Debate: Republican contenders say no court nominee for Obama

[Chicog]

No maybes about it.

So you've followed his career then have you?

But I agree, anyone who'd agree to work with an Enron executive must be left with a bit of a smell to him.

[up-country_sinclair]

I think that the GOP would be wise to hold a vote and approve anyone reasonably moderate.

My reasons include the following:

1. Democrats have bigger turnouts in presidential election years.

2. 'Coattails' are real, and this year will be no exception.

3. Republican control of the Senate is very vulnerable. Anyone who tells you different is either ignorant or of limited intelligence. Of the 34 seats up for election, 24 are held by Republicans. In other words, Republicans have to defend 14 more seats than Democrats. And that's not going to be easy in Illinois, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina.

4. Secretary Clinton is likely to get the (D) nomination, and if she does, it will bring even more women out to vote.

5. She would demolish the two likely nominees: Senator Cruz and Trump.

Again, I think the GOP would be wise to take the moderate now instead of having to accept an extreme liberal in early 2017.

[up-country_sinclair]

No maybes about it.

No maybes, huh?

OK, in the 2 and half years since he was approved 97-0, how didn't he 'do a good job' or how has he been a disappointment?

Provide specific details.

Not hyper-partisan ad hominem nonsense.

Everything I've heard and read indicates this man is a moderate who puts his respect for the law above far above partisanship.

Edited February 15, 2016 by up-country_sinclair

[Jingthing]

I think he should nominate a highly qualified candidate that he knows they'll reject. That will frame the next election better. Why should he compromise with a bland milquetoast? Would republicans compromise? Change the court for next 50 years when Hillary is elected. Go for broke. Yes that pick would be a sacrifice so will need someone willing to volunteer for that.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

Of course Republicans don't want another Judge appointed before the election they want to plant their own co-conspirator.

The democrats want someone to help them circumvent the constitution and Obama already has a record of doing that. They are so sure that Hillary Clinton will be elected - despite her many crimes - and she would nominate someone like Obama or Michael Moore. What are they worrying about?

You nailed it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261834/obama-filibustered-justice-alito-voted-against-daniel-greenfield#

[Ulysses G.]

No maybes about it.

No maybes, huh?

No maybes.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obama-worst-president-since-wwii-108507

[up-country_sinclair]

What?

Is that really how you're going to attempt to backtrack out of a knee-jerk hyper-partisan reply?

You're going to claim that it was President Obama you were referring to and not Judge Srinivasan?

Some of the people reading this thread may have been born yesterday, but they weren't born last night.

Here's the post you replied to:

What does the Senate do I ask you, when Obama sends a nominee that the Senate approved several years previously 97-0 for an Appellate seat? What could the justification possibly be for withholding approval?

Maybe he didn't do a good job. Maybe he was a big disappointment.

And this is where you posted "No maybes about it".

[Ulysses G.]

I WAS referring to Obama and I'm guessing that NeverSure was too. When I see "not doing a good job", " a big disappointment", for some strange reason, Obama immediately springs to mind. No maybes about it.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

 

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

This is much, much more than a current political issue. The ramifications of who is chosen will affect Supreme Court decisions for decades, well past the lifetimes of many of us on this forum.

To accuse one side or the other with blocking a nominee or being unwilling to compromise on a nominee suggests that either side should ignore its core beliefs in the spirit of compromise.

That is really offensive in my opinion.

The statement is more rightwing absolutist absolutism in the absolute. The right will not accept an Obama nominee to the Court even before there is a warm body named and nominated.

It is not enough to the far out right that Republican and conservative justices have continuously dominated the Supreme Court since 1972. Indeed the justices in the majority since 1972 have always been Republicans who are conservatives.

(This is true despite a few Republican justices famously liberating themselves to join the more liberal Court groupings.)

Since Ronald Reagan advanced the reactionary rightist Scalia, a succession of almost all right wingers have been sent to the Court, as best exemplified by the legal oddball eccentric Clarence Thomas (appointed by GHW Bush).

