Aren't Republicans taking one hell of a chance in stalling the selection of a Supreme Court Justice?

Right now I doubt even the Republicans know what they are doing, their only goal is to stall,block and bitch about anything the Democrats say or do.

I do think they are taking a big risk, but not for the reason you state. For one, Obama has indicated that he doesn’t want the job (see the last two paragraphs). For another, I don’t think that either Bernie or Hillary would ever nominate him. He’s too moderate for Bernie. And even though Hillary has said that it’s a good idea, it was in a context where she could hardly say otherwise (and she immediately downplayed the suggestion by noting the obstacles to it).

The real risk is that they would be facing a newly elected Democratic president with political capital to spend and a base to appease/reward. Whether it’s Bernie or Hillary, they are likely to nominate someone the Republicans would find more objectionable than anyone Obama would nominate near the end of his term. So the safe thing for the GOP establishment to do is negotiate a moderate appointee.

As for the President’s qualifications, they Republicans have never taken him seriously as a constitutional scholar. Why would they given how differently they understand the US Constitution? It is fellow Democrats who have praised him in this regard, and I imagine the Republicans would lose no time in pointing out the partisan divide in such evaluations.

Here are a few points that come to mind:

→The Republicans have already said that they will continue their policy of obstructionism for any nominee Obama comes up with. Unless there is a recess appointment (which I see as unlikely) there will be no new appointee until after the inauguration in 2017.

→It is unlikely that Trump will get the Republican nomination, and it is likely that he will launch a third-party/independent campaign for President. This will effectively split the Republican vote, resulting in a landslide for the Clinton/Sanders (or maybe Sanders/Clinton?) ticket, as well as the so-called “down-ballot” candidates, sweeping a Democratic majority in to both houses on the coattails of the Presidential ticket.

→It has already been established that Obama is not interested in a transition from POTUS to SCOTUS, so he will probably not be the nominee. But given this scenario, I don’t think President Hillary (or even President Bernie) will have any trouble getting the Democratic-controlled congress to approve any nomination.

IMO- The fact that in previous administrations, it was a Republican: President- R.Reagan who, in this same appointment need in the SC, even though a lame duck as far as time, made an appointment before leaving office.
So Republicans set the standard- we’ll follow it.
The candidates for the court, as far as a public list, are all a little more in the middle of the road. A tad conservative, yet still open on liberal issues.
When studying law, it always is a mind explosion when appointments to the SC change horses in mid stream. All of their law case decisions tend to lean in one direction, but upon appointment, they seem to sway away from their planted roots, surprising many on their written opinions. I now feel that it is never a predictable vote split, as I once thought.
I just wish some would stick a sock in it, get the necessary hoo-ha proceedures out of the way and get on with this tough season of decisions. It will not be too much longer before other appointments will be needed. The new kid in office can play with all that when needed. Now isn’t a time for partisan pissing contests. Let’s go!

@msh good point, but it was not the Republicans who set the standard, it’s in the Constitution itself. It says the President shall appoint a justice to fill any vacancies…and as far as I can tell, Obama’s still President until January 21, 2017, when the next Democrat President is inaugurated.

Excellent point! @Yetanotheruser. Why I….
Oops. Wait…
Who was that SCJustice that is here to interpret the Constitution as Our Foreparents meant it to be in today’s world? Ohhhh- never mind. He’s the one being replaced!
Dantè‘s Hell Level # 459!
Oops, that’s my number! Gotta go…

I think the Republicans coming right out and saying that they will not consider any Obama nominee, regardless, will be a huge incentive for Democrats to get-out-and-vote.
There are likely a lot of Democrats that will hold their nose and vote for a candidate that they’re not crazy about in order to prevent another Scalia (or worse) on the bench.

Ultra conservatives and the religious right are already the Republicans most likely to have a high voter turnout, so I don’t see preserving a highly conservative justice being a huge factor on that side. Once again, Republicans are preaching to the choir at the expense of the larger vote.

Aren’t we putting the cart before the horse here as not one candidate has yet been tendered. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if Obama suggested a consensus candidate such as Eighth Circuit Court Judge Jane Kelly or judges Paul Watford, Jacqueline Nguyen, Srikath Srinivasan, and Adalberto T. Jordan SHOCKING to think that Republicans would consider appointees that ride the fence that divides both parties but it could happen. How about Brian Sandoval, who is a former judge and attorney general, Hispanic, and from a swing state??

