning in the senate hearings:

Tell us about a recent time in history when a President overstepped his authority through executive action?
Do you believe Obamacare is unconstitutional, or highly unconstitutional?

[MDM]

Hmm - Republicans don't want to confirm an Obama nominee, while Democrats do want to confirm an Obama nominee.  I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you.

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scalia-obama-replacement_us_56bfabe4e4b08ffac1258cf5:

But the tweets also underscore a pretty obvious reality that existed even before the news broke: in the last year of the Obama administration, congressional Republicans are pretty invested in just running out the clock.

Not surprisingly, Democrats weren't keen on going along with the de facto inaction. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a long-serving member of the judiciary committee, encouraged the president to move swiftly in naming a replacement for Scalia. "I hope that no one will use this sad news to suggest that the President or the Senate should not perform its constitutional duty," he said in a statement. And Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) quickly encouraged the president to "send the Senate a nominee right away."

[Kris]

It's worth noting that this will likely bring out more Republican voters. There are likely people who would not have voted for Trump or Cruz who now will if there is a justice appointment hanging in the balance.

Which, of course, is the point of the Republicans' stance. In a way, Scalia may have given them a gift.

I'm just hoping there are more people who wouldn't vote for Hillary but now would. But I doubt it.

[Tabaxus]

It's worth noting that this will likely bring out more Republican voters. There are likely people who would not have voted for Trump or Cruz who now will if there is a justice appointment hanging in the balance.

Which, of course, is the point of the Republicans' stance. In a way, Scalia may have given them a gift.

I'm just hoping there are more people who wouldn't vote for Hillary but now would. But I doubt it.

I think this is a likely, and somewhat terrifying, outcome.

[boy_bye]

It's worth noting that this will likely bring out more Republican voters. There are likely people who would not have voted for Trump or Cruz who now will if there is a justice appointment hanging in the balance.

Which, of course, is the point of the Republicans' stance. In a way, Scalia may have given them a gift.

I'm just hoping there are more people who wouldn't vote for Hillary but now would. But I doubt it.

I think this is a likely, and somewhat terrifying, outcome.

It could potentially draw out a lot more Democratic voters, too.

[Kris]

It's worth noting that this will likely bring out more Republican voters. There are likely people who would not have voted for Trump or Cruz who now will if there is a justice appointment hanging in the balance.

Which, of course, is the point of the Republicans' stance. In a way, Scalia may have given them a gift.

I'm just hoping there are more people who wouldn't vote for Hillary but now would. But I doubt it.

I think this is a likely, and somewhat terrifying, outcome.

It could potentially draw out a lot more Democratic voters, too.

I think it will draw out some. But I think it will draw out more conservatives.

[LeRainDrop]

Interesting historical factoids that I have learned today:

It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year.  Specifically, the last justice to be confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year was Benjamin Cardozo, who was confirmed in March 1932, filling a vacancy that arose in January 1932.  Source:  http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy

The last Supreme Court justice who was nominated and confirmed in a presidential election year under divided government, where the President and the Senate majority were of different parties, was Justice William Burnham Woods in 1880.  Source:  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/update-there-hasnt-been-justice-confirmed-in-election-year-by-divided-government-since-1880/

[beltim]

Interesting historical factoids that I have learned today:

It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court justice was confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year.  Specifically, the last justice to be confirmed in a presidential election year to a vacancy that arose that year was Benjamin Cardozo, who was confirmed in March 1932, filling a vacancy that arose in January 1932.  Source:  http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/431271/scalia-vacancy

The last Supreme Court justice who was nominated and confirmed in a presidential election year under divided government, where the President and the Senate majority were of different parties, was Justice William Burnham Woods in 1880.  Source:  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/update-there-hasnt-been-justice-confirmed-in-election-year-by-divided-government-since-1880/

Of course, there hasn't been an opportunity to do so in about 50 years...
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2016/02/13/nominations-to-supreme-court-in-election-year-with-divided-and-unified-governments/

Put another way, the Senate has only ever not confirmed a nomination to the Supreme Court in an election year twice in the last 150 years.