It is time instead for some balance over the coming decades. The Court after all still has to recover from its 2000 election theft.

[up-country_sinclair]

I WAS referring to Obama

OK, then try to improve your reading comprehension skills so you don't keep wasting the time of other posters.

Anyway, I just took a look at SCOTUS blog, they make a compelling case for president Obama nominating Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

She was recently vetted, she was a tough prosecutor, and she's a black woman. That last one could be pretty impactful in an election year with a woman at the top of one of the tickets.

Say what you wish about President Obama but he's good at politics.

[Ulysses G.]

I WAS referring to Obama

OK, then try to improve your reading comprehension skills so you don't keep wasting the time of other posters.

Worry about your own reading comprehension skills. NeverSure is who I was responding to and he easily could have been referring to the Senate not wanting to cooperate with Obama, because he has been doing such a lousy job. I certainly would understand how they feel.

[arjunadawn]

The only thing the republicans have done in the past seven years is obstruct everything they possibly could.

It is the party of do nothing, and stop everything you can from being accomplished.

They are pretty good at it, but they have failed to stop Obama from much of what he tried to accomplish.

I am sure the party of sore losers, racists, and geriatric brats will do their best to deny the democrats their right to appoint another Justice.

But if there is any justice, they will fail.

I think their efforts will just turn more reasonable Americans against the Republican party and their childish antics.

RIP GOP in 2016!

And don't let the door hit you on your way out!

Hysteria. Exaggeration.

It can be offered- that the republicans have been obstructionist- but it is untrue. That does make it "exaggeration," at best. Republicans have evidenced big mouths, big words of obstruction, but have blocked little.

In fact, those who overwhelmingly voted to obstruct in mid term elections, find those elected did not obstruct- Thus the mutiny of the Republican Party. Were I a liberal and opposing G Bush I would have wanted my liberal representatives to do all they could to ensure his delusional ambitions were not inflicted upon my country. Likewise, those opposing the "fundamental transformation of America" would also want to ensure Obama had obstruction. In this case however, the republicans showed none of the balls and power of Pelosi and Reid. The republicans folded on nearly every issue. It is the nature of this capitulation that finally proved to all of America six of 1 1/2 dozen of the other.

Gridlock/obstruction remains a valid tool for grinding the gears of government to a halt; it is not a failure of the functioning of government, it is evidence of the success of the formula. It is pure fantasy that a government not producing legislation or consensus is a failed government. In fact, as wiser men have noted, it is when congress is functioning our liberties are the greatest peril. Gridlock is a valid tool. Gridlock may be great when your side is blocking, abhorrent when your being blocked. But honesty is imperative- it is a rational tool to stop impulsive or excessive turns of ideology. However, the Republicans were not that story. They have obstructed virtually nothing Obama has tabled.

Simply on face value the notion that 7 years ago the majority of America who wanted change earnestly wanted to "fundamentally change America" was abused in the first mid term election. Think on the radical nature of that defining phrase. America had buyer's remorse. The republicans elected to do something about it did not have buyer's remorse. They hardly obstructed Obama at all. Evidence- the last 7 years!

[Jingthing]

It could get even worse.

Much worse.

So they block Obama's pick and then Hillary is elected.

They might continue to block all democratic picks.

Indefinitely.

Yes, the republicans are THAT crazy.

We need to kick these radicals to the curb ASAP.

If that sounds unlikely, then you might want to familiarize yourself with today’s Republican Party. They haven’t just grown more ideologically conservative in recent years, they’ve also grown more procedurally radical. Again and again, they’ve decided that the system of formal and informal norms that make the government work can be discarded if it becomes inconvenient. Shut down the government? You bet!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/02/15/the-stalemate-over-the-supreme-court-could-get-even-worse-than-you-think/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[lannarebirth]

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

This is much, much more than a current political issue. The ramifications of who is chosen will affect Supreme Court decisions for decades, well past the lifetimes of many of us on this forum.

To accuse one side or the other with blocking a nominee or being unwilling to compromise on a nominee suggests that either side should ignore its core beliefs in the spirit of compromise.

