Debate: Republican contenders say no court nominee for Obama

[boomerangutang]

Something else Republicans are wrong about: They want hemp to continue to be illegal to grow in the US. Indeed, Mr. Romney, when running for prez 4 yrs ago, was asked twice about his position on hemp, and both times he smiled and acted like he didn't know what hemp was - and said nothing. Well, statesmen from long ago weren't as coy and uninformed as Romney, Here are a couple quotes......

"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere."

- George Washington

"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."

- Thomas Jefferson

Incidentally, Sanders is in favor of liberalizing the growing of hemp and its cousin; pot. Allowing pot to be grown in CO, CA and WA has given a giant boost in revenue, ...both for hundreds of thousands of individuals (until corporations take it over), and for state tax revenues. Oh, and pot is much less harmful than alcohol (many would say pot is not harmful at all), and there are millions of testimonials about how pot (and its derivatives) are useful against cancer and other ailments. Big pharma doesn't want healing products on the market which they can't control and profit from, so obviously Big Pharma is against pot. It may be a relatively small issue on the campaign, but it will garner added votes for Bernie, and will take away votes from right-wing candidates, all of whom are stuck in the century-old mentality of continuing to criminalize hemp and pot.

[bendejo]

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.

Have you noticed they have a persecution complex? You needn't look very far. There's nothing like hearing a bully complain about being beat up.

He must be doing something right if he's pissing everybody off.

Breathing?

[Ulysses G.]

Have you noticed they have a persecution complex? You needn't look very far. There's nothing like hearing a bully complain about being beat up.

Sounds more like Hillary Clinton and her imaginary Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

[samran]

seeing the GOP candidates always take the 'I'm more Regan than Regan' pledge during every clownshow debate, I'm sure they wouldn't mind asking WWRD?

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4580714/president-reagan-constitutional-obligation

Edited February 16, 2016 by samran

[lifeincnx]

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.

So, if President Obama nominates a middle of the road, acceptable candidate and the Senate ties it up without confirming or votes it down, who is it "on" then?

As I'm waiting for replies that 'middle of the road' would be unacceptable, is Harriet Miers still interested?

[Pinot]

In all this discussion here and all over the web, the Republicans are screwed.

1. Obama will nominate and that nominee will probably be recently approved 97-0 from their last job. There are two judges to chose from with that qualification. If the Republicans don't allow approve they look like vindictive whining babies

2. If they block that nominee from being considered, Republicans will make that Supreme Court an election issue. Democrats get more people out to vote. Republicans get killed at the poles (which will happen anyway).

3. Scalia's death has changed everything. All the right wing bullshit laws interpreted by the wingnut former majority is going to get thrown out. It will happen if the Obama justice is approved or the next President's nominee.

4. So the the Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

5. The Republican hypocrisy is so YUGE, it will just reiterate how awful all Republicans are. Probably pick up the Senate with this. We'll have to wait for the new liberal Supreme court to throw out gerrymandering to pick up the house.

5. Not approving Obama's nominee doesn't really matter. The results will be the same.

Republicans are screwed. Som nom na (deservedly)

[lifeincnx]

Get used to the name of D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan. Dollars to donuts, President Obama will nominate him and Mitch McConnell's face will become an even sadder sack, if that's possible.

Edited February 16, 2016 by lifeincnx

[lannarebirth]

Get used to the name of D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan. Dollars to donuts, President Obama will nominate him and Mitch McConnell's face will become an even sadder sack, if that's possible.

I think Republicans would jump at the chance to approve a moderate. Nothing in this guys reported history labels him a liberal. They would build some goodwill which they're going to need if they want to retain control of the Senate.

[Ulysses G.]

If Obama actually nominates a truly non-ideological judge, the Republicans have won, but it does not sound like him. The Republicans don't want some far-left nut being foisted on the country.

[lannarebirth]

If Obama actually nominates a truly non-ideological judge, the Republicans have won, but it does not sound like him. The Republicans don't want some far-left nut being foisted on the country.

Would you say any of the sitting judges on the Supreme Court are far left nuts?

[Ulysses G.]

I would say that they vote on an ideological basis, rather then following the constitution strictly.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[NeverSure]

 

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.

Republicans in the Senate who want to get reelected aren't going to let Obama choose the next justice. End of.

[lannarebirth]

I would say that they vote on an ideological basis, rather then following the constitution strictly.

Not saying there is anything wrong with being an "originalist", but you won't find anyone that will tell you that appointing an originalist is a moderate choice. If Scalia were alive he'd say the same.

[NeverSure]

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.

I agree. But it's still proof and a precedent that the Senate doesn't have to confirm the choice of a POTUS.

American Republicans are sick of the American Republican politicians. Americans gave them the majority in the Senate in 2012 but the Republicans haven't kept their promises. See the Trump backlash against the Repub establishment, and it's huge. The Republican candidates who are anointed by the insiders are getting big rejection.

