Let's suppose that Obama nominates Brian Sandoval.

[StevieM]

The Republicans still won't agree to confirm him before the election.

And then if Hillary or Bernie wins the election they will insist that Sandoval remain the nominee. Then they will confirm him.

So if we lose the election we won't get a nominee confirmed to the court. If we win we will be forced to settle for Sandoval.

We would be better off having a Democrat nominated. If the GOP refuses to hold hearings we can renominate him or her in the next presidential term if we win. And if we lose then we are no worse off.

[lame54]

1. why will they insist on keeping him

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I certainly would hope they wouldn't.

I would hope Bernie would choose an actual Democrat, and Hillary would at least choose a Dino, rather than an outright declared Republican.

[StevieM]

7. Perhaps you don't like Hillary but I don't think there is any reason to believe that

her Supreme Court nominees would be any different Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer or Kagan.

She'll nominate the same types of people that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. If Obama nominates Sandoval, then I certainly hope she doesn't

'nominate the same kind of people that Barack Obama did'.

[StevieM]

13. I was referring to the people that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama actually did nominate. (eom)

[StevieM]

4. Because the Republicans would rather have Sandoval then a Democrat, if those are their only choices.

eom

[lame54]

6. what do the repugs wants...

have to do with Bernie or Hillary's choice for Supreme

[StevieM]

14. Maybe my post wasn't clear. I am saying that if they lose the election then at that point they will

turn around and confirm Sandoval, but before the election they won't even agree to that much.

My point is that we don't get anything by nominating Sandoval, and we might lose something.

If Obama nominates someone like Loretta Lynch then Hillary or Bernie can simply renominate her when they become president.

[Bucky]

2. But it's not going to happen. Obama's judicial picks are notoriously apolitical

[StevieM]

12. The nominee doesn't have to be political. When I say "a democrat" I mean someone who was

originally appointed by a Democrat and who will vote with the liberal wing of the court.

[Bucky]

18. In case you missed it elsewhere, vetting Sandoval is just Obama trolling the GOP senators

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brian-sandoval-supreme-court_us_56cdf699e4b0ec6725e4c4bf

[Gregorian]

5. I had this discussion yesterday, and they took one more step that I found interesting.

They said that if we didn't nominate a justice, and Trump won the election, we wouldn't get a worse justice than Scalia.

So almost no matter what, we end up ok. I guess. Sort of.

[StevieM]

9. I think Trump will nominate judges who will overturn Roe vs. Wade. (eom)

[Gregorian]

16. Yep. There's the flaw. Thank you, I should have known better.

[OldHippieChick]

15. The danger in a Trump win is not just one Justice.

Last edited Wed Feb 24, 2016, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Though I pray she lives to 100, Ruth Ginsberg has not been in good health for years and is 83. It is conceivable that Trump would get a 2nd and maybe a 3rd pick. This could affect the Court for decades. We do NOT end up ok.

[Gregorian]

17. That's true. It's more than this nomination.

Now it's back to fingernail biting. I like this forum because we can ask anything, and find out answers. Thanks.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

8. Spot on.

This is an excellent point.

[kentuck]

11. Why should the President feel pressured to nominate a Republican?

Let them obstruct.

When the Democrats win the next election, and maybe take the Senate, they can pick whomever they want. It is more important to get someone to repeal these obscene laws passed by a partisan conservative court than to simply get someone that the Republicans will vote for.

If Hillary or Bernie is elected and the Senate changes hands, Barack Hussein Obama could be on the Supreme Court at this time next year. Play hard ball.