That is really offensive in my opinion.

What does the Senate do I ask you, when Obama sends a nominee that the Senate approved several years previously 97-0 for an Appellate seat? What could the justification possibly be for withholding approval?

Because one group of senators voted one way years ago does not require current senators to vote the same.

So you're saying the vote is about the senators and not the candidate?

[lannarebirth]

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

This is much, much more than a current political issue. The ramifications of who is chosen will affect Supreme Court decisions for decades, well past the lifetimes of many of us on this forum.

To accuse one side or the other with blocking a nominee or being unwilling to compromise on a nominee suggests that either side should ignore its core beliefs in the spirit of compromise.

That is really offensive in my opinion.

What does the Senate do I ask you, when Obama sends a nominee that the Senate approved several years previously 97-0 for an Appellate seat? What could the justification possibly be for withholding approval?

Maybe he didn't do a good job. Maybe he was a big disappointment.

Well, that's quantifiable. One need only look to see how many of their decisions were overturned in the Supreme Court.

[Publicus]

 

Isn't there a tricky little bit in there somewhere about advice and consent "unless such consent is unreasonably withheld?" Is holding the process up one year "unreasonably withholding advice and consent?

Not that I'm aware of. The Senate blew away a Supreme Court nominee named Bork creating a new word "Borked". "He was Borked". Bork was nominated by the Republican Pres, Ronald Reagan.

Obama's nominee if any will likely be Borked.

Admittedly, I haven't cracked a Constitutional Law casebook in over 30 years, and though there is no explicit requirement of reasonableness in Article II of the Constitution, I seem to recall this in some case or other. I'm sure one of our resident Constitutional experts will be along shortly to confirm or deny.

I don't think there is a requirement of reasonableness but they did swear an oath to faithfully discharge their duties.

Indeed, whether the test is reasonableness or faithful discharge of duties, we are likely headed for eventually a Supreme Court case at the end of this to define exactly what are the duties of the Senate in these cases.

Sounds more like the doctrine of political question which if so would mean, as you'd know, the Court would toss it right back at 'em as not justiciable.

[NeverSure]

Well, the Dems shouldn't worry about it. After all, they are so certain that Hillary will win the election that if Obama doesn't get a pick through the Senate they'll have Her Royal Thighness^TM to make the next pick.

After all, it's apparent that the people of the US would never elect a Republican to anything...

[mopar71]

Well, the Dems shouldn't worry about it. After all, they are so certain that Hillary will win the election that if Obama doesn't get a pick through the Senate they'll have Her Royal Thighness^TM to make the next pick.

That's actually a good point. All I hear from the anti-Republican crowd is how they don't stand a chance against any Democrat in November. If they really believed that, then it wouldn't bother them at all if Obama didn't get his nominee approved. By caring, they betray their true feelings that the Dems are in big trouble come November.

[lannarebirth]

Well, the Dems shouldn't worry about it. After all, they are so certain that Hillary will win the election that if Obama doesn't get a pick through the Senate they'll have Her Royal Thighness^TM to make the next pick.

That's actually a good point. All I hear from the anti-Republican crowd is how they don't stand a chance against any Democrat in November. If they really believed that, then it wouldn't bother them at all if Obama didn't get his nominee approved. By caring, they betray their true feelings that the Dems are in big trouble come November.

I think that's a specious argument. I don't care particularly about the politics, if any, of the nominee. I care if they are intelligent, thoughtful, rational in their interpretation of the law. I also care that democracy in the US functions as it should and that each of the branches of government does their duty in compliance with oaths they have taken. Leaving a seat vacant on the high court for a year or more makes a mockery of the oath sworn and IMO leaves Senate obstructionists open to impeachment for failing to discharge their duties.

edit: Except for political candidates who may perceive some advantage in obstructionism, or at least talking about it, I fully expect the Senate will do it's duty, just as the President will do his.