If the current Republican Senate gives Obama a pass on this after they were given the leadership in 2012, Trump will gain millions more votes. I suspect the Senate knows this.

Cheers.

[mopar71]

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.

I agree with this.

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.

I disagree with this.

If the seat is left vacant for a long time, it is not just because the Senate is being obstructionist. The President bears some responsibility as well. He must nominate someone likely to appeal to both sides. Here is an extreme example to illustrate my point: If Obama nominated Al Sharpton and the Senate failed to approve within a year does that make the Senate "obstructionist"? Of course not.

It seems we agree that the nominee (the person that liberal Obama chooses) must be "rational in their interpretation of the law. " I don't believe he can. I want a justice who can say, "I may not personally agree, but it is constitutional" NOT a justice who says, "I personally agree with it so I will vote for it despite it being unconstitutional".

We have a mechanism for changing the Constitution and it IS NOT done by Supreme Court Justices...or the President.

[lannarebirth]

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.

I agree with this.

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.

I disagree with this.

If the seat is left vacant for a long time, it is not just because the Senate is being obstructionist. The President bears some responsibility as well. He must nominate someone likely to appeal to both sides. Here is an extreme example to illustrate my point: If Obama nominated Al Sharpton and the Senate failed to approve within a year does that make the Senate "obstructionist"? Of course not.

It seems we agree that the nominee (the person that liberal Obama chooses) must be "rational in their interpretation of the law. " I don't believe he can. I want a justice who can say, "I may not personally agree, but it is constitutional" NOT a justice who says, "I personally agree with it so I will vote for it despite it being unconstitutional".

We have a mechanism for changing the Constitution and it IS NOT done by Supreme Court Justices...or the President.

I'm sure you'll disagree but I don't like having that 9 body group filled with judges that all approach the cases brought before them in the same way. I like that presidents of different parties can name moderates and the occasional outlier to the court. I'm as pleased to see an Antonin Scalia as I am a Thurgood Marshall. It is those justices at the outer boundaries, assuming they're intelligent and thoughful that help the court weigh all aspects of the law. I want the majority opinion to have undergone rigorous debate from those who dissent. That's the thing that has allowed Americans (for the most part) to accept the legitimacy of the court. If we only looked to what was actually said in the Constitution we could program a computer to render opinions.

I also like that some judges who are considered "known quantities" sometimes depart from what everyone expects they might do. As long as they defend their view with rigor I think that's fantastic. Even when I don't always agree.

Edited February 16, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Berkshire]

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.

I disagree with this.

If the seat is left vacant for a long time, it is not just because the Senate is being obstructionist. The President bears some responsibility as well.

The Senate is absolutely being obstructionist. The President hasn't even nominated anyone, yet, the Senate has already said whoever it is, they will reject. How can you say the President bears any responsibility at all if this is the case?

[SpokaneAl]

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.

I disagree with this.

If the seat is left vacant for a long time, it is not just because the Senate is being obstructionist. The President bears some responsibility as well.

The Senate is absolutely being obstructionist. The President hasn't even nominated anyone, yet, the Senate has already said whoever it is, they will reject. How can you say the President bears any responsibility at all if this is the case?

Nothing has happened as of yet except for bluster. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to wait and see, in that attempting to convince one another here that we know seems to be a bit of a lost cause and a waste of energy.

[mopar71]

If we only looked to what was actually said in the Constitution we could program a computer to render opinions.

How would a computer take the phrase that the gov't shall not establish a religion (like England had with the Church of England) and come up with children not being allowed to pray in school before class?

How would a computer look at "freedom of speech" and determine that it means it is OK to burn the flag?

How would a computer look at the 2nd Amendment?

Or any of the parts about Separation of Powers?

The list goes on and on.

But if we ever decide on a computer, who will be in charge of programming it?

[mopar71]

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.

I disagree with this.

If the seat is left vacant for a long time, it is not just because the Senate is being obstructionist. The President bears some responsibility as well.

The Senate is absolutely being obstructionist. The President hasn't even nominated anyone, yet, the Senate has already said whoever it is, they will reject. How can you say the President bears any responsibility at all if this is the case?

Because the President has not once in 7 years given any indication that he is willing to work with the other side, that he is willing to compromise. His first two years were a cakewalk because his party had total control (and they still needed to vote on Obamacare late on Xmas Eve). After two years when his rubber stamp was taken away he developed an attitude that he and he alone decides what the law should be. WHY should anyone, the Senate or anyone else, believe that Obama would try to appoint someone capable of ruling fairly at such a crucial point?

[stevenl]

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.

I disagree with this.

If the seat is left vacant for a long time, it is not just because the Senate is being obstructionist. The President bears some responsibility as well.

