Obama SCOTUS nominee update

[WanderingWinoZ]

Somebody on TV last night siad he's submitted his 10 potential names to leaders in congress

I'm hoping anyway we will have an announcement

Loretta Lynch said NOPE

www.npr.org/2016/03/08/469722360/president-obama-meets-with-supreme-court-candidates



President Obama has begun interviewing candidates for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.



Sources close to the process say that among those being interviewed are Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; Judge Sri Srinivasan, of the same court; Judge Paul Watford, of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco; Judge Jane Kelly, of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis; and U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who serves in Washington, D.C.




Garland, the oldest at 63, is also by far the most experienced, a moderate liberal, with a long history as a prosecutor prior to joining the appeals court in 1997. In 2013 he became chief judge of the appeals court. Widely respected, he has few political pluses for the president, as he is neither female nor a member of any minority group. In addition, he has a 19-year judicial paper trail for opponents to flyspeck. But he is highly regarded by Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. Indeed, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch helped secure his confirmation to the appeals court.



Judge Srinivasan, 49, worked in the solicitor general's office in both the Bush and Obama administrations. Obama nominated him to the D.C. Appeals Court in 2012, and he was confirmed a year later by a vote of 97-0. He has less than a three-year judicial record, which in confirmation terms can be a plus, as now-Chief Justice John Roberts learned when he was nominated to the high court. Srinivasan was born in India and came to the U.S. with his parents as a child; if nominated, he would be the first Supreme Court nominee of South Asian descent.



Judge Watford, 48, was confirmed for a seat on the 9th Circuit in 2012 by a 61-34 vote, garnering both Democratic and Republican votes. In his three years on the court, he has earned a reputation as a smart and careful jurist; indeed, two of his opinions — one a dissent and one a majority opinion — were ultimately vindicated by the Supreme Court last term. If he were nominated and confirmed, he would be the third African-American to serve on the nation's highest court.




Kelly hails from Iowa, the home state of Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. But she, too, is a relative newcomer to the federal judiciary, and she served previously as a public defender — a job rife with potential political targets for Republicans.



Judge Brown Jackson is only 45, has been a district court judge for just three years, and received a relatively low rating from the American Bar Association at the time of her nomination — enough to get her confirmed but not enough to suggest that she was at that time a legal star. Her political pluses are that she has done well since becoming a judge, is related by marriage to House Speaker Paul Ryan and is African-American.



The president is moving ahead with the nomination process despite Republican senators' warnings that they will not consider — and will not even meet with — an Obama appointee. They want the next president to make that nomination.

[sfy]

Good. Doesn't the GOP have much bigger problems to worry about than trying to block my president's just due nomination? Priorities totally out of whack.

[WOT?*]

I posted this on FB earlier today with the doyourjob hashtag. (well, the shorter version people would hopefully actually listen to.)
Go Liz!

[katietornado]

Thanks for posting! Had not heard about this yet. I'm kinda hoping for Kelly or Brown-Jackson, because those will put extra pressure on certain Republicans.

[gpw]

Mar 10, 2016 11:55:09 GMT -5 sfy said:

Good. Doesn't the GOP have much bigger problems to worry about than trying to block my president's just due nomination? Priorities totally out of whack.

Yes.  JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!  Remember?  

Fuckers.

[WanderingWinoZ]

talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/take-it-to-the-people--2

We're listening to the Senate Judiciary meeting discuss the Republican refusal to hold any hearings on President Obama's forthcoming Supreme Court nominee. (You can see running updates in Livewire over to the right.) The number of phony historical precedents, misleading analogies and just flat out bullshit Republicans are coming up with is frankly amazing - not surprising but amazing in its creativity. Everybody knows what's happening. Everyone knows this is an entirely new thing. The stakes are high, yes. Everybody gets that. Apparently high enough to completely upend the practice of two centuries and at best ignore clear constitutional injunctions. But this again demonstrates that there's no point talking to people who are committed to bullshit.

Republicans say, "Let the people decide," ignoring the fact that the people already did decide. They elected President Obama President until late January of 2017.

But again, there's no point talking to people who are committed to bullshit. So here's a better idea: let's let this play out for endangered Senators in purple states. There's no power to compel Republicans to follow the rules. The only resort in our system is to the ballot. Republicans can talk all they want about polls. But they know the public is against them on this. They know this will likely cut against Senators in purple states, many of which are already in close races.

