Supreme Court

GOP Presidential Candidates Agree: Obama Shouldn't Nominate Scalia's Replacement

President says he's going to try anyway.

|

Justice Scalia
Credit: SteveMasker / photo on flickr

Right before tonight's Republican primary debate began (yes, there's another one), President Barack Obama took to the airwaves to say some kind comments about the career of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died earlier today at the age of 79: "He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court."

Obama also said that he will nominate a replacement for Scalia, despite his term coming to an end and despite having a Republican legislature that is not very interested in playing ball.

At the debate, and prior to the debate in public statements, the GOP candidates all agree (for obvious reasons): the president should not attempt to replace Scalia and leave the nomination to his successor.

The Washington Post took note of the pre-debate comments and folded in the comments on stage, as dealing with Scalia's death was the very first question:

Donald Trump said in Saturday's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina that if he were president now, he would try to nominate a successor for deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but he said it is incumbent on Republican Senate leaders to prevent the confirmation of President Obama's eventual nominee.

"I think it's up to Mitch McConnell and everyone else to stop it. It's called delay, delay, delay," he said.

Other candidates at the debate said that Obama should not nominate a new justice, praised Scalia's service on the court and urged a conservative replacement.

"Barack Obama will not have a consensus pick," said former Florida governor Jeb Bush.

"I just wish we hadn't run so fast into politics," said Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Kasich said that if Obama were to nominate a justice, he would prefer somebody that is likely to get unanimous support. But since that is not likely to happen, he would prefer the president to decline and leave it to his successor.

Cruz presented the possibility of Obama selecting Scalia's replacement as a grave threat to conservatism, suggesting that America is just "one judge away" from overturning state restrictions on abortion, overturning individual gun ownership rights from the Heller decision and threatening religious liberty.

Hillary Clinton was predictably aghast at the idea that Obama should not nominate Scalia's replacement:

"The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution," she continued. "The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."

But they can just vote "no" for partisan political reasons, and that seems very likely to happen. Obviously Clinton had to say that, not just for the party and for the president but for her campaign that embraces Obama's legacy.

But in reality, politically, Clinton just got handed a huge tool to get out the vote, and assuming she is able to hold off Sen. Bernie Sanders and his supporters, she's going to need it. How many times have we heard this election cycle that the next president will select three or four Supreme Court justices? How many times have we heard it just today? It's no longer an abstract nudge. It's happening right now. So if Obama is not able to get a nomination through the Senate, Clinton will get to make the same argument as Cruz from the opposite direction in order to get voters who may not find her the most inspiring of choices to reluctantly go to the polls. As Cruz made clear at the debate tonight, certainly he's definitely going to use it motivate voters.

NEXT: Flashback: Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution against election-year Supreme Court recess appointments

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And the hate train is leaving the station!

    1. Hatred of progressives is a GOOD thing. They have no right to exist. Best to exterminate them like termites.

      1. Sadly, progressives are the ones who historically do the exterminating.

        1. Citation?

    2. What Obama will do is select a recess appointment to fill Scalia’s seat within the next couple of weeks to help push through the pending judgements. Whichever party wins in November will be able to select a permanent appointment.

      I’m disappointed but not surprised Scott Shackford didn’t do his homework before writing this article.

  2. It’s a good thing Mitch McConnell has never voted to confirm a Supreme Court justice in February of a sitting president’s lame-duck year before, otherwise he’d look like a huge tool.

    1. Don’t forget the part where Bork was defeated on the Senate floor and Ginsburg withdrew. The appointment should have been filled months prior.

      Hopefully republicans will shoot down Obama’s first 2 nominees and Obama will nominate a candidate that is as conservative as Kennedy is liberal.

      1. I wouldn’t let Obama get ANYONE through, No more progressive bullshit.

    2. Remember that guy, Harry Reid? Oh yeah, he’s still around. This is Washington DC. Huge tools abound.

  3. Don’t worry, Obama will sit down with some “moderate Republicans” and they’ll agree on someone “everyone can live with.”*

    Maybe a Senator or ex-Senator.

    *Except the unborn

    1. *Except the unborn

      come on Eddie. You’re a smart guy with opinions I enjoy reading. Are you gonna let abortion become your one and only lens to view everything through?

      1. how many fetusses have to die on this hill

          1. Every time I hear birth-forcers whining about the loss of power to force others to raise them litters of potential Hitlerjugend brainwashees I am reminded of how ending Prohibition was going to turn These States into a Witch’s Sabbath of Demonic Glee. I am also reminded of how overpopulation causes huge increases in death rates everywhere it occurs. What did Ayn say about mysticism and death?

            1. As long as we ignore the NAP in regard to fetusus…

            2. Good point on overpopulation; if you want to solve it, why not start with yourself?

            3. Holy straw man, batman!

        1. If something is located inside your body, then you are entitled to have it killed no matter what it is. If all the people in the whole world were assembled inside your body, then you would be entitled to holocaust them. That’s part of the meaning of the word “your” in the phrase “your body”. If God were located inside your body, then you would be entitled to kill God.

          1. Not if you invited it in, via, i dunno, having consensual sex or something WILD like that.

          2. Yeah, I know we’ve seen this convo play out plenty of times, but;

            If you literally put those people there through your willful actions, it would still be murder. If you literally put David Hasselhoff in your body, you couldn’t use the defense “It’s my body!” and get off Scott free with killing him.

  4. He’s got 10 months.

    1. No. Maybe til November.

      If Repubs win, no way they accept Obama’s appointment.
      If Repubs lose, then it depends on the nominee.

  5. And if the Supremes have any 4-4 decisions this term, things will get even more fun.

    1. Affirmative Action. I’m sure they’ll end that with an 8-0.

    2. Like EPA’s CPP and Friedrich? I don’t see any ‘if’ about it.

  6. McConnell claims there will be no vote on any Obama nominee. But we’ll see if the GOP with their mad negotiating skillz find a way to cave in. If anyone can botch this, they can.

    1. One possibility: Obama is looking for some Republican hack who is “widely respected by his peers” (that is, didn’t do anything to rock the boat), and try to pick up some Republican Senators to vote for that hack.

      1. You talkin’ ’bout Associate Justice John Boehner?

        1. Good think I hadn’t eaten recently, you’d owe me for a new keyboard.

        2. Are you suggesting orange would be the new black?

          1. You win the internet today.

      2. Roberts already is on the court.

    2. Indeed.

    3. Maybe so, but just be grateful that Boehner isn’t around. Ryan’s a statist tool but at least he won’t cry as he buckles under. He’s less likely to totally botch this than his predecessor.

      1. You voted for Trudeau, so your confusion is obvious, but the House has nothing to do with SC Justices down here.

        1. Cruz is the only Canuckistani who understands basic US civics.

        2. No I didn’t stop lying. Fair point otherwise, but Boehner still does not have indirect influence.

          1. You’re right, Boehner still does not have indirect influence.

            1. Did his wife get indirectly pregnant?

  7. “The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution,”

    This from the obvious felon running for national office!
    Ha and ha!

  8. Obama can nominate a replacement and the Senate can say no. What’s so controversial about that?

    1. You’re right according to the Constitution.

      BUT OBAMA! HE A KENYAN!