[protostache]

It's worth noting that this will likely bring out more Republican voters. There are likely people who would not have voted for Trump or Cruz who now will if there is a justice appointment hanging in the balance.

Which, of course, is the point of the Republicans' stance. In a way, Scalia may have given them a gift.

I'm just hoping there are more people who wouldn't vote for Hillary but now would. But I doubt it.

I think this would have become an issue during the general in any event. Scalia was 79. Kennedy is 79. Notorious RBG is 82. There was almost certainly going to be at last one retirement or death in the next eight years.

[Kris]

It's worth noting that this will likely bring out more Republican voters. There are likely people who would not have voted for Trump or Cruz who now will if there is a justice appointment hanging in the balance.

Which, of course, is the point of the Republicans' stance. In a way, Scalia may have given them a gift.

I'm just hoping there are more people who wouldn't vote for Hillary but now would. But I doubt it.

I think this would have become an issue during the general in any event. Scalia was 79. Kennedy is 79. Notorious RBG is 82. There was almost certainly going to be at last one retirement or death in the next eight years.

Yes, but the immediacy is clearly something the Republicans hope to use as a tool to get people out to vote. Humans are not always great at long-term thinking, so to be able to say "OMG IF A DEMOCRAT IS ELECTED THIS JUSTICE WILL BE A LIBERAL AND WE'LL HAVE SHARIA LAW AND GAYS RUNNING EVERYTHING AND FREE ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE!" will be useful for conservatives.

[the_fella]

I heard. And I couldn't be more thrilled! I hope Obama nominates someone who actually has actually read the Constitution.

[Paul der Krake]

Yes, but the immediacy is clearly something the Republicans hope to use as a tool to get people out to vote. Humans are not always great at long-term thinking, so to be able to say "OMG IF A DEMOCRAT IS ELECTED THIS JUSTICE WILL BE A LIBERAL AND WE'LL HAVE SHARIA LAW AND GAYS RUNNING EVERYTHING AND FREE ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE!" will be useful for conservatives.

Aren't all people likely to think that already counting down the days until the election? If you think Obama is the America-destroying anti-christ AND understand the implications of a SCOTUS nomination, chances are you were already going to vote.

What I really want to know, is the kind of argument the GOP will put forward to block appointees if there is a Democrat in the White House next year.

[iris lily]

Don't the Republicans need to look like they are able to accomplish something? Seems like the optics of blocking someone would be pretty bad for them.

I think you've got the implication backwards.  If the Republicans need to look like they can accomplish something, then blocking confirmation of any Obama appointee would be considered a successful accomplishment for their supporters.  As others above have noted, blocking confirmation for the period of time remaining in Obama's term would be incredibly unusual.  Thus, for them to be able to do that would be an achievement in the view of the people they want to impress.

I dunno ... the wackjob element of the party would love that, but aren't there like a silent majority of reasonable Republicans who are sick of this obstructionist, running out the clock shit? They can't win with *only* the wackjob vote, can they?

Oh I don't know, I don't think getting things "done"in the vernacular of The Hill is all that great. I'm befinning to see a real virtue in butting heads and making no movement.

The last budget they passed which I guess they have to do had attchments that removed a key Social Security benefitt that DH was planning to use. The Prez signed it. Guess he wanted to screw over DH as much as those obstructionists. AARP completed the screw by supporting the bill.

My friend's grandfather has lived in the D.C. area for decades and his family for generations. He said it was the ruination of the country when they put air conditioning in the congressional buildings. That kept all of the idiots there year round.

[LeRainDrop]

I heard. And I couldn't be more thrilled! I hope Obama nominates someone who actually has actually read the Constitution.