This is why Republicans are now publicly threatening any potential Obama nominee because they know that once there's a nominee this will hang over their necks for months. It's gotten so unhinged and desperate that their public statements are sounding creepily similar to how wife beaters rant at their abused spouses: Don't make me hurt you!

This has been the rationale for the GOP's SCOTUS "three nos" from the beginning. Stop the process before it gets underway in an election season because it will endanger embattled Republican senators who make up the margin of majority for Senate Republicans. If Republicans can get the President not to nominate someone - the political issue all but goes away. Now having failed to do that, they're trying to scare off potential nominees.

So yes, there's no point talking to people who are committed to bullshit. Hold the the Senators up for reelection in the purple states accountable. It's the right thing to do.

[WanderingWinoZ]

Sen. Ron Johnson: Of course we'd have a vote on SCOTUS if Obama were a Republican.

talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-johnson-republicans-scotus

During a Thursday morning radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) candidly explained that Senate Republicans would take a different approach to a Supreme Court nominee if a Republican president were in office and replacing a conservative justice.

Johnson was asked on Wisconsin radio show "Morning Mess" about Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's forthcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. The host hypothesized that things would be different if Mitt Romney were in the White House.

"It’s a different situation," Johnson said. "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you’re replacing — if a conservative president’s replacing a conservative justice, there’s a little more accommodation to it."

ADVERTISING

"But when you’re talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let’s face it, I don’t think anybody’s under any illusion — President Obama’s nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court," the senator continued. "And that’s the concern, is that our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, will be threatened. And so it’s an incredibly serious moment in terms of what’s the composition of the court going to be."

Johnson said that confirmation for a Supreme Court justice should wait until after the election.

"Let the American people decide. It’s a very reasonable, I think probably the fairest thing to do," he said.

Listen to audio of the interview from liberal opposition shop American Bridge:

[aurora]

Mar 10, 2016 12:42:42 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

Sen. Ron Johnson: Of course we'd have a vote on SCOTUS if Obama were a Republican.

talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-johnson-republicans-scotus

During a Thursday morning radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) candidly explained that Senate Republicans would take a different approach to a Supreme Court nominee if a Republican president were in office and replacing a conservative justice.

Johnson was asked on Wisconsin radio show "Morning Mess" about Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's forthcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. The host hypothesized that things would be different if Mitt Romney were in the White House.

"It’s a different situation," Johnson said. "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you’re replacing — if a conservative president’s replacing a conservative justice, there’s a little more accommodation to it."

ADVERTISING

"But when you’re talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let’s face it, I don’t think anybody’s under any illusion — President Obama’s nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court," the senator continued. "And that’s the concern, is that our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, will be threatened. And so it’s an incredibly serious moment in terms of what’s the composition of the court going to be."

Johnson said that confirmation for a Supreme Court justice should wait until after the election.

"Let the American people decide. It’s a very reasonable, I think probably the fairest thing to do," he said.

Listen to audio of the interview from liberal opposition shop American Bridge:

In addition to everything else...

...tell me again how a certain Presidential candidate's vow to ban Muslims from the country is consistent with this First Amendment right to religious liberty?

[sugarglider]

A classmate of mine is a clerk for one of those listed. (!!)

[mrsukyankee]

I hate people.

[sfy]

Mar 10, 2016 12:41:59 GMT -5 gpw said:

Mar 10, 2016 11:55:09 GMT -5 sfy said:

Good. Doesn't the GOP have much bigger problems to worry about than trying to block my president's just due nomination? Priorities totally out of whack.

Yes.  JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!  Remember?  

Fuckers.

I meant with their clusterfuck of candidates, but yes, that too!

[ESF]

Mar 10, 2016 11:55:09 GMT -5 sfy said:

Good. Doesn't the GOP have much bigger problems to worry about than trying to block my president's just due nomination? Priorities totally out of whack.

What really blows my mind is the game of Russian roulette they are playing. They are basically passing on a moderate in the hopes that they win both the presidency and keep control of the senate. That's a pretty reckless bet given the dumpster fire they have going on right now. I mean, sure it might work out in their favor, but the odds of a Clinton/D senate putting up the judicial equivalent of Bernie Sanders to replace their icon seem too high to ignore.

[mcsangel2]

Mar 10, 2016 12:42:19 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

But again, there's no point talking to people who are committed to bullshit. So here's a better idea: let's let this play out for endangered Senators in purple states. There's no power to compel Republicans to follow the rules. The only resort in our system is to the ballot. Republicans can talk all they want about polls. But they know the public is against them on this. They know this will likely cut against Senators in purple states, many of which are already in close races.