      1. Failed the Turing test. Try again.

        1. Lil’ Taco is a moron, by the way.

          1. Palin’s Buttplug|2.13.16 @ 10:52PM|#
            “Lil’ Taco is a moron, by the way.”

            ::::Knock, knock::::
            Is this thing on?

      2. Hey, don’t you owe Playa some money? When you gonna pay up?

        1. Haven’t been on in a while. What happened?

        2. Everyone knows wagers made with HandR commenters aren’t real.

          Paging jesse….

      3. No. Obama is a communist traitor. Like you.

      4. PB’s lack of creativity, wit, functioning frontal lobes makes reading his comments such a chore.

        Can we send him back out into the outer darkness again?

      5. Reminds me of the libertarian troll where someone had an “Obama is a Keynesian” sign at an Occupy Wall Street event.

    2. The fact that they’re saying “no” before he even nominates anyone.

      They’re utterly retarded. You know BO is going to nominate some far left wingnut the first time around, and they could have just stalled that nomination while claiming to be open to a reasonable nominee. But no, they’re showing their hand before Scalia’s body gets cold.

      1. Budd|2.13.16 @ 11:07PM|#
        “The fact that they’re saying “no” before he even nominates anyone.”

        Has tulpa….fragrance…

      2. Unfortunately, Tulpa has a point here. They are being dumb.

        1. Holy fuck.

          I agree with Tulpa and Cyto.

          The end really is nigh.

        2. Republican senators know what they are going to be voting on so they are saving folks the trouble of wasting time for the hearing before saying “No.”

          1. What they are doing is letting everyone know that they are going to be unreasonable and are not going to faithfully execute their oath of office. Super-dumb move. Pandering and posturing before the base in order to win a few temporary “hell-yeah” hurrahs from your homies at the expense of long term success is really dumb.

            They may have had some bizarre notion that they could pull a play from the democrat playbook and telegraph their move and have the media carry their water for them, but that just proves their senility.
            (I’m talking about Clinton with shutting the government down – twice, The democrats in the house and senate refusing to send up any bills to Bush I without a tax increase attached, Obama saying he’d shut the government down and block popular services and blame the Republicans, heck, we even had the democrats conspiring with the media for an “October Surprise” on Bush regarding his supposed AWOL status – the Dan Rather screw-up was supposed to be a part of a week-long coordinated effort across a half-dozen major media outlets. The list goes on and on – all telegraphed in advance as a scheme to attack republicans being carried out by democrats, and all succeeded.)

            1. But gramma and the 30-year old kid living in the badement still get their checks.

              It isn’t pandering before the base. To put another socialist on the court means at least a decade of more socialism if not collapse/civil unrest.

            2. What they are “letting everyone know” is they expect Obama to be his unreasonable petulant and demanding self, selecting a candidate that is simply unacceptable to the party in control of the Senate.

              If Obama proves them wrong then perhaps we can argue about the need for a vote.

              Until then, your argument is bootstrapping at best.

      3. They’ve dealt with this guy for eight years. They know what’s coming.

        This is a non-starter; they’re just eliminating any doubt amongst the GOP base who are anxious and very angry right now. The republicans are under no obligation to do some kabuki dance with the president here just to sooth the delicate sensibilities of our media.

        1. They kind of are obligated though, at least as far as many people are concerned.

          Why show your hand? Why not just keep your lips tight and the cards close?

          1. Because it’s the dead-middle of primary season and an even more apoplectic base is likely to just hand this whole thing to Trump once and for all.

            GOP leadership needs to get out in front of it immediately to reassure voters that the establishment is not going to just fold up this time, otherwise they may as well just cancel the remainder of the primaries.

        2. The Senate is under no obligation not otherwise specified within their own rules. Advice and consent from an elected body always being a political act. The Senate’s prerogatives do not come with any other strings attached.

      4. He can nominate a hundred faggot cookies for all I care. And every one of them should be rejected out of hand.

        1. ‘Commies’. Fucking cunt autocorrect.

          1. I dunno, ‘faggot cookies’ works pretty good too.

            1. Yup, I thought it read fine, better than the correction.

              1. Yea, stick with “cookies” made sense to me.

                1. Ok. Then it’s faggot cookies. With pink frosting. And sparkles.

        2. Does anyone have a faggot cookie recipe? Is it anything like upsidedown cake?

          1. Fudge with a dash of victimhood.

          2. Oh, Scott? Please publish your cookie recipe for Chumby.

  9. I love Kimberley Strassel’s beady little eyes but she was much cuter when she had crooked teeth. She didn’t get ’em fixed until she was on TV all the time.

    1. Her fixed smile is a little disconcerting.

  10. Wait, Hillary Clinton is concerned about the Constitution?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. I imagine the laugh you typed in Cankle’s phony cackle.

  11. Reason took a post off the H&R page.

    1. They dunked the “Happy Birthday” thread below the Scalia obituaries.

    2. Perhaps a gag-order for singing “Happy Birthday”

      1. Someone made the mistake of saying, “Happy Birthday! You sure look chipper!”

  12. “The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution,” she continued. “The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons.”

    Their constitutional duty is to advise and consent. There is no right to dissent. Saying “No” is an abdication of their constitutional duty. And Hillary knows her some Constitution, almost as well as Obama.

    1. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to destroy people like her and her fo,lowers. Like Joe McCarthy did back in the 40’s. Wonderful days………

    2. Your definition of consent is to rubberstamp.

  13. The Rs should take the first nominee and put him or her through absolute Hell for a month as a warning to others. Just rip the person’s life apart.

    After that see if anyone is willing to be a nominee. If yes, repeat as needed.

    1. Yeah, remember the intense questioning they gave Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

      /sarc

      1. I don’t, but things are different now.

        Obstruct, divide, delay.

        1. Hopefully that will happen.

          Not by making up stuff to smear the nominee with, but just pointing out where they advocated bad legal ideas.

          1. I’m not saying make things up, but you can extrapolate and present scenarios that might happen if the new person is on the court.

            Also it’s permissible, if needed, to go after the nominee’s family and business connections.

            1. Ok. The orogressives like to play that way. So let’s play that game. If a progressive isn’t afraid to leave their home in the morning then we’re doing it wrong.

              1. The problem is the repubs are pussies who get cowed by the progressive media – they are concerned about being meany-pants on some MSNBC segment no one is watching anyways. Hence why Obama got two free passes from both the media AND his republican challengers.

  14. Art. II, ? 2, cl. 2 states:

    [The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court [….]

    I’m not seeing where the Senate must confirm the President’s nomination or how its refusal to do so is an “abdication” of its constitutional responsibility.

    1. It’s not a violation of the letter of the constitution, but it is a violation of the spirit. The Senate is supposed to consider the president’s nominations in good faith.

      Even if all the GOP’s dreams come true in the 2016 elections, the Dems can still block the new president’s nominees via the filibuster. Hard to see how the GOP will be able to complain about that (but they will).

      1. Wishful thinking to believe that if the Republicans act in good faith, Democrats will return the favor. As Jackass refuses to mention below, Democrats are as responsible for “dysfunctional” government as Republicans – the former never compromises in the true sense of the word.

      2. Ah yes, the ol’ “violation of the spirit.”

        By the way, the actual text of your comment is mute on this point, but the spirit of your comment says: “I am a retard.”

      3. Budd|2.13.16 @ 11:13PM|#
        “It’s not a violation of the letter of the constitution, but it is a violation of the spirit. The Senate is supposed to consider the president’s nominations in good faith.”

