SCOTUS Wait-Gate a GOP Lose-Lose
Justice Antonin Scalia was not even cold when Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley said that there was no way in hell that his replacement would be chosen by a black man. This immediately presents a win-win situation for Democrats in a Presidential election year, because all of a sudden, it’s turned into a national referendum on Scalia’s successor, as well as Obama’s.
Given this starting point there are only a few ways that this can play out, none of them very good for snacilbupeR. We know this part: Obama submits a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Next, in its Constitutional role to advise and consent, the Senate can do three things: refuse to consider the appointment and leave the nominee dangling; conduct hearings but never move to a floor vote; or conduct hearings and hold a floor vote.
Here is how I see each of those scenarios playing out.
GOP refuses to consider the appointment and leaves the nominee dangling: this would be like just about every other open seat on the Federal bench. The Gerrymandered Old Party has gone into a four-corner game with a Blah Muslim Kenyan Communist Usurper President, except they are actually losing as they try to run the clock out. Unlike the current plethora of open judgeships, the optics on this empty seat are SO BAD that it can actually affect the outcome of the November race for President, Senate and even Congress.
Right now, this is the default announced position of the party leadership. Like Wile E. Coyote at the edge of a cliff, they’ve dropped one (1) ACME Anvil towards Obama while they are still chained to it. It’s gonna miss him entirely, but they’re gonna leave a GOP-shaped crater on the desert floor. Winner: Dems.
GOP conducts hearings without a floor vote: Cracks have appeared among the moronic monolith, where idiots like Ron Johnson, soon-to-be-former Senator from Wisconsin, realizes he could increase that inevitability by being a complete douchebag, instead of only a regular douchebag. So he flip flops lugubriously on his prior “do less than nothing” approach.
I believe that the GOP is going to recognize the hardline approach will cost them more in the general, especially if they nominate Trump or Cruz. So we will at least get to hearings. But refusing to pass a qualified nominee on for a floor vote would be the disaster scenario for them: they will piss off their base by not being hardline enough, while pissing off moderates and independents for still being too partisan by half. Winner: Dems.
GOP holds a floor vote: this is the least risky set of plays for this Party in this Election, but it is still fraught with danger. To actually give a nominee an up or down vote is the bare minimum of acceptable governance for the majority of the American people. Even if they vote an Obama nominee down by straight party lines, they will not have moved the needle much, and the pre-dead-justice narrative of the reactionary wing of the reactionary party will remain intact, without having overtly raped the Constitution.
However, I think it will still play badly in Peoria. How do you argue that the Presidential election is all about the Supreme Court, and then turn around and say, no, not really, the President doesn’t have much say at all? Furthermore, the damage to your electoral chances was already done the minute McConnell opened his mouth. Barring a complete disaster of epic proportions, the next President will STILL be a Democrat, and a Democrat elected on a liberal platform. The Senate is now even more likely to flip, thanks to Wait-gate. Winner: Dems.
If I’m a Republican Senator, and I want to actually have a chance to advise and consent, I want my party right now to dedicate itself to filling that seat with the President, and maintaining throughout the process that “it is our intention to fill that seat ASAP.” Otherwise, even the most considered and considerate hearing and vote will look like partisan obstructionism. And if I live or die by the proposition that the NEXT President will be empowered by the American electorate to choose whomever he/ she wants to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, well then, I’ve just given her/him carte-blanche to put Alan Grayson (Harvard Law ’83) on the Supreme Court.
So really, the best play for Republicans is to drop the posturing nonsense, and hold hearings and floor vote(s) in complete good faith, and maybe, just maybe, do the right thing. For once.
Winner: America!
~Primo
All of these premises are based on the general American electorate actually thinking straight and able to understand that the run of the same old mill Republican senator is being a stupid poop if he or she really plans to run out the clock, and needs to go home for good.
1There are so many good choices. Those men or women too, if voted down, will make the right wing’s obstruction even more obvious…as if anything could be.
2Appears to be a lose-lose for the snacilbupeR. Act like idiots or really alienate their rabid base.
3Here’s a simple definition of what “Advise and Consent,” means,
4The President advises the Senate who he his nominee is, then the Senate either consents to his nominee or doesn’t!
What’s so hard about that?
Thanks, Primo! I continue to hope that there are enough sane people “out there” even though I’m frightened that there aren’t.
5I do not think the republicans collectively know how to do the right thing anymore.
6This is assuming the average voter cares and has a memory. The GOP was in the crapper after their pointless government shutdown, but a year later they got loads of GOPs elected because most people had forgotten or no longer cared or didn’t bother to vote at all.
7Primo… there is a flaw in your argument. You assume Dem leadership will make hay out of this obstruction. Sadly, I don’t think they will. The American electorate has a short attention span. They will need to be reminded at every opportunity.
8From an iowan, me,Grassley sucks green wienies. Yooooge ones.
9@JAKvirginia
Even with our DINO leadership – looking at you Debbie (failed) Wasserman (test) Schultz – the local Dem should be able to engage local snacilbupeR with truth, much like James Carville in Bill’s 1992 campaign v. Bush 41.
10I’m really hoping they ignore the nominee completely, or with a few–or several–well placed verbal jabs. Please, go to your roots, RWNJs, and denigrate the nominee for everything. Show the country and the world just one more time what a pathetic, cowardly bunch you really are.