Edited February 15, 2016 by lannarebirth

[NeverSure]

Well, the Dems shouldn't worry about it. After all, they are so certain that Hillary will win the election that if Obama doesn't get a pick through the Senate they'll have Her Royal Thighness^TM to make the next pick.

That's actually a good point. All I hear from the anti-Republican crowd is how they don't stand a chance against any Democrat in November. If they really believed that, then it wouldn't bother them at all if Obama didn't get his nominee approved. By caring, they betray their true feelings that the Dems are in big trouble come November.

I think that's a specious argument. I don't care particularly about the politics, if any, of the nominee. I care if they are intelligent, thoughtful, rational in their interpretation of the law. I also care that democracy in the US functions as it should and that each of the branches of government does their duty in compliance with oaths they have taken. Leaving a seat vacant on the high court for a year or more makes a mockery of the oath sworn and IMO leaves Senate obstructionists open to impeachment for failing to discharge their duties.

edit: Accept for political candidates who may perceive some advantage in obstructionism, or at least talking about it, I fully expect the Senate will do it's duty, just as the President will do his.

The Senators took an oath to confirm a nominee they don't approve of? You don't know about the term "Borked"? The Senators took an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they believe a judge wouldn't do that, they'll Bork him.

Cheers.

[Ulysses G.]

The Senate have to consider Obama's choices, but they are under no obligation to approve them. If he does not offer an acceptable candidate, before he leaves office, that is on him.

[lannarebirth]

Well, the Dems shouldn't worry about it. After all, they are so certain that Hillary will win the election that if Obama doesn't get a pick through the Senate they'll have Her Royal Thighness^TM to make the next pick.

That's actually a good point. All I hear from the anti-Republican crowd is how they don't stand a chance against any Democrat in November. If they really believed that, then it wouldn't bother them at all if Obama didn't get his nominee approved. By caring, they betray their true feelings that the Dems are in big trouble come November.

I think that's a specious argument. I don't care particularly about the politics, if any, of the nominee. I care if they are intelligent, thoughtful, rational in their interpretation of the law. I also care that democracy in the US functions as it should and that each of the branches of government does their duty in compliance with oaths they have taken. Leaving a seat vacant on the high court for a year or more makes a mockery of the oath sworn and IMO leaves Senate obstructionists open to impeachment for failing to discharge their duties.

edit: Accept for political candidates who may perceive some advantage in obstructionism, or at least talking about it, I fully expect the Senate will do it's duty, just as the President will do his.

The Senators took an oath to confirm a nominee they don't approve of? You don't know about the term "Borked"? The Senators took an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they believe a judge wouldn't do that, they'll Bork him.

Cheers.

I watched the Bork hearings. He lost because he was too extreme in his views, even by the standards most Republicans held then. He wanted to expand the role of the executive branch in government and didn't really think the Constitution granted anyone a right to privacy. The Republicans didn't really fight very hard for what they knew was a toxic candidate.

Edited February 15, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Publicus]

 

Well, the Dems shouldn't worry about it. After all, they are so certain that Hillary will win the election that if Obama doesn't get a pick through the Senate they'll have Her Royal Thighness^TM to make the next pick.

That's actually a good point. All I hear from the anti-Republican crowd is how they don't stand a chance against any Democrat in November. If they really believed that, then it wouldn't bother them at all if Obama didn't get his nominee approved. By caring, they betray their true feelings that the Dems are in big trouble come November.

I think that's a specious argument. I don't care particularly about the politics, if any, of the nominee. I care if they are intelligent, thoughtful, rational in their interpretation of the law. I also care that democracy in the US functions as it should and that each of the branches of government does their duty in compliance with oaths they have taken. Leaving a seat vacant on the high court for a year or more makes a mockery of the oath sworn and IMO leaves Senate obstructionists open to impeachment for failing to discharge their duties.

edit: Accept for political candidates who may perceive some advantage in obstructionism, or at least talking about it, I fully expect the Senate will do it's duty, just as the President will do his.

The Senators took an oath to confirm a nominee they don't approve of? You don't know about the term "Borked"? The Senators took an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they believe a judge wouldn't do that, they'll Bork him.