        You tried floating this in that other thread and I don’t believe you’ve yet answered:
        Please tell us how you find ‘the spirit of the constitution’ here, and tell us why you find that.
        Yep, just checked; you haven’t answered it over there.
        And I ask again, since you smell the same; are you tulpa?

        1. Reach deep into the “feelz” section of the Constitution, it’s all explained in detail there.

          1. I thought it was part of (government insured) life, (common sense allowances on) liberty, and the pursuit of fairness.

    2. They could take ten months to debate the first nominee and then vote no.

      1. Like Hillary slow walking the release of her emails . .

  15. This debate is just one rolling disaster. I wonder if any of these people understand independents are watching. If they think their performance is attractive, they’re nuts. They look like grade schoolers.

    1. Jackand Ace|2.13.16 @ 10:31PM|#
      “This debate is just one rolling disaster”

      It was fine until you showed up, jackshit. When you rise to the level of grammar school get back to us.
      Oh, and fuck off, slaver.

    2. You support those democrat tools. Your perspective is meaningless. I suggest suicide.

    3. Jack

      You hoping gor the day all us plebes are required to put up wind turbines on our rooftops or pay a penalty/tax?

  16. Robo-con believes curing poverty involves state-change of poor, suggests plasma”

  17. “Knife-wielding man blames government”

  18. “Ohio radical enthusiastic about economy exploding”

    1. What are you drinking, and where can I purchase?

  19. “Donald Trump: you swear too much.”

    Who gives a shit?

    1. Her actual words:

      1) “Where is the God damn flag? I want the God damn fucking flag up every morning at fucking sunrise”. Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991.
      From the book “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 244.

      (2) “Fuck off! It’s enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut.” Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with “Good Morning.”
      From the book “America Evita” by Christopher Anderson, p.90.

      (3) “If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!” Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.
      From the book “The First Partner” p. 25.

      (4) “Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck back away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!?” Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.
      From the book “Unlimited Access” by Clinton ‘s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139.

      (5) “Where’s the miserable cock sucker?” (otherwise known as “Bill Clinton”)
      Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.
      From the book “The Truth about Hillary” by Edward Klein, p. 5.

      (6) “You fucking idiot” Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.
      From the book “Crossfire” p. 84.

      1. Cont’d:

        (7) “Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those fucking sunglasses!
        We need to go back!” Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while in route to Air Force One.
        From the book ” Dereliction of Duty” p. 71-72.

        (8) “Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can’t fuck her here!!” Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female.
        From the book “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 243.

        There it is ……..book, chapter and page…….the real Hillary. Now it will be clear why the crew of “Marine One” helicopter nick-named the craft, “Broomstick ONE “

        1. What a delicate flower.

          1. Don’t stop. This is pure gold!

        2. Hope her IT guys write a book!

  20. “Florida man called a liar by NY douchebag.”

  21. God, all the candidates have been annoying as fuck, with the exception of Ben Carson’s “evil government” line.

    1. Trump hates the Bush clan. He’s the frontrunner, in part, because he never misses a chance to dump all over them. Especially tonight. I gotta respect that.

  22. Great, now the tickets for 2016 will have three names instead of two.

    I think any chance Bernie had is toast. Do they really want to place their bet on the crazy socialist old man from Vermont when a SCOTUS nom is immediately at stake?

    1. This. There was no reason to believe the superdelegates were going in for him. Now there is every reason to believe they and the DNC will actively push Bernie out.

      1. If he issues a press release right now saying he would nominate Obama, he’s guaranteed the nomination and the general.

        And I’ll begin looking for information on emigrating.

        1. No. This is almost as retarded as your ‘Trump will beat Hillary’ fantasy.

          1. Trump WILL beat Hillary and I despise Trump. I despise Hillary 10xs more, however.

            But this isn’t a fantasy. Trump will easily beat Hillary. I think Trump will flip California red.

        2. I’m stayin’ in the good ol’ USA so long as it ain’t Kasich.

          1. You’d flee the US over Kasich, but you’d remain to watch the US bern to the ground?

            I think you’re just joshing for the target-rich environs once Bernie completely fucks the financial system up and the EBT cards cease to function. If you need a spotter, don’t hesitate to call.

    2. I’m seriously interested in who Sanders would nominate. His head is so far in the clouds, I wonder if he’s ever thought about actual individuals he would like to see up there. I bet he just remembered this evening that, oh yeah, he’d have this responsibility.

      1. He would probably nominate Bill Ayers.

      2. Toyota Prius.

      3. I assume he’d complain that 100% of the Supreme Court positions go to the privileged 0.4% of the population with law school degrees, and appoint a fourth grade teacher to the court so the system is less rigged.

  23. “Miami-area man has public crush for corpse”

  24. Kasich is an anagram for earmarks.

  25. I hope the Republicans live up to billing as the Party of Obstruction. I feel a lot better about them being able to do that knowing that Boehner is gone.

    And if Republicans (not just Presidential candidates, but Senate candidates, too) ultimately start billing themselves as the Party of the Bill of Rights because of Scalia’s death, that would be great. And I don’t think that’s too much of a stretch.

    It doesn’t help with Trump promising to violate the religious rights of Muslims, but the idea that voting for Republicans in the Senate is the most important thing you can do to protect First Amendment religious freedom from accommodation, First Amendment free speech from political correctness and hypersensitivity, the Second Amendment from progressives generally, etc.–that’s a winning argument for a lot of swing voters.

    1. Any republican,itis labor who votes for an Obama nominee should be run out of office.

    2. Boehner vs. Ryan’s irrelevant; it’s a 100% Senate job.

    3. “And if Republicans (not just Presidential candidates, but Senate candidates, too) ultimately start billing themselves as the Party of the Bill of Rights because of Scalia’s death, that would be great.”

      They’d have to really mean it though, where freedom of speech/expression and right to privacy are concerned.

      If enough of them maintain that “there’s no right to privacy in the 4th Amendment” or they waffle on flag-burning or pornography or rap lyrics, they’ll continue to be seen as hypocrites, I don’t care how much they scream “because CHILDREN!”.

  26. Holy fucking Jebus did any of you Team RED! Peanuts watch this sorry spectacle of a debate tonight?

    What an embarrassment for the GOP.

    1. Palin’s Buttplug|2.13.16 @ 10:50PM|#
      “Holy fucking Jebus did any of you Team RED! Peanuts watch this sorry spectacle of a debate tonight?”

      Turd, you seem to think there are those here as partisan and as stupid as you are.
      Go fuck your daddy. And pay off your bet, shitbag.

    2. Hey everybody! “Palin’s Buttplug” thinks Republican candidates are embarrassing.

      Isn’t that fascinating?

      1. Well, he is not wrong.

        1. He says the same shit in every thread every day for ten years; you’d figure he’d have to be right eventually.

    3. Just admit it: You are Bernie Sanders.

      1. Not sure.
        The Bern seems to be more honest than turd, and without seeing pictures, it could well be he is better at personal grooming.

        1. Fair enough. Perhaps he’s a growth that was removed from Bernie then.

          Did you see TSLA’s latest results? They continue to Bern thru cash, but the market bought the “we promise to sell more cars this year for realz!” schtick. Solar City also completely shit the bed.

          1. “Did you see TSLA’s latest results?”