“he picked up his coffee with his left hand! HIS LEFT HAND, for God’s sake! A Lefty can’t be trusted!”
11“A Lefty can’t be trusted!”
Like Reagan and Papa Bush?
12The republiKlan has been super obstructionist for years, why would this particular instance hurt them? Their base is cheering them on and, given the results of the 2012 election, not many others care enough even to vote. Are we counting too much on a reasonable electorate, given the Trump phenomenon?
13Ford, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Obama – jinkies, gang! Five of the last seven Presidents were lefties! I smell a mystery!
14“And if I live or die by the proposition that the NEXT
President will be empowered by the American
electorate to choose whomever he/ she wants
to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court, well then, I’ve just given her/him carte-
blanche to put Alan Grayson (Harvard Law ’83)
on the Supreme Court.”
Orrrr – – – –
15Do you _really_ want to roast their nuts? How about Barack Hussein Obama?
daChipster, you just blew the smithereens out of my theory. I always thought we left handed guys were the best and brightest. Now you have us grouped with Ford, Reagan, & Bush1.
Only reasonable explanation is that liberal men who are left handed are the best and brightest. ok That works for me. 😀
16The voters have the IQ of a box of rocks.
17Get more pop corn, This will be fun in a sick sort of way.
two crows, there’s a good possibility given the age of SCROTUS that the next President could appoint both highly qualified Obamas.
Vote Democrats, vote. Whoever is the Democratic nominee needs the Senate and as much of the gerrymandered House as we can deliver.
18Rhea, there are many superstitions about lefties, one of which is that they are in league with the devil.
However, as my Mom was a lefty, I can only say they are warm, creative people who can’t cook worth beans.
19charles r., there is also a superstition that we redheads are in league with the devil. My husband is a lefty and he’s warm and creative. He is also, as a friend described herself, “simple, fun-loving, and bent out of shape.” And he votes D.
20I’ve been reading quite a bit about this issue. I can’t find anyone, except far righties, who see this as a win for the snacilbupeR. Makes me very happy.
One of the things about the nominee that interests me is the lack of diversity among current justices. I don’t mean only gender and race. They’re all Yale or Harvard grads. They’re all west or east coasters. None of them have any experience with the people of the South or Midwest. None are Protestants or nones or atheists.
That’s really very a limited world experience, not even considering gender and race. My hope is that the nominee is a Lutheran Minnesotan whose JD was earned at the Mitchell Hamline College of Law in St. Paul, MN. (Or something like that.)
21There’s another factor. The last thing the business/donor class wants is an empty seat for a year. The way things are now, the best they can hope for, on cases already in the pipeline is a 4-4 tie that does not set a precedent and will next expensive re-litigation. Nor do I think they think they have a chance — given the hold-out added to their other problems — of winning the election — nor would they Trust Trump, were he to win it, to choose a Justice — or get one passed. And I don’t think they see Cruz as a possible winner. So they’d much rather have a probably relatively centrist Justice that Obama might appoint rather than wait for Hillary’s selection — who could very easiy be Obama, for now or later in the term.
22‘
Another chance to split the billionaires from the billion prayers.
And this doesn’t even cover what happens next. If the Repubs don’t confirm a nominee then they will be under a lot of pressure to do so next January, especially since they have said they are just waiting for a new President.
Now, they might be able to pressure President Obama into nominating a moderate. If they blow that opportunity, I wonder if they prefer a nominee from President Clinton or President Sanders or President Trump?
Don’t forget that the Constitution lists no requirement for a Justice: not age, not legal training, not even citizenship. Given that Trump has shown how much he enjoys taunting the GOP his choice could be extremely interesting.
Add in that the Dems might take back the Senate in this next election and I don’t see just what end-game the Repubs are aiming for.
23LynnN, I think their end game is and always been the same: screw over Obama in any way possible. Doesn’t matter if they proposed an idea; as soon as he says he likes it and wants it passed, they’re ferociously against it.
Some of us have been hoping he’d announce that Americans ought not to gargle gasoline and juggle running chainsaws, and especially not both at once. That would tighten up the voting rolls nicely.
24@ LynnN:
“I don’t see just what end-game the Repubs are aiming for.”
End game? End game? Their end game is to obfuscate and obstruct and make Barack Obama a one term president.
Oh wait – – – –
Seriously, though, obstructing Obama is their only goal. And who will that help? Who will it hurt? Well, it ain’t gonna hurt Hillary or Bernie. And their obstructionism is unable to hurt President Obama at this late stage.
Aamof, as he has shown us for the last 3+ years, he’s enjoying himself immensely – at their expense. And my tiniest violin in the world is playing really sad songs for them. Poor babies.
25…the NEXT President will be empowered by the American electorate to choose whomever he/she wants to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, well then, I’ve just given her/him carte-blanche to put Alan Grayson (Harvard Law ’83) on the Supreme Court.
Grayson? How about Barack Obama? I heard he will be available. (Or Anita Hill!)
26If Senate does not confirm President’s nomination and control of Senate goes to Democrats, President has a second chance after new Senate convenes Jan 3d. Before President leaves office on Jan 20, he nominates another candidate to a Democratic Senate. Payback is hell.
27