Sadly many dumbass right wing nuts would recoil in horror and equally dumbass left wing nuts would dance in the streets if a Justice is ever approved by being utterly clueless over the subtle nuances of why this ultimate appointee is then approved by the Senate. Regardless…heads will explode as usual.

Mitch McConnell is the source, @Cruiser.

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Before Scalia’s body was cold, I might add.

Srikath Srinivasan was the first name that I, personally, heard bandied about, but that was, of course, long after McConnell’s ultimatum.

@Cruiser I agree with you talk about exploding heads! that any of the people you name would have a wide appeal across ideological boundaries; that does not change the fact that the Republicans have already stated unequivocally that no Obama appointee will have a chance to get a hearing.

@ibstubro Seriously….you have to look deeper beneath the liberal media messaging you apparently depend on to feed your anti-Republican narrative as “Senate Judiciary Committee chair Charles Grassley and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski have broken with McConnell” and are actively pursing a consensus appointee.

@Cruiser Kudos to Grassley and Murkowski, and others like them who are finally standing up against obstructionism-as-usual! I’d like to see them succeed, but given the (in)actions of the congressional Republicans over the past seven years, you’ll have to forgive me if I feel more than a little bit skeptical.

@Yetanotheruser I base my optimism on the recent actions of the Republicans in the Senate in passing some key Obama backed legislation as evidence that there is an increasing desire on the Republican side to want to get re-elected and are voting accordingly.

The Tea Partiers will piss their pants in protest as usual but that is to be expected.

@Cruiser One can only hope…

“Tea Partiers” and “piss their pants” in the same phrase evokes some strange images!

The Republicans really have no choice. If they allow for an appointee, the court will lose its conservative majority. They have to hope that a Republican will become the next president. If I were Obama, I would call the Republican bluff and choose someone who is extremely moderate and a member of a minority to make the GOP look like a bunch of a*holes.

@LostInParadise So far there is no bluff being called and Obama would look childish if he approached this appointment in such a manner. This is Obama’s final opportunity to make an appointment that would appeal to both sides and add to his legacy as President of our country instead of adding another asterisk in the footnotes of bio.

You are missing my point. A moderate would appeal to both sides. Obama should choose someone slightly to the right of what he would prefer on the assumption that the nomination will be rejected. If the person were a member of a minority, it works even better.

@LostInParadise Your assumption that “if they allow for an appointee, the court will lose its conservative majority” is what threw me off. A moderate or a consensus appointee would in theory slice it down the middle and make for SC decisions that neither side of the isle should have a reason to complain about.

If Mitch McConnell isn’t speaking for the majority of Republican in the Senate, then they should consider electing a new Majority Leader, @Cruiser.

I don’t say that to get your goat. I mean it. Rather than the rank-and-file breaking with the leadership on key issues, maybe they should work toward leadership that is more representative and less dictatorial.

Didn’t leaders used to poll members and establish consensuses barring times of war or crisis?
I don’t intend that to be partisan, either. Pelosi was an even worse example on the Democratic side.

Here’s the latest, @Cruiser:

Senate GOP: No hearings or vote on Obama Supreme Court pick

I can’t, in all good conscious, cast a vote for Donald Trump, the protest candidate.
As a conservative leaning independent, however, this may be my first straight Democratic ticket, if those turn out to be my options.

@ibstubro After reading this exchange between McConnell and Reid there should not be a shred of surprise why people are sick and fed up with establishment politicians…one should also not be surprised as had the roles been reversed the same BS would be happening and will come Jan 2017 when it is Trump’s turn to nominate a SC Justice.

What if it’s Sanders’ turn to nominate?

@Cruiser Assuming, for the sake of discussion, The Donald does become The President, I doubt that the American people will put up with a Congress that exhibits obstructionism to the degree we’ve seen over the past six years or so.

@Yetanotheruser The way the current tide of public opinion is flowing he could very well be embraced like a breath of fresh air of true hope and change we were all promised. ...Wait….Slap me…HARD…. as that will never happen as most know the corporate meat hooks will not fade away anytime soon and no matter who gets elected will be business as usual.

I’m thinking Bloomberg would probably pick a good justice.

After The Washington Post published news of Sandoval’s consideration Wednesday, GOP leaders insisted that Obama nominating a Republican would make no difference.