            I posted a link under one of your comments earlier this week: $900M loss, but it’ll get better, since ‘people will stop buying those high-fuel-cost, low-tank-range other cars!’ (E. Musk)
            I don’t tread individual equities, but if I did, I’d short TSLA now, since even his $5K/unit from the taxpayers is sched’d to end soon.

            1. Missed that. Sorry.

              1. No sweat, and it should read: “I don’t trade…”
                But I’m still temped to short it with some change…

  27. “Knife-wielding man rants about communism, constitution”

  28. “Robo-con: I did not like The Bird Cage

  29. Has Trump finally jumped the shark?

    1. Kicking Jeb! while he’s down is just smart politics. So’s kicking Lindsey in front of an audience made up exclusively of SCGOP hacks.

  30. Vote Charlie Sheen – GOP 2020!

    He’s like Trump, but dreamier.

    1. BernBot 2.0

    2. He’ll be dead before 2020

  31. “Trump: Bill of Rights to be replaced with Ten Amendments of Winning”

  32. But in reality, politically, Clinton just got handed a huge tool to get out the vote

    No fucking kidding. The GOP is throwing its brain out the window on this issue.

    As Cruz made clear at the debate tonight, certainly he’s definitely going to use it motivate voters.

    Conservatives are already motivated to GOTV. This doesn’t really help at all.

    1. It’ll help Hillary lock up the nomination from the Bernie insurgency but it won’t have much effect in the general. The only people motivated to vote because of SCOTUS are uber-progs that were going to dutifully show up anyway.

      The key to Hillary winning would be securing white working class support, which has nothing to do with who she would put on the Supreme Court.

      1. In 2012, Romney won independents by a wide margin and still lost the election.

        High Democrat turnout = Republican loss

        1. Romney stunk as a candidate and didn’t motivate republicans.

          1. Get used to that. Whoever wins the nomination this time around is also going to be hated by half the party.

            1. Then they’re doomed anyway.

              Cruz stands the best chance of uniting them. Most of the Trumptards would probably fall in line with him.

              1. No Republican disliked Romney as much as the establishment and moderate segment of the GOP hates Cruz. He’s going to be completely dependent on hate for Hillary to drive turnout.

                Trump is probably running 3rd party, anyway.

                1. Do moderates especially hate Cruz? I doubt it’s enough that they stay home in an election with Hillary.

                  1. You would think. But some Republicans stayed home when given the chance to vote against Obama in 2012, so who knows.

                2. Trump’s the presumptive nominee at this point.

                  1. Trump’s the presumptive nominee at this point.

                    In which case even more of the GOP stays home (possibly including me).

        2. Read: High black turnout.

      2. And which Trump has her beaten in spades.

        Trump crushes Hillary in a hypothetical general.

        Bernie edges Trump (or any GOPer) in a hypothetical general.

        You guys all seem to have bought into this libertarian moment BS. This country is further left than it’s ever been in my (albeit short) life.

        1. Trump crushes Hillary in a hypothetical general.

          Where, in your head? She’s beating him in all the actual polls.

          1. National polls mean fuckall in an electoral college system and I don’t place much weight in them anyhow. Clinton does overperforms with an older demo that has LAN lines and because idiots like half the commenters here have taken to using the SJW racist slur with reckless abandon, many people polled don’t feel comfortable voicing support for the Trumpening.

            1. Blah blah blah

              “National polls mean fuckall in an electoral college system”

              Not to Nate Silver they don’t. The numbers are clear: too many people hate Trump.

            2. So it is a hypothetical election taking place in your head. As I suspected.

              While it’s possible for the national vote winner to lose in the EC, Clinton’s margins of victory over Trump in current polls are 5-10 percentage points, making it extremely unlikely.

              1. the most recent poll has her up by 5 with a margin of error of 2.9, i.e. the spread contains the difference. If you think that’s a commanding lead at this point, well…

                1. Ah, begging the uncertainties. You realize that the margin of error means that an 11-point Clinton lead (the biggest landslide since Reagan beat Mondale) is just as likely as a tie?

                  I think it’s safe to say that the original claim that “Trump crushes Hillary in a hypothetical general” doesn’t hold bongwater.

                2. NAS, if the most recent polls are Hil +5 nationally, then that’s a LOT closer than they have been, even six months ago. I’d thought RealClear’s typical Hillary margin back then was something like Hil +10 to +15. Not a good sign for her.

                  Even before the negative ad storm that Sudden (accurately, IMHO) foresees being employed against her in the general, she’s lost an awful lot of ground. No way should Iowa have been anywhere near as close as it was, if Democrats had faith in her as a candidate.

                  With her comments about advocating an Australia-style mandatory buyback for certain kinds of firearms, I can’t see a single Midwest state going for her, after the NRA and Trump/Rubio/Cruz whoever get done shoving that back in her face for four months prior to November.

                  1. Trump does the most poorly against Clinton of any of the top 3 GOP candidates. From RCP:

                    PPP 2/8 vs Clinton: Trump 40-47, Cruz 44-46, Rubio 46-44
                    Quin 2/5 vs Clinton: Trump 41-46, Cruz 45-45, Rubio 48-41
                    NBC/WSJ 1/17 vs Clinton: Trump 41-51, Cruz 45-49, Rubio 46-47

                    1. Shocking that you’d leave out FN poll since it doesn’t comport with your narrative.

                      Hell, you could at least list it and state the other three sources, all of which had better polling prior to 2012, all support your thesis with only FN as outlier. Of course, I’d think Ailes would pull the lever for Hillary sooner than Trump anyhow.

                    2. I’m listing the national polls that are listed on RCP. Pardon me for not hunting around the net for every single poll that has been taken. If there are other recent polls out there, please share.

                    3. Goddamn you couldn’t be any more of a lying fuckstain could you? The FN poll is listed immediately below the other three on RCP’s site.

                    4. Oh I see. From January 8. I didn’t go back that far.

                      That one looks like a massive outlier (and it’s almost 6 weeks old).

                    5. 1/17 is good enough to reference, because it is the most extreme example of your narrative. 1/7 though is clearly too dated to have any relevance, because it goes against your narrative.

                  2. She’s collapsed over the last 6 months. While I wouldn’t call it “crushing” I do think that the Donald would beat her in the general barring some miracle gaff. If Barry cannot protect her from indictment, then the odds of him crushing her go way up. But she’ll still have Budd’s vote.

              2. And your scenario of Hillary beating Trump is as in your head as mine is because polls in February don’t mean shit (save the actual polling places that decide nominees).

                Also, Hillary hasn’t faced an opposition willing to challenge her. Bernie hasn’t said a single negative thing about her because he entered solely with the objective of driving her left, until he began to realize that the dem base are stalinists like himself. Come convention season, she’ll start getting negative ads that highlight her record, which is a murder’s row of banana republic level corruption and incompetence.

                1. “polls in February don’t mean shit ”

                  Yes they can. Romney started with high negatives and never shook them. He never had a chance. Trump’s negative are MUCH worse. He has not chance.

                  “Come convention season, she’ll start getting negative ads that highlight her record, which is a murder’s row of banana republic level corruption and incompetence.”

                  This SHOULD derail her, but if it could I think it would have by now. She has a magic Teflon coating that deflects this stuff. Oh if she’s up against Trump no one will give a shit. The election season will consist of ads comprising the horrible stuff Trump says followed by a Hillary sweep. That simple. Trump is too incoherent to even make a serious attack on her. It would actually be lost in translation.