The Senate is absolutely being obstructionist. The President hasn't even nominated anyone, yet, the Senate has already said whoever it is, they will reject. How can you say the President bears any responsibility at all if this is the case?

Nothing has happened as of yet except for bluster. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to wait and see, in that attempting to convince one another here that we know seems to be a bit of a lost cause and a waste of energy.

Yes, could easily be just an attempt to get the most conservative candidate acceptable to Obama in the SC.

[sirineou]

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.

I agree. But it's still proof and a precedent that the Senate doesn't have to confirm the choice of a POTUS.

American Republicans are sick of the American Republican politicians. Americans gave them the majority in the Senate in 2012 but the Republicans haven't kept their promises. See the Trump backlash against the Repub establishment, and it's huge. The Republican candidates who are anointed by the insiders are getting big rejection.

If the current Republican Senate gives Obama a pass on this after they were given the leadership in 2012, Trump will gain millions more votes. I suspect the Senate knows this.

Cheers.

you mean american republicans dont think the republicans have being obstructionists enough? and if they are not more obstructionists they will punish them in the poles? There is not enough gridlock in congress? we need more?

Personally i think Republicans are schizophrenic, They are for smaller government yet they advocate greater government intrusion in our lives, ( end of life, reproductive choice, marriage, privacy, etc etc)

They are conservative and originalists on the constitution , until it interferes with their agenda, then they become liberal on their interpretation, ( where in the constitution does it say the Prez, cant apoint the last year of his term?)

PS: I dont have a higher regard for Democrats, I believe we are seeing the end of the two party system

Edited February 16, 2016 by sirineou

[Berkshire]

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.

I disagree with this.

If the seat is left vacant for a long time, it is not just because the Senate is being obstructionist. The President bears some responsibility as well.

The Senate is absolutely being obstructionist. The President hasn't even nominated anyone, yet, the Senate has already said whoever it is, they will reject. How can you say the President bears any responsibility at all if this is the case?

Because the President has not once in 7 years given any indication that he is willing to work with the other side, that he is willing to compromise. His first two years were a cakewalk because his party had total control (and they still needed to vote on Obamacare late on Xmas Eve). After two years when his rubber stamp was taken away he developed an attitude that he and he alone decides what the law should be. WHY should anyone, the Senate or anyone else, believe that Obama would try to appoint someone capable of ruling fairly at such a crucial point?

Man, talk about massive exaggeration. President Obama has already successfully nominated two Supreme Court Justices and the American way of life is still intact. Does that answer your question?

[Chicog]

Because the President has not once in 7 years given any indication that he is willing to work with the other side, that he is willing to compromise. His first two years were a cakewalk because his party had total control (and they still needed to vote on Obamacare late on Xmas Eve). After two years when his rubber stamp was taken away he developed an attitude that he and he alone decides what the law should be. WHY should anyone, the Senate or anyone else, believe that Obama would try to appoint someone capable of ruling fairly at such a crucial point?

It's amazing just how perceptions can vary (or better still, how much brainwashing has gone on).

And more to the point, why do the Senate have to believe anything? They have full access to the nominees and their past and get to question them at hearings.

You make it sound like it's a done deal the minute he names the name.

This is why Sri Srinisavan is a suggested pick; he passed vetting and hearings not that long ago and was approved unanimously.

Are we supposed to believe, when McConnell says it, that his whole past and views have changed because he's going for a different job?

I'm not that dumb. Are you?

The Republicans want *their* candidate, and they are prepared to ignore the US constitution to do it. That's why they said they would block before any name has been announced.

They are trying to invent an imaginary tradition when none exists, even though 14 judges have been appointed in Election years.

They are trying to quote another existing tradition, but even that explicitly says six months.

I would respect them more if they were honest.

But it's just another example of the GOP not wanting Obama to do *anything*. They don't care what it is or what good it does.

[lifeincnx]

If Obama actually nominates a truly non-ideological judge, the Republicans have won, but it does not sound like him. The Republicans don't want some far-left nut being foisted on the country.

Would you say any of the sitting judges on the Supreme Court are far left nuts?

Far-left nuts? As opposed to what, right- wing nuts?

What an absurd grade school question, for no one on SCOTUS is a nut. Granted, Justice Sotomayer tended to be positioned liberal, just as Scalia and Thomas leaned more conservative. Yet unlike Thomas, who votes strictly conservative, Sotomayer has broken tie votes and sided with Scalia (4th amendment, etc.).

Sotomayer or Ginsberg are not even close to being the most liberal in the court's history. Give that hallmark to Thurgood Marshall.

Speaking of Justice Thomas, now that Scalia is gone, I wonder if Thomas will ever ask a poignant question from the bench? Up to now, for his entire tenure this guy has only opened his mouth maybe once or twice. I give it to Scalia for having an inquiring mind.