This is why Republicans are now publicly threatening any potential Obama nominee because they know that once there's a nominee this will hang over their necks for months. It's gotten so unhinged and desperate that their public statements are sounding creepily similar to how wife beaters rant at their abused spouses: Don't make me hurt you!

So yes, there's no point talking to people who are committed to bullshit. Hold the the Senators up for reelection in the purple states accountable. It's the right thing to do.

THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS. If I were in the DNC, I would be promoting Senate races all day long.

[aurora]

Mar 10, 2016 16:04:47 GMT -5 ESF said:

Mar 10, 2016 11:55:09 GMT -5 sfy said:

Good. Doesn't the GOP have much bigger problems to worry about than trying to block my president's just due nomination? Priorities totally out of whack.

What really blows my mind is the game of Russian roulette they are playing. They are basically passing on a moderate in the hopes that they win both the presidency and keep control of the senate. That's a pretty reckless bet given the dumpster fire they have going on right now. I mean, sure it might work out in their favor, but the odds of a Clinton/D senate putting up the judicial equivalent of Bernie Sanders to replace their icon seem too high to ignore.

Maybe they feel like they don't have much to lose? If they affirm a moderate or liberal justice now, the makeup of the court changes for sure (compared to Scalia). If they gamble, there is a chance they can keep a similar makeup. The "worst" case (from their perspective), is a liberal justice appointed by Pres. Clinton or Sanders, but maybe they don't think that's much worse than a moderate candidate today?

I admit I don't have much faith in our electorate to dramatically change Congress in the next election. I just think too many people don't really care about the makeup of SCOTUS and will have forgotten about this by the time they elect their senators in November.

[hopecounts]

Mar 10, 2016 16:22:31 GMT -5 aurora said:

Mar 10, 2016 16:04:47 GMT -5 ESF said:

What really blows my mind is the game of Russian roulette they are playing. They are basically passing on a moderate in the hopes that they win both the presidency and keep control of the senate. That's a pretty reckless bet given the dumpster fire they have going on right now. I mean, sure it might work out in their favor, but the odds of a Clinton/D senate putting up the judicial equivalent of Bernie Sanders to replace their icon seem too high to ignore.

Maybe they feel like they don't have much to lose? If they affirm a moderate or liberal justice now, the makeup of the court changes for sure (compared to Scalia). If they gamble, there is a chance they can keep a similar makeup. The "worst" case (from their perspective), is a liberal justice appointed by Pres. Clinton or Sanders, but maybe they don't think that's much worse than a moderate candidate today?

I admit I don't have much faith in our electorate to dramatically change Congress in the next election. I just think too many people don't really care about the makeup of SCOTUS and will have forgotten about this by the time they elect their senators in November.

I don't think people care about the SC which is why this could hurt the R's if you don't care about the SC the reasoning. For not voting doesn't matter it's the not acting. I think a lot of people are fed up with Congress not doing its job.
I would not be surprised if the DNC candidates could use this in Senate races (look at Senator X he supported the Republicans in not voting on the nominee and didn't do his job if I am elected I will do my job as Senator and get to work for state b and not let party politics interfere with my work).
Especially in purple states that aren't strongly R, of you focus on the not doing their constitutional duty you could really hurt so,e vulnerable seats.

[katietornado]

Mar 10, 2016 12:42:42 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

Sen. Ron Johnson: Of course we'd have a vote on SCOTUS if Obama were a Republican.

talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-johnson-republicans-scotus

During a Thursday morning radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) candidly explained that Senate Republicans would take a different approach to a Supreme Court nominee if a Republican president were in office and replacing a conservative justice.

Johnson was asked on Wisconsin radio show "Morning Mess" about Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's forthcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. The host hypothesized that things would be different if Mitt Romney were in the White House.

"It’s a different situation," Johnson said. "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you’re replacing — if a conservative president’s replacing a conservative justice, there’s a little more accommodation to it."

ADVERTISING

"But when you’re talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let’s face it, I don’t think anybody’s under any illusion — President Obama’s nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court," the senator continued. "And that’s the concern, is that our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, will be threatened. And so it’s an incredibly serious moment in terms of what’s the composition of the court going to be."

Johnson said that confirmation for a Supreme Court justice should wait until after the election.

"Let the American people decide. It’s a very reasonable, I think probably the fairest thing to do," he said.