                  1. She has a magic Teflon coating that deflects this stuff.

                    She has no magic Teflon coating. She doesn’t even have an iota of charm. All she has is a vagina. That may be enough to deflect those things among a demographic of 50+ white women making $200k plus at some phony non-profit, but if Bernie’s election has shown anything, it’s that she can’t beat a kooky old Stalinist Jew among women under 50, let alone a whole host of other demos. And that is before the pending indictment, attack ads, and highlighting of how her foreign policy turned an anemic Europa into your fantasy vision Eurabia/Eu-rapey-a .

                2. Bernie hasn’t said a single negative thing about her

                  That was true in the early part of the campaign, but the knives have long since come out. He’s attacked her association with Wall St donors in particular.

                  1. He’s attacked her association with Wall St donors in particular.

                    And only in Bernie’s head is that the end all be all of negative associations. In the real world and among a broader electorate, her treasonous email server, her use of the SoS influence as a Saudi fundraising tool for the Clinton Foundation (and its utter lack of charitable works and use as a patronage reward network), and her total destruction of Europe via migration caused by blowing up the stable, non-proliferation friendly regimes and handing them to roving bands of savages in the MidEast and N. Africa will be seen with fresh eyes come a general. And that is enough to hemorrhage any residual support she’s received by being Mrs. Bill Clinton.

                  2. Tulap says:

                    Budd|2.14.16 @ 12:31AM|#
                    “That was true in the early part of the campaign, but the knives have long since come out. He’s attacked her association with Wall St donors in particular.”

                    Given tulpa’s history, you can be sure this is an honest argument. Uh, well….

        2. “Trump crushes Hillary in a hypothetical general.”

          BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

          Not in the real world, where polling is clear that Trump is never going to be prez.

          “This country is further left than it’s ever been in my (albeit short) life.”

          Umm….that’s news to the GOP dominated congress and state governments.

          1. Yes, because it’s not like a relatively few, older, conservative-tilting people are actually motivated enough to vote come midterm and statewide elections. Learn to accept that the POTUS will always reflect a reality further left than other elected offices. And also realize that culture trumps (heh) politics and the culture is increasingly a SJW crimethink left cultural marxist wasteland. Hell, the only reason Trump has succeeded as wildly as he has is because he’s seen as an antidote to that. Which is precisely why he engenders the deeply rooted hate of so many SJWs and lolbertarians.

            1. “Which is precisely why he engenders the deeply rooted hate of so many SJWs and lolbertarians.”

              Or those ‘lolbertarians’ actually care about freedom and having a thoughtful president as opposed to a boorish fascist. But I guess that just makes me ‘cosmo’, a term that has lost all meaning.

              If culture drives politics and the politics is increasingly left then we should not have seen a rash of tax reform and other pro-market reforms at the state level. I think it’s a lot less clear than you make it out to be.

              1. You keep spouting about crap that you don’t understand. Workfare rules are at least partially waved in virtually all states. Medicaid expansion is slowly creeping up every year. For every Kansas or Maine cutting rates there’s a CA and MN increasing them. Nebraska, one of those ‘red’ states just voted to increase the minimum wage. Nick fapping away in the back of an Uber car is more than offset by the CPP and Waters of America. The VA kills vets and administrators abuse the relocation system to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars and they get MORE money and reinstated, respectively. Shit, Lois fucking Lerner.

                It’s pretty fucking clear.

              2. Or those ‘lolbertarians’ actually care about freedom and having a thoughtful president as opposed to a boorish fascist. But I guess that just makes me ‘cosmo’, a term that has lost all meaning.

                There is a substantial difference between saying “Trump is wrong on immigration. His properties can only be built, operated, and profitable thanks to the importation of vast swaths of unskilled labor and the overwhelming majority of immigrants come here specifically to perform such jobs.” and going full Shikha Tardia “ZOMGZ TEH TRUMP IZ TEH NAZI RAZIZT FAZCIST SECUND CUMIN OF TEH HITLERZZZZZZ!@!1!1!1!1!!!!”

    2. It’s the lesson that is usually lost during nomination time. The country isn’t made up of just Republicans and Democrats. There is this group called independents. Most of these people expect the government to function, and one way it functions is with a full complement of SC justices.

      It will be just about one year before the next President takes office. Not s short period of time. We will see how the public at large judges those who demand a disfunctional government.

      1. Jackand Ace|2.13.16 @ 11:13PM|#
        “It’s the lesson that is usually lost during nomination time.”

        Fuck off, slaver.

      2. Thank God Jack and Ace is here to teach us libertarians about independents.

        How would we know about them otherwise?

        Should we clue Jack and Ace in about how closed primaries work?

        Nah. Just let him bloviate.

        1. Isn’t interesting that Jack seems to have all sorts of criticisms of the GOP, and assumes we all (here) are supporters and never has criticism of the Ds, all the while claiming to be above it all?
          Can we presume fucking ignoramus? Hypocrite? I think both are a safe bet.

          1. Jack just doesn’t seem to comprehend that both TEAMs pretend like independents either don’t exist, or claim to support their side. “WILL OF THE PEOPLEZ!!!1”

        2. Oh Ken… I knew you would be back for more.

          So let me clue YOU in…the election in November isn’t closed, and it isn’t even a primary. Which is where the public at large passes it’s judgement. I guess that was tough for you to get. Try keeping up next time!

          1. Jackand Ace|2.13.16 @ 11:28PM|#
            “So let me clue YOU in..”

            Oh, oh! Jackshit is going to edumakate us!
            Pretty doubtful you could ‘clue in’ your dog. Fuck off, slaver,

            1. He thinks the best strategy for six candidates vying for registered Republicans in a list of closed primaries is to play to non-Republicans. And when called out about how they’re in the primaries, Jack and Ace points out there isn’t only a primary season. There’s also a general election!

              Why don’t we understand that, Sevo?

              I guess we’re just not smart enough to understand Jack and Ace.

              1. Bingo, Ken. I knew if you tried, you could keep up.

                1. Jackand Ace|2.13.16 @ 11:45PM|#
                  “Bingo, Ken. I knew if you tried, you could keep up.”

                  I’m sure your mommy told you that was a compliment. And equally sure you believed it.
                  Fuck off, slaver.

                2. No joking here. That analysis by JnA is the dumbest thing I’ve heard since my FB friend claimed Walker won reelection because of redistricting.

                  1. you realise that facebook friends aren’t real friends?

              2. It’s obvious that independents agree with all of the Democratic positions. That’s why they’re independents.

                1. And if the rethugs do not approve Obo’s nominee *right now*, why they just, uh, don’t agree with the right-thinking fucking ignoramus! And therefore, bad!

              3. This jackhand person sounds like a douche but he’s right. What you say in the primaries can be held against you in the general. You have to walk a careful line between courting your base and not pissing off independents.

                1. Budd, again, are you tulpa?

                2. Unfortunately this is true and is why I worry about Cruz. His courting of gross assholes like Swanson will totally bite him in a general.

                  1. Don’t talk shit about Ron Swanson.

                3. Budd|2.13.16 @ 11:56PM|#
                  “This jackhand person sounds like a douche but he’s right. What you say in the primaries can be held against you in the general. You have to walk a careful line between courting your base and not pissing off independents.”