I'm bowing out of this thread because this sort of comment just makes me sad for humanity and democratic society.  Can you imagine if Obama were to die and people said they "couldn't be more thrilled"?  That is horrifying to contemplate.  IMO, it's sick.  We don't have to agree with other people, and vigorous debate is an essential tool for achieving a better outcome, but there should always be basic respect for the lives of other human beings.  Did you know that long before Elena Kagan was even nominated to the Supreme Court, Scalia said he would be thrilled to serve with her on the Court because he respected her intellect so much?  Anyhow, I just get upset when I hear people say they are "thrilled" that another person died.  I guess I'm probably too sensitive, but I'm okay with that.

[iris lily]

It's worth noting that this will likely bring out more Republican voters. There are likely people who would not have voted for Trump or Cruz who now will if there is a justice appointment hanging in the balance.

Which, of course, is the point of the Republicans' stance. In a way, Scalia may have given them a gift.

I'm just hoping there are more people who wouldn't vote for Hillary but now would. But I doubt it.

I think this would have become an issue during the general in any event. Scalia was 79. Kennedy is 79. Notorious RBG is 82. There was almost certainly going to be at last one retirement or death in the next eight years.

Yes, but the immediacy is clearly something the Republicans hope to use as a tool to get people out to vote. Humans are not always great at long-term thinking, so to be able to say "OMG IF A DEMOCRAT IS ELECTED THIS JUSTICE WILL BE A LIBERAL AND WE'LL HAVE SHARIA LAW AND GAYS RUNNING EVERYTHING AND FREE ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE!" will be useful for conservatives.

The hyperbolic ideas that you ascribes to the other side reflect more on you than on them.

[Kris]

It's worth noting that this will likely bring out more Republican voters. There are likely people who would not have voted for Trump or Cruz who now will if there is a justice appointment hanging in the balance.

Which, of course, is the point of the Republicans' stance. In a way, Scalia may have given them a gift.

I'm just hoping there are more people who wouldn't vote for Hillary but now would. But I doubt it.

I think this would have become an issue during the general in any event. Scalia was 79. Kennedy is 79. Notorious RBG is 82. There was almost certainly going to be at last one retirement or death in the next eight years.

Yes, but the immediacy is clearly something the Republicans hope to use as a tool to get people out to vote. Humans are not always great at long-term thinking, so to be able to say "OMG IF A DEMOCRAT IS ELECTED THIS JUSTICE WILL BE A LIBERAL AND WE'LL HAVE SHARIA LAW AND GAYS RUNNING EVERYTHING AND FREE ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE!" will be useful for conservatives.

The hyperbolic ideas that you ascribes to the other side reflect more on you than on them.

Really?

Do you listen to right-wing news sources?

[bacchi]

The commenters on redstate seem to pretty hyperbolic.

This, right now, is the do-or-die moment for our Republic. If we do not, as a people, work our collective asses off to nominate Ted Cruz as our next President, we will have failed our country and our children's future.

"Our country is over if Clinton wins!!!!111!! zOMG!"

Some of the comments make good sense: Obama will appoint a "CNN liberal" Hispanic or African-American and dare the Republicans to stall. When they do, it'll bring out votes for Clinton.

I'm not convinced that there will be many 4-4 votes. Kennedy has gotten more left-leaning in his older years.


Eta: The freepers are worse. Probably comparable to some of the dailykos threads but, wow, there are some seriously unhappy people on freerepublic.

[clifp]

The last day of oral arguments is April 26, which I believe means that Justice can't do much of anything this term unless he gets confirmed in the next 10 weeks. That seems very unlikely.
So then the next session starts next Oct. a month before the elections.

In an ideal world, Obama would nominate a moderate somebody that was opposed by both Bernie Sanders, and Ted Cruz, but say was supported by Sen. John McCain and Dianne Feinstein.
But that seems very unlikely. The Republican certainly should give Obama nominees a vote but I see no need for them to confirm somebody they don't support.