Listen to audio of the interview from liberal opposition shop American Bridge:

Here's what the definition of "fair" is, in case you've forgotten, Mr. Johnson: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice

That doesn't sound anything like what you just said.  "If we had a Republican we'd do this.  Since we have a Dem, we're doing this."  THAT'S LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE OF FAIR.

Also, tell me how it's fair that the court has been 5-4 conservative for decades, and now there's an opportunity to be 5-4 liberal, and we can't possibly allow that.

[sfy]

Mar 10, 2016 16:04:47 GMT -5 ESF said:

Mar 10, 2016 11:55:09 GMT -5 sfy said:

Good. Doesn't the GOP have much bigger problems to worry about than trying to block my president's just due nomination? Priorities totally out of whack.

What really blows my mind is the game of Russian roulette they are playing. They are basically passing on a moderate in the hopes that they win both the presidency and keep control of the senate. That's a pretty reckless bet given the dumpster fire they have going on right now. I mean, sure it might work out in their favor, but the odds of a Clinton/D senate putting up the judicial equivalent of Bernie Sanders to replace their icon seem too high to ignore.

So true, but how many times have we seen them cut off their noses to spite their faces now?  Their goal is to block him at all costs.  Given that, he still gets a fair amount of what he wants, so I'm interested to see how this goes for them.  Seems like a good time to quote Real Housewives of Atlanta:  "You never can win when you're dirty!" 

[isabel]

Mar 10, 2016 15:15:49 GMT -5 aurora said:

Mar 10, 2016 12:42:42 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

Sen. Ron Johnson: Of course we'd have a vote on SCOTUS if Obama were a Republican.

talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-johnson-republicans-scotus

During a Thursday morning radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) candidly explained that Senate Republicans would take a different approach to a Supreme Court nominee if a Republican president were in office and replacing a conservative justice.

Johnson was asked on Wisconsin radio show "Morning Mess" about Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's forthcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. The host hypothesized that things would be different if Mitt Romney were in the White House.

"It’s a different situation," Johnson said. "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you’re replacing — if a conservative president’s replacing a conservative justice, there’s a little more accommodation to it."

ADVERTISING

"But when you’re talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let’s face it, I don’t think anybody’s under any illusion — President Obama’s nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court," the senator continued. "And that’s the concern, is that our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, will be threatened. And so it’s an incredibly serious moment in terms of what’s the composition of the court going to be."

Johnson said that confirmation for a Supreme Court justice should wait until after the election.

"Let the American people decide. It’s a very reasonable, I think probably the fairest thing to do," he said.

Listen to audio of the interview from liberal opposition shop American Bridge:

In addition to everything else...

...tell me again how a certain Presidential candidate's vow to ban Muslims from the country is consistent with this First Amendment right to religious liberty?

Or how a woman across the country getting an abortion impedes your ability to practice your religion?

[gretchenindisguise]

Mar 10, 2016 17:01:02 GMT -5 katietornado said:

Mar 10, 2016 12:42:42 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

Sen. Ron Johnson: Of course we'd have a vote on SCOTUS if Obama were a Republican.

talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-johnson-republicans-scotus

During a Thursday morning radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) candidly explained that Senate Republicans would take a different approach to a Supreme Court nominee if a Republican president were in office and replacing a conservative justice.

Johnson was asked on Wisconsin radio show "Morning Mess" about Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's forthcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. The host hypothesized that things would be different if Mitt Romney were in the White House.

"It’s a different situation," Johnson said. "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you’re replacing — if a conservative president’s replacing a conservative justice, there’s a little more accommodation to it."

ADVERTISING

"But when you’re talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let’s face it, I don’t think anybody’s under any illusion — President Obama’s nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court," the senator continued. "And that’s the concern, is that our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, will be threatened. And so it’s an incredibly serious moment in terms of what’s the composition of the court going to be."

Johnson said that confirmation for a Supreme Court justice should wait until after the election.

"Let the American people decide. It’s a very reasonable, I think probably the fairest thing to do," he said.

Listen to audio of the interview from liberal opposition shop American Bridge:

Here's what the definition of "fair" is, in case you've forgotten, Mr. Johnson: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice

That doesn't sound anything like what you just said.  "If we had a Republican we'd do this.  Since we have a Dem, we're doing this."  THAT'S LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE OF FAIR.

Also, tell me how it's fair that the court has been 5-4 conservative for decades, and now there's an opportunity to be 5-4 liberal, and we can't possibly allow that.

No no no. Fair means I get my way, duh.