                  Thank you, tulpa. I’m sure someone will consider your advice.
                  Get lost.

                4. “This jackhand person sounds like a douche but he’s right. What you say in the primaries can be held against you in the general.

                  I appreciate that, but appealing to swing voters in the general election doesn’t matter if you can’t win the nomination.

                  That’s how Big Mama Clinton got to be Secretary of State, by the way. Obama horse traded with her (gave her the Secretary of State job), so that he could move to the center and stop trying to fight off Hillary from his left.

                  That’s why, yes, it hurts candidates if the primaries drag out for a long time. Outdoing each other gunning for the party faithful tends to provide lots of ammunition against you and alienate swing voters come the general election.

                  But what’s the point of appealing to swing voters in the general election if you can’t win the nomination? Winning the nomination is the only thing that really matters right now.

                  You know who appeals to swing voters? Carly and Rand Paul.

                  So what? They’re not even in the race for the nomination anymore–because they failed to win support from registered Republicans. So their appeal with swing voters for the general election doesn’t count for shit–unless the nominee asks them to run for Vice President.

                  1. “Obama horse traded with her (gave her the Secretary of State job), so that he could move to the center and stop trying to fight off Hillary from his left.”

                    Exhibit A:

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

                  2. Ken, help yourself, but it’s tulpa and all his sophistry.

                  3. I appreciate that, but appealing to swing voters in the general election doesn’t matter if you can’t win the nomination.

                    And appealing to base voters in the primary doesn’t matter if you can’t win in the general! Which part of this is confusing?

                    1. Budd|2.14.16 @ 12:42AM|#
                      “And appealing to base voters in the primary doesn’t matter if you can’t win in the general! Which part of this is confusing?”

                      Ken, help yourself, but it’s tulpa and all his sophistry.

                    2. Thanks!

                    3. The
                      Unintelligent
                      Loser’s
                      Proxy
                      Alias

      3. Yeah! People want a dysfunctional govt functioning. Everybody’s doing it. Quit being a buzzkill.

      4. “Dysfunctional government!” will be the rallying cry of those wetting their pants at the possibility of losing a SCOTUS nom.

        Just relax. It will all probably be OK.

    3. Budd, were you formerly known as tulpa by any chance? You seem to wear the same ‘fragrance’…

    4. If anything this will really get out the conservative vote.

  33. “”I just wish we hadn’t run so fast into politics,” said Ohio Gov. John Kasich.”

    Jesus, Kasich, go home already.

    1. Was he more interested in talking abour the Super Bowl or the Steve Harvey gaffe?

  34. I admired the performance of the Trumpenfuhrer.

    1. Consider that stolen.

  35. Old bottles smashed the tables on the pirate ship.

    1. Was it a ghost ship?

      1. Ghost pirates? Or pirate ghosts?

  36. Lines often snatch planets
    And the keyboard connects
    Like a bullet proofvest in a nightmare
    Agony vapors

  37. Oh fuck oh ass oh crap. Well, on the bright side I am pretty sure this is The End of The Bern. In a serious world, it would also be the end of Trump but in a serious world he would have ended a while ago.

    I am really worried that the DNC and Hillary in particular can spin this into election gold. The GOP and its candidates have to be super fucking careful about what they say about the SCOTUS for the next several months. As Bob from ReBoot would say, “Not good. This is not good!”

    1. It doesn’t have to be that way. They can make the issue go away by offering to confirm an acceptable Obama nominee.

      1. Budd|2.13.16 @ 11:43PM|#
        “It doesn’t have to be that way. They can make the issue go away by offering to confirm an acceptable Obama nominee.”

        Sniff, sniff…
        Tulpa?

        1. The worst part is, he might be kind of slightly right.

          1. Like you, ‘toxic; you are occasionally ‘right’.
            In your case, by accident I’m sure.
            In his case, by design in an effort to impress someone with his mastery of sophistry.

      2. By giving Obama what he wants they’ll get the policies that they want. Liberal justices have an long history of not voting in lock step with their ideology. Stop that! Stop laughing! I’m being serious here. Budd is exactly right. By giving Obama everything he wants the GOP will be able to stop Obama. It’s brilliant!

        1. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that the “strategy” of stalling the nomination for 11 months won’t work, and it could easily blow up in the GOP’s face.

          Oddly, this is the third person, or at least the third commenter name, at this blog to accuse me of making this same argument when I didn’t. Makes you wonder.

          1. Budd|2.14.16 @ 12:06AM|#
            “That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that the “strategy” of stalling the nomination for 11 months won’t work, and it could easily blow up in the GOP’s face.”

            Tulpa, did you think a new handle was going to last?
            You post the same shit you’ve always posted and expect no one to notice?
            Hint, douchebag, most of us here are not as stupid as you.
            Get lost.

          2. Well if they don’t stall, then they do give Barry what he wants, so, um, ya that’s what you’re saying.

            Oddly, you are starting to smell like Tulpa. Makes you wonder.

            1. NAS, long past smelling that way; stinking up the place.
              After noting the fragrance quite a way up-thread, I’ve asked specifically “are you tulpa?” several times.
              Now if someone wasn’t, you’d get a ‘WIH are you talking about?’
              Zip. Nada. Nothing, The stench of tulpa is evident, right, tulpa?
              Why is it you think you’re clever? There isn’t a bit of evidence to suggest it’s true?

            2. Well if they don’t stall, then they do give Barry what he wants

              There are other options between caving and refusing to confirm ANY nominee. They could offer to consider Obama’s nominee but promise to reject them if they are hard left.

              1. Budd|2.14.16 @ 12:23AM|#

                Budd = tulpa
                If you wish to engage such a dishonest twit, help yourselves but be advised.

              2. Gosh, the headlines almost write themselves:

                “Obstructionist Republican Senate Refuses to Approve Moderate Nominee (from Oberlin College’s office of Social Justice)”

                “Reactionary Senate Refuses to Accept Compromise Candidate Barney Frank”

                Do you really think there is *any* chance that a Barry nominee *won’t* vote the right way once on the court? You can’t be that stupid, can you? I guess you can.

                Now if you want to say that the Republicans shouldn’t *announce* that they won’t approve any nominee while deciding to not approve any nominee, that’s something altogether different. Use your words.

                1. Isn’t it interesting that tulpa refuses to respond to specific questions, and yet posts the same crap he always has?
                  Does he hope we’ve all gotten dumb enough to buy his sophistry? Maybe there are enough new users who won’t recognize the piles of bullshit he shovels?
                  Tulpa, what is it that makes you adopt a new name every week? What sort of stupidity drives you?

                2. Do you really think there is *any* chance that a Barry nominee *won’t* vote the right way once on the court?

                  Depends on the nominee. Sotomayor actually hasn’t been that bad of a justice. And Souter proved that you can’t always predict how a justice will behave on the court.

                  At least if the GOP waits until there’s an actual nominee to reject before rejecting them, they can make the case to the public that they’re being reasonable and it’s Obama who’s pushing partisan politics. But what they’re doing now makes NO sense. The media doesn’t even have to label them as obstructionist, they’re self-applying that label!

                  1. Budd|2.14.16 @ 12:48AM|#
                    “Do you really think there is *any* chance that a Barry nominee *won’t* vote the right way once on the court?”