Cheers.

We know how and why Bork got Borked because the Senate held hearings (televised) in which the appeals court judge Bork stated his weirdo views and was further exposed during questioning by Senators. After Bork got Borked by the Senate he resigned his appellate judgeship.

The Senate needs to have hearings on President Obama's nominee which will of course be widely televised. That will mean the public will be able to see both sides in real time action. I look forward to it without reservation.

No hearings on the president's nominee would be even worse for Republicans across the country.

Four Republican senators are in serious reelection challenges when all the Democrats need is a net gain of four. Two other Republican senate seats are up for grabs. The vacancy on the Court and the vulnerability of Republican control of the Senate have a nexus that Republicans are now suddenly thinking more about in the days since Judge Scalia's death on the weekend.

[keemapoot]

 

Admittedly, I haven't cracked a Constitutional Law casebook in over 30 years, and though there is no explicit requirement of reasonableness in Article II of the Constitution, I seem to recall this in some case or other. I'm sure one of our resident Constitutional experts will be along shortly to confirm or deny.

I don't think there is a requirement of reasonableness but they did swear an oath to faithfully discharge their duties.

Indeed, whether the test is reasonableness or faithful discharge of duties, we are likely headed for eventually a Supreme Court case at the end of this to define exactly what are the duties of the Senate in these cases.

Sounds more like the doctrine of political question which if so would mean, as you'd know, the Court would toss it right back at 'em as not justiciable.

I think you're probably right on this one as Article II does give all rights to the Senate. However, I still wonder if there might be a justiciable action insofar as Senators willfully withholding their consent and advice. This case seems to be setting up an unprecedented 300 day plus delay which seems an unreasonable period of time to hold up one of the 3 important branches of government. I can see actions against individual Senators and class actions against groups of Senators for breaches of duty by constituents at least.

I imagine constitutional lawyers and legal scholars are burning the midnight oil now on this question in anticipation of the coming dispute.

[bendejo]

The thing that I really dislike about Obama is the way he lets the GOP push him around. I voted for him in 2008 but didn't bother to vote in 2012 because I felt that if he was going to let the GOP have their way then it would be like voting for them. If he lets them keep him from this nomination there is going to be a lot more use of the P-word, this time from the Dems. I also feel the Democrat leaders in Congress could have done more for him. Pelosi is a closet Republican as far as I'm concerned, and just as corrupt as one: she may have a few liberal causes, like pro-choice, but that's it, she's beholden to the entities that she takes money from. And Harry Reed is supposed to be this tough guy -- yeah right. Let's see if he hides under his desk the rest of the year to avoid this nomination stuff altogether.

[Publicus]

 

 

Admittedly, I haven't cracked a Constitutional Law casebook in over 30 years, and though there is no explicit requirement of reasonableness in Article II of the Constitution, I seem to recall this in some case or other. I'm sure one of our resident Constitutional experts will be along shortly to confirm or deny.

I don't think there is a requirement of reasonableness but they did swear an oath to faithfully discharge their duties.

Indeed, whether the test is reasonableness or faithful discharge of duties, we are likely headed for eventually a Supreme Court case at the end of this to define exactly what are the duties of the Senate in these cases.

Sounds more like the doctrine of political question which if so would mean, as you'd know, the Court would toss it right back at 'em as not justiciable.

I think you're probably right on this one as Article II does give all rights to the Senate. However, I still wonder if there might be a justiciable action insofar as Senators willfully withholding their consent and advice. This case seems to be setting up an unprecedented 300 day plus delay which seems an unreasonable period of time to hold up one of the 3 important branches of government. I can see actions against individual Senators and class actions against groups of Senators for breaches of duty by constituents at least.

I imagine constitutional lawyers and legal scholars are burning the midnight oil now on this question in anticipation of the coming dispute.

We are litigious indeed so I too would expect something along this line of legal pursuit. The Court just might hear it. Lawyers and political types are indeed very likely to give it a go.