[Sylly]

In an ideal world, Obama would nominate a moderate somebody that was opposed by both Bernie Sanders, and Ted Cruz, but say was supported by Sen. John McCain and Dianne Feinstein.
But that seems very unlikely. The Republican certainly should give Obama nominees a vote but I see no need for them to confirm somebody they don't support.

My thoughts exactly.

Being largely in the center, all these extreme left & right things, and a lot of the vitriol that goes with it, is sickening, and really does not reflect well on either side.

[seattlecyclone]

I heard. And I couldn't be more thrilled! I hope Obama nominates someone who actually has actually read the Constitution.

I'm bowing out of this thread because this sort of comment just makes me sad for humanity and democratic society.  Can you imagine if Obama were to die and people said they "couldn't be more thrilled"?  That is horrifying to contemplate.  IMO, it's sick.  We don't have to agree with other people, and vigorous debate is an essential tool for achieving a better outcome, but there should always be basic respect for the lives of other human beings.  Did you know that long before Elena Kagan was even nominated to the Supreme Court, Scalia said he would be thrilled to serve with her on the Court because he respected her intellect so much?  Anyhow, I just get upset when I hear people say they are "thrilled" that another person died.  I guess I'm probably too sensitive, but I'm okay with that.

Agreed. Rejoicing at the death of another human is poor form at best.

You know, I tend to vote for Democrats most of the time but I really respected Justice Scalia and tended to agree quite often with the opinions of his that I read. His "textualist" viewpoint resounds quite well with me: the Constitution is the law of the land, and whenever possible we should interpret it as the people who wrote it would. If we want to run our country differently than they would (perfectly reasonable after almost 250 years!), we should amend the Constitution instead of twisting its words to mean something opposite from what was intended. I fully support the ability of courts to resolve ambiguity in laws, but they shouldn't be able to simply reverse the meaning of a law that had previously been well understood. I applaud Justice Scalia for trying, in his way, to get us back to operating more toward the original intent of the Constitution.

[Taran Wanderer]

Personally, I'd like to see Obama nominate someone relatively centrist whom the Republican controlled Senate will confirm.  I don't want to see activist justices re-interpreting the Constitution from either extreme of the spectrum.  If the Constitution is out of date, there is a way to update it:  it's called an amendment.  If we can't get enough people on board to pass an amendment, then perhaps we should continue living under the rules we already have.

Perhaps this guy can get enough Republicans on board to confirm him.  He received an overwhelming majority of Republican votes last time they got a chance to look at him:

Any list begins with Sri Srinivasan, 48, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- a traditional launching pad for Supreme Court nominees.

Obama first nominated him to the post in 2012, and the Senate confirmed him, 97-0, in May 2013, including votes in support from GOP presidential contenders Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

[arebelspy]

The Onion had a headline: Justice Scalia dead after 30-year battle with social progress.

No article (just a headline in their "news" section), but title was amusing. :)

[Malaysia41]

The Onion had a headline: Justice Scale dead after 30-year battle with social progress.

No article (just a headline in their "news" section), but title was amusing. :)

That's funny.

I'd like to just say, that as much as I disagreed with many of his opinions, I appreciated the intellectual rigor he brought to his mental gymnastics. Not that I'm an expert. But it's telling when lawyers, liberal and conservative alike, respected his legal mind, if not always the side of the issue he came down on.

RIP Scalia.

[matchewed]

What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

[olivia]

What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

[bacchi]

The Republicans also face the threat of losing the Senate. There are 24 R-controlled and 10 D-controlled seats up for grabs this fall. If Cruz gets elected but the Ds hold the Senate, there's no way a culture warrior from the right will be confirmed.

[sol]

What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

I've already heard suggestions that Obama will stall the nomination so that Clinton can nominated him.

[matchewed]

What's the point of the obstructionism? Does it matter whether it is Obama or Clinton who appoints? Rimshot

I've already heard suggestions that Obama will stall the nomination so that Clinton can nominated him.

Oooooh that's an interesting (read crazy) take on it. Although I guess it's possible...