                    Hey, tulpa! Do you really think there is *any* chance your bullshit flies again here? Did your mommy say you were smart?
                    Why do you continually lie in the hopes of getting another hearing for your bullshit here? Do you hope no one will recognize your lies and sophistry?
                    How fucking dumb are you?

                  2. She sure voted great on Barrycare. No, it doesn’t depend on the nominee. Liberal justices may occasionally respect search and seizure, but if you think they’re not going to vote to overturn CU or Heller at any opportunity, then you’re a moron.

                    Whether they openly announce their intent or simply quietly stall the media will call them on it. It makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE. And even better, given the public’s 24hr attention span no one, especially those precious independents, will give a shit months from now even with the media doing their best to rile up their base.

                    1. no one, especially those precious independents, will give a shit months from now

                      If the GOP senate is still refusing to vote on the president’s nominees months from now (which your genius plan requires) they will give an enormous shit, actually. The media doesn’t need to drag out the story, the GOP is doing it for them!

                    2. So let’s play out your brilliant strategy.

                      Option A) They don’t announce that they’re going to stall, but they stall. Then they refuse to vote on the nominee (but don’t announce it) and the media publishes that and everyone gives a shit because, um, you want them to. Or are you claiming that ppl will only give a shit if they say we’re going to stall?

                      Option B) They vote to approve Barry’s nominee as long as they’re “not too hard left” (in other words not his nominee) and then wait for the surprise and disappointment when they vote in lock step with the other 4 liberal justices on the court. Gosh, who could have seen that coming?

                      You have a cunning plan indeed, Baldrick.

                  3. And Souter proved that you can’t always predict how a justice will behave on the court.

                    Funny how you pick a nominally conservative judge to fail to make your point.

                    1. Souter was not a conservative judge, by a longshot. He reliably voted with the leftists on the court.

                    2. Work with me here. It’s complicated. Souter was nominated as a conservative judge but he rebelled, hence the qualifier ‘nominally.’ There are plenty of examples of right crossing to left but the reverse isn’t true. So to expect someone nominated by Barry to all of a sudden acquire a taste for ruling for limited government would be… naive? stupid? irrational? I’m sure you can think of some other adjectives.

                      Do you get it now?

                    3. “Do you get it now?”

                      NAS, I’m not sure you’re familiar with tulpa’s line of bullshit.
                      Similarly to trueman, tulpa will invent new ‘facts’ to justify a POV on the spur of the moment, and then charge off on a new line of ‘argument’ in the hopes of seeming, uh, clever, I guess.
                      You’re a big boy, and I’m not gonna bother with more than that, but when tulpa pulls his normal ‘well, I really meant *that*!’, don’t be surprised.
                      He’s uniformly despised her for very good reasons.

                    4. Yeah, I’m pretty much done. Gonna catch up on my Parasyte. I wish there were more Expanse episodes right now. šŸ™

                    5. What I get is that “conservative” means mystic. What is the word for someone who expects logical consistency from superstitious fanatics?

                3. Now if you want to say that the Republicans shouldn’t *announce* that they won’t approve any nominee while deciding to not approve any nominee, that’s something altogether different.

                  This would be much better than what they are doing. It is unwise to eliminate one’s options prematurely. At least they could wait and see how things play out in public opinion before committing to a course of action.

                  Now the GOP prez candidates, McConnell, Lee, and other Senate Republicans are going to have to either back down and look weak or stick to their guns and look partisan and obstructionist.

                  1. Budd|2.14.16 @ 12:53AM|#
                    “Now if you want to say that the Republicans shouldn’t *announce* that they won’t approve any nominee while deciding to not approve any nominee, that’s something altogether different.”

                    Hey, tulpa! Do you really think there is *any* chance your bullshit flies again here? Did your mommy say you were smart?
                    Why do you continually lie in the hopes of getting another hearing for your bullshit here? Do you hope no one will recognize your lies and sophistry?
                    How fucking dumb are you?

                  2. Gosh, maybe the media won’t make an issue of this if we just don’t say anything. And maybe if we all clap harder Tinkerbell will fly again! Sudden’s points are all valid. They needed to say this for their base and it doesn’t change a damn thing w.r.t. independents.

                    1. Or, gosh, maybe tulpa will raise an honest issue and deal with the discussion in an honest manner!
                      Well, what was that about Tinkerbell?

                    2. Of course the media will try to spin it as partisan obstructionism! That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do their job for them and remove all doubt by saying it explicitly.

                      You really do love your strawmen.

                      It’s possible that the base may expect them to say this, but goddamn the base is stupid if it does. A competent candidate would leave himself an out for use in the general.

                    3. Tulpa says:

                      Budd|2.14.16 @ 1:06AM|#
                      “Of course the media will try to spin it as partisan obstructionism! That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do their job for them and remove all doubt by saying it explicitly.”

                    4. Your naivete would be cute except that it leads directly to all of the wonderful compromises we’ve had over the last 6 years. Just eat this one more Cromnibus and we’ll fix it next year. It’s stupid to shut down the government over Barrycare, but the Republicans are failures for not repealing it!

                      It’s this sort of enlightenment I so cherish here at Reason.

                      It doesn’t matter what the GOP says about this. The media will write the same story. The public won’t care in a month let alone 9 months from now.

                4. How about if Obama nominates a seriously pro-choice female objectivist of jewish ancestry to “The” court? Would that not suffice to do to the GOP what the Nurenberg trials did to the other NSDAP?

          3. The people it would bother have already made up their minds. This is just like all the people saying that the 2013 government shutdown would cost the GOP the midterm elections. Me hen the reality is that most people were barely aware of it when it was happening and had long forgotten about it by Election Day.

            If anything, the GOP senators should send a truly strong message and have any Obama nominees put to death.

            1. The shutdown was over long before the 2014 elections. It did unquestionably cost them the Virginia governorship in the 2013 election there.

              If the GOP follows through on what they’re saying, this will be ongoing come November.

            2. Harsh…. but fair.

            3. My impression was that GOP looters won additional seats precisely because some voters mistook their swaggering bravado for a genuine attempt to get the parasitical behemoth off their backs–if only briefly. Taxpayers would better off paying their salaries to stay home rather than show up at Congress to do more damage.

          4. Oh, how wrong you are. It can’t blow up in the GOP’s face.

            Will it motivate DNC or GOP voters more? It’s a wash.

            If McConnell agrees to put the nomination up for a vote, will he keep the Senate in 2017 by being nice to Democrats? Nope. He could lose the majority anyway.

            Could HRC win and nominate another Ginsberg? Yep. But a Rep could win and nominate Don Willett.

            So, the odds favor McConnell doing nothing

        2. It’s tulpa; you’re getting what you should expect.

    2. Why can’t this drive R turnout as well as D?

      1. Thanks to Bronco Bama’s phone and pen, R turnout doesn’t need much help.

        1. Gee, tulpa, new slang? Keeping up with the kids?

        2. It is spelled “OH?Bummer!”.

  38. Oh damn. I was gonna stick up on reloading components and now I’ve gonna spend all that dough on more guns before they get outlawed

    1. The Second Amendment prevents the outlawing of guns, but not the creation of imaginary hobgoblins by politicians who don’t want you to vote libertarian. Don’t Panic. It’s un-hitchhikerly.