Edited February 16, 2016 by lifeincnx

[keemapoot]

All this talk about right-wing nuts and left-wing nuts really has no place in discussions about Supreme Court Justice nominees. All of them will be of extremely high intellect and with superior skills and knowledge in jurisprudence; together with advanced reasoning and compromising skills.

Even the ones who were predicted to be one way often turned out to be another, so there is some unpredictability in the process. There are some who clearly are right or left leaning, but they rarely make it through the nomination process today, and certainly won't in this environment.

[SpokaneAl]

If Obama actually nominates a truly non-ideological judge, the Republicans have won, but it does not sound like him. The Republicans don't want some far-left nut being foisted on the country.

Would you say any of the sitting judges on the Supreme Court are far left nuts?

Far-left nuts? As opposed to what, right- wing nuts?

What an absurd grade school question, for no one on SCOTUS is a nut. Granted, Justice Sotomayer tended to be positioned liberal, just as Scalia and Thomas leaned more conservative. Yet unlike Thomas, who votes strictly conservative, Sotomayer has broken tie votes and sided with Scalia (4th amendment, etc.).

Sotomayer or Ginsberg are not even close to being the most liberal in the court's history. Give that hallmark to Thurgood Marshall.

Speaking of Justice Thomas, now that Scalia is gone, I wonder if Thomas will ever ask a poignant question from the bench? Up to now, for his entire tenure this guy has only opened his mouth maybe once or twice. I give it to Scalia for having an inquiring mind.

While it makes good theater, the back and forth between the justices and the attorneys is probably the most minor part of the legislative process, which is why the court goes into deliberation for months before rendering a verdict. Very little is gleaned from the oral presentations.

As other have said in response to attempted labeling of justices, I suggest we do the same when rendering an opinion on whether or not Justice Thomas has an inquiring mind. I have a friend who is a lawyer and always reads the opinions of Justice Thomas and has mentioned on several occasions concerning how impressed he is with the brilliance of this man.

[sirineou]

If Obama actually nominates a truly non-ideological judge, the Republicans have won, but it does not sound like him. The Republicans don't want some far-left nut being foisted on the country.

Would you say any of the sitting judges on the Supreme Court are far left nuts?

Far-left nuts? As opposed to what, right- wing nuts?

What an absurd grade school question, for no one on SCOTUS is a nut. Granted, Justice Sotomayer tended to be positioned liberal, just as Scalia and Thomas leaned more conservative. Yet unlike Thomas, who votes strictly conservative, Sotomayer has broken tie votes and sided with Scalia (4th amendment, etc.).

Sotomayer or Ginsberg are not even close to being the most liberal in the court's history. Give that hallmark to Thurgood Marshall.

Speaking of Justice Thomas, now that Scalia is gone, I wonder if Thomas will ever ask a poignant question from the bench? Up to now, for his entire tenure this guy has only opened his mouth maybe once or twice. I give it to Scalia for having an inquiring mind.

While it makes good theater, the back and forth between the justices and the attorneys is probably the most minor part of the legislative process, which is why the court goes into deliberation for months before rendering a verdict. Very little is gleaned from the oral presentations.

As other have said in response to attempted labeling of justices, I suggest we do the same when rendering an opinion on whether or not Justice Thomas has an inquiring mind. I have a friend who is a lawyer and always reads the opinions of Justice Thomas and has mentioned on several occasions concerning how impressed he is with the brilliance of this man.

I also have to agree with the above

by the time hearings are held, the justices have researched the case, know everything there is to know about it, and for the most part have already made up their minds.

[Grouse]

The next justice will be appointed by the new Republican POTUS and confirmed by the Republican majority Senate.

Get used to it.

Cheers.

Obama will put forward a reasonable choice

Senate will fail to approve

GOP finally shown to be the red necks they are

Democrats win the presidency

Game over

[boomerangutang]

Get used to the name of D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan. Dollars to donuts, President Obama will nominate him and Mitch McConnell's face will become an even sadder sack, if that's possible.

I think Republicans would jump at the chance to approve a moderate. Nothing in this guys reported history labels him a liberal. They would build some goodwill which they're going to need if they want to retain control of the Senate.

If you think that, then you haven't been paying attention. All Republican politicians (and a certain mop-haired wannabe-politician) have declared they will do all they can to stifle any one of Obama's nominees. It won't matter whether the nominee is a moderate or a watusi, that person won't get Republican yes votes.

Nothing has happened as of yet except for bluster. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to wait and see, in that attempting to convince one another here that we know seems to be a bit of a lost cause and a waste of energy.

Actually a few things have happened recently. #1 all the Republican candidates (who probably think like Republican senators) have made it crystal clear they will either vote against ANY nominee and/or "delay delay delay" (to quote the sage Mr. Trump). Additionally, the prez has, in the spirit of fair play (something Republicans have no inkling about) has decided to wait until the senators' recess is over, before nominating someone.