I'd just wonder if the chief John Roberts might say something in advance of any possible litigation, not of course to discourage or encourage any filings, but, rather, to urge the Senate to act in a timely and in thus a Constitutional fashion. Roberts has made statements in the past in Congressional testimony to speed appointment and confirmation of lower federal courts judges to reduce existing vacancies.

This one might be too sensitive for the chief to speak publicly about. However, I'd wonder if Roberts might simply see making some sort of prodding statement as but an extension or a central part of his responsibility and duty as chief of the judicial branch.

Associate Justice Loretta Lynch btw? (I gotta run so I'd be pleased to pick up on this later today.)

[boomerangutang]

It was almost comical when, during the debate, the moderator asked Jeb (if he becomes prez) if he would have a 'litmus test' for nominating a supreme court justice. He started his response by saying 'no', but then all his follow-up articulation described how he would have a litmus test.

To his credit, Jeb was the only Rep debater who admitted that Obama, as chief exec, has the duty and the right to nominate someone. All the others acted as if Obama would be breaking the law by doing so.

[boomerangutang]

Well, the Dems shouldn't worry about it. After all, they are so certain that Hillary will win the election that if Obama doesn't get a pick through the Senate they'll have Her Royal Thighness^TM to make the next pick.

After all, it's apparent that the people of the US would never elect a Republican to anything...

You're right. Republicans do get elected. Though it's hard to fathom that, in light of their best and brightest speaking without teleprompters on a stage, a few days ago. At one point, while Jeb was praising his family; first his brother, then his dad, then his mom as being the greatest, ....Trump interjected, "then maybe she should be the candidate." You gotta see the humor in those debates, or else you'll go nuts. Carson is in a class by himself. I hope he's got some wake-up pills in his valise.

Who needs political satirists with Republican candidates like that? They write their own satire. These are salad days for late-night show hosts. They want Trump to be president (for the comic relief) - almost as much as gun-stroking rednecks. The type who don't want to see a brown-skinned man driving in their neighborhood unless he's wearing a straw hat and has a lawnmower in the back of his beat-up pick-up.

[Berkshire]

The thing that I really dislike about Obama is the way he lets the GOP push him around. I voted for him in 2008 but didn't bother to vote in 2012 because I felt that if he was going to let the GOP have their way then it would be like voting for them. If he lets them keep him from this nomination there is going to be a lot more use of the P-word, this time from the Dems. I also feel the Democrat leaders in Congress could have done more for him. Pelosi is a closet Republican as far as I'm concerned, and just as corrupt as one: she may have a few liberal causes, like pro-choice, but that's it, she's beholden to the entities that she takes money from. And Harry Reed is supposed to be this tough guy -- yeah right. Let's see if he hides under his desk the rest of the year to avoid this nomination stuff altogether.

You do realize that Republicans have the exact opposite view as you. They think the President has run roughshod over them, refusing to negotiate or compromise on a variety of issues. He must be doing something right if he's pissing everybody off.

[boomerangutang]

Well, the Dems shouldn't worry about it. After all, they are so certain that Hillary will win the election that if Obama doesn't get a pick through the Senate they'll have Her Royal Thighness^TM to make the next pick.

That's actually a good point. All I hear from the anti-Republican crowd is how they don't stand a chance against any Democrat in November. If they really believed that, then it wouldn't bother them at all if Obama didn't get his nominee approved. By caring, they betray their true feelings that the Dems are in big trouble come November.

Most Americans, particularly the majority who elected Obama (over Rep candidates), want to see the president do his job. One of his many responsibilities is proposing a nominee for a vacancy on the S.Court. Republican candidates are saying they don't want him to do his job. To quote Trump, "delay, delay, delay." .....and that's what Republicans are good at, whether having been elected to office or not. If the US had had a Rep prez, it's doubtful any progress would have been made on bringing countries ww together to lessen polluting fossil fuel emissions. Similarly, a Rep prez wouldn't have done anything to enable regular Americans access to health care. Their attitude is, "if you're not rich, you don't matter." Or, as Trump would say, "you're a loser!"