      1. If the legislative and judicial branches respect the 2nd amendment.

  39. OK, no answer.
    I’m calling a tulpa infestation under the handle Budd.
    Help yourselves as you please.

  40. Well, at least kanye isn’t using autotune on his second song on SNL. It’s still boring as shit.

  41. The longest delay between a SC vacancy and consent for a nominee is 28 months.

    How many months ’til the next President?

    1. That was 170 years ago, and at a time when it was questioned whether an unelected president (John Tyler) should be allowed to make appointments.

      1. Tulpa says:

        Budd|2.14.16 @ 1:00AM|#
        “That was 170 years ago,”

        I’m sure you’re willing to presume this is an honest attempt at argument, right?

      2. I never realized that Stare Decisis applied to judicial nominees.

        1. Rejecting individual nominees is one thing. Preemptively stating that you won’t vote on any nominees because you want to delay until your guy is in office is another.

          1. Tulpa says:

            Budd|2.14.16 @ 1:08AM|#
            “Rejecting individual nominees is one thing.”

          2. Oh, grow up

  42. Somebody on this thread craves attention even more than Ted Cruz. Mein gott.

    1. Tulpa says:

      Budd|2.14.16 @ 1:13AM|#
      “Somebody on this thread craves attention even more than Ted Cruz. Mein gott.”

      Do you think you wouldn’t get busted?

  43. It’s nice to have a stray puppy follow you home from work for a while, even if it’s a little smelly and poops all over. After a while though, you start to wish there was a cop around.

    1. Tulpa says:

      Budd|2.14.16 @ 1:16AM|#
      “It’s nice to have a stray puppy follow you home from work for a while, even if it’s a little smelly and poops all over. After a while though, you start to wish there was a cop around.”

      It’s even better when you get a roach infestation and can engage an exterminator to kill the fucking pests.

      1. This is how I feel about progressives all the time.

        1. There’s something a-brewing in Europa that may play that role yet.

          1. There’s something a-brewing in Europa

            ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS?EXCEPT EUROPA

            1. So the monolith is responsible for (failed) socialism?

  44. Too long, didn’t read the article or the comments.
    But “… in reality, politically, Clinton just got handed a huge tool to get out the vote, ” doesn’t fly with me; how does this energize the donkeys more than it energizes the elephants?

    1. Because Shackford cares about same sex marriage, that’s why

    2. If team R goes all obstructionist, then the abortion-rights crowd gets super-energized and Team D gets a nice helping of righteous indignation to drive turnout.

      If, however, Obama gets his nominee to the court before the election, then Team R has a coup in terms of voter passion. Switching the balance of power from 4-4-1 and leans conservative-ish to 5-3-1 and is very solidly liberal will do that. This is a big deal to the nutty party faithful class.

      1. No way. This is a wash as far as getting D and R to the polls. How can you be so dumb to not see it?

  45. Justice would best be served by Obama appointing a pro-choice Mohammedan communist. Maybe then God’s Own Party will be motivated to free itself of domination by christianofascist fanaticism and become a political party, rather than an arm of the Holy Inquisition.

  46. Shackford, why did you write this pointless article?

    Scalia dies, Obama will nominate a replacement, the GOP Senate says NO, Hillary gets her panties in a wad, Cruz/Trump/Rubio gets their shorts in a wad and it’s a base motivator.

    Jesus Christ, why don’t you stick you neck out there & write something new, Captain Obvious? Oh, wait – all you care about is same-sex marriage

  47. Vote for Pedro

  48. if he actually cares about the vacancy, Hussein should just nominate a conservative that can pass the senate. The constitution doesn’t require the president to nominate someone with a like-minded ideologue.

  49. Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,

    ——————— http://www.richi8.com

  50. So after reading all the comments (and then taking several large drams of 15 yo Glenfiddich), it seems to me the following:
    1) the Senate leadership should remain non-commital in public. “We will of course give any nominee the respectful consideration they deserve” and any nominees then get Borked to hell. Not lying, just throw all their leftist shit back in their faces. But leave open a small possibility that if, in the unlikely event, Obama did nominate a truly thoughtful, “moderate” type, they might vote for them.
    2) the GOP Pres contenders go full out obstructionist to fire up the base. You know HRC will go full RoevWade and CU for her base.

    1. As you allude to, we went through this with the Bork/Ginsburg/Kennedy appointments. The world didn’t end when Democrats nailed Bork’s hide to the wall in 1987 and 88. No one really screamed how totally unfair it was that a Dem-dominated Senate refused to rubberstamp whoever Reagan’s handlers put up there.

      So why is it the equivalent of advocating the Dred Scott decision to announce that the Senate won’t be approving anyone Obama feels like appointing? Especially when there’s less time before the election now, than there was when Bork was, well, getting Borked.

  51. Start making extra money each week… This is an awesome side work for anybody… The best part about it is that you can do this job from your couch at home and get paid from 2 to 3 hundred bucks every week…Apply now and receive your first check at the end of this week…..Visit this site………

    -+-+-+-+-+- http://www.alpha-careers.com

  52. Start making extra money each week… This is an awesome side work for anybody… The best part about it is that you can do this job from your couch at home and get paid from 2 to 3 hundred bucks every week…Apply now and receive your first check at the end of this week…..Visit this site………

    -+-+-+-+- http://www.alpha-careers.com

  53. I’ll be amazed if I ever live through an election year without panicked warnings that the next President could get umpty-leven Supreme Court appointments (and therefore you must hold your nose and vote for the second-worst of the leading candidates).

    My pet reform: forget about a fixed number of seats; appoint one Justice every two years. (This happens to be very close to the historic average.)

    This would lower the stakes, and therefore will never be enacted.

  54. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  55. But in reality, politically, Clinton just got handed a huge tool to get out the vote,

    So did the Repubs. I think its probably a wash, electorally.

  56. And the complete process given here is working very well in terms of the which thing which the nice and great also, also the process which I am going to follow is very nice to know in the best thing to see also.

  57. Dreams On?:

    “Dreams, that governments will make you free,
    Dreams, that they ain’t just war and slavery,
    Dreams, of your god democracy,
    You keep dreamin’, of more enforced equality,
    Yes you’re dreamin’, dreamin’ you are free
    In your dreams”

    “……In your dream, Donald Trump is not a fraud,
    In your dream, Sanders is not a fraud,
    In your dream,all the rest are not frauds,
    In your dream, Obama is not a fraud,
    In your dream, Reagan was not a fraud,
    In your dream, all the rest were not frauds,

    In your dream, the constitution was not a scam,
    In your dream, the Supreme court is not a scam,
    In your dream, 9/11 was not a scam…….”

    Lyrics excerpted from:

    “Dreams [Anarchist Blues]”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMXtoU…..e=youtu.be

    Regards, onebornfree.
    onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom

  58. Yahoo CEO, Marissa Meyer has gone som far as to Support the practice “Work at home” that I have been doing since last year. In this year till now I have earned 66k dollars with my pc, despite the fact that I am a college student. Even newbies can make 39 an hour easily and the average goes up with time. Why not try this.

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  59. Yahoo CEO, Marissa Meyer has gone som far as to Support the practice “Work at home” that I have been doing since last year. In this year till now I have earned 66k dollars with my pc, despite the fact that I am a college student. Even newbies can make 39 an hour easily and the average goes up with time. Why not try this.

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  60. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.