Anyone want to talk about the possible Supreme Court nominees?

[Tilted]

There are reportedly either 6 or 5 or 3 potential nominees that are still being considered by President Obama, and their names have been widely floated.

Anyone interested in talking about who they are? Their respective merits as nominees? Who the nominee will be? What will happen when we have a nominee - e.g., whether they'll eventually be confirmed or even get a vote? What should happen, for political reasons or otherwise? Who they had a crush on in high school?

I think, with the possible exception of one, Senate Republicans will have a tough time refusing to give any of possible nominees that have been mentioned a vote (or at least a hearing and seemingly full consideration). And by have a tough time, I mean that there would likely be a net cost to Republicans (e.g. in Senate races) in the upcoming election if they did refuse to give those particular nominees seemingly real consideration, and they're likely to set it that way (in the aggregate) themselves. It's for that reason that I don't think the nominee will be the one exception that I referred to out of the names that are supposedly still being considered. I think the President will, among other considerations, try to put Republicans in a political box with his nomination.

I think my money is on Judge Srinivasan from the D.C. Circuit, with Judge Watford from the 9th Circuit being my second best guess. Either one of those nominees will be quite difficult for Senate Republicans to refuse to consider. And if they do (refuse), it may bite them in the ass. And not just politically, we may end up with a far less desirable replacement for Justice Scalia being chosen by the next President and confirmed by the next Senate (perhaps even using the so-called nuclear option).

Anyway, anyone else interested at this point?

 

[Hijinx]

There are reportedly either 6 or 5 or 3 potential nominees that are still being considered by President Obama, and their names have been widely floated.

Anyone interested in talking about who they are? Their respective merits as nominees? Who the nominee will be? What will happen when we have a nominee - e.g., whether they'll eventually be confirmed or even get a vote? What should happen, for political reasons or otherwise? Who they had a crush on in high school?

I think, with the possible exception of one, Senate Republicans will have a tough time refusing to give any of possible nominees that have been mentioned a vote (or at least a hearing and seemingly full consideration). And by have a tough time, I mean that there would likely be a net cost to Republicans (e.g. in Senate races) in the upcoming election if they did refuse to give those particular nominees seemingly real consideration, and they're likely to set it that way (in the aggregate) themselves. It's for that reason that I don't think the nominee will be the one exception that I referred to out of the names that are supposedly still being considered. I think the President will, among other considerations, try to put Republicans in a political box with his nomination.

I think my money is on Judge Srinivasan from the D.C. Circuit, with Judge Watford from the 9th Circuit being my second best guess. Either one of those nominees will be quite difficult for Senate Republicans to refuse to consider. And if they do (refuse), it may bite them in the ass. And not just politically, we may end up with a far less desirable replacement for Justice Scalia being chosen by the next President and confirmed by the next Senate (perhaps even using the so-called nuclear option).

Anyway, anyone else interested at this point?

First I hope it is someone with a name I can spell.(LOL)
Second the Ninth circuit and the DC Circuit are not well known for their Conservative judges.
Thirdly I don't believe any of us have ever had the experience of knowing these people as well as you do.
To most of us right now they are unknown's. Your mention of them as candidates are the first I ever heard of them.
Fourth, They may as well be looked at, because as you say waiting for e Republican President is a crap shoot, and even if Trump wins he is no Conservative either, and Christ only know who he would pick.

 

[Tilted]

First I hope it is someone with a name I can spell.(LOL)
Second the Ninth circuit and the DC Circuit are not well known for their Conservative judges.
Thirdly I don't believe any of us have ever had the experience of knowing these people as well as you do.
To most of us right now they are unknown's. Your mention of them as candidates are the first I ever heard of them.
Fourth, They may as well be looked at, because as you say waiting for e Republican President is a crap shoot, and even if Trump wins he is no Conservative either, and Christ only know who he would pick.

On the first: Judge Srinivasan is Indian (i.e. of Indian descent and born in India), in case you're interested. He came to the U.S. with his family at a very young age. Being Asian perhaps makes him somewhat desirable politically, for those that care about diversity, as we've never had an Asian Supreme Court Justice. But I don't think that would be the primary reason for him being considered. Ideological preferences aside, he's pretty qualified and fairly widely respected. Accepting that a given Justice was going to be appointed by President Obama (or probably most other Democrat Presidents), I'd say he's better than what we might expect to get - ideologically. He's a quite reasonable choice I think. And I think under most circumstances he'd have little trouble getting confirmed.

On the second: There's some truth in that, but I don't think we can (or should) expect another Justice Scalia or even another Justice Kennedy when it comes to the ideological leanings of the eventual nominee. It isn't going to be someone most would consider a conservative, at best it will be someone that many would consider fairly moderate.

On the third: That's part of my purpose in starting this thread. If anyone is interested, we can discuss these possible nominees and others can do what they want to look into them.

On the fourth: For various reasons, I sure as heck would not want the next Supreme Court Justice to be appointed by a President Trump. I'm too familiar with his views on certain issues and things that he's said in the past and things he's advocated for more recently to feel good about the idea of him picking Justices. I don't think he has much regard for the Constitution, not to the extent that it might get in the way of things that he wants (and feels entitled) to do. (Can you say Kelo? A good decision? Seriously?) That's not to say that I'd want a President Clinton or Sanders or Bloomberg or even Biden to pick the next Supreme Court Justice. I would not.

Lastly, at this point I think it's worse than a crapshoot waiting on a Republican President. I think that ship has sailed, or at least it's been unmoored and is drifting away from the docks. I obviously don't know exactly what's going to happen with the nomination process going forward (though I do have number of thoughts on what's likely to happen, assuming that Mr. Cruz is going to stay in through tomorrow - a safe assumption at this point I guess). But I don't think that any of the likely scenarios will leave the eventual Republican nominee with much of a chance to win the general election, absent the kind of significant game-changer that I've referred to in the past (e.g. Mrs. Clinton being indicted mid-campaign or someone like Mr. Bloomberg running as an independent, and frankly - at this point - I think Democrats could even overcome the former happening if it happened early enough for Mr. Sanders or Mr. Biden or some others to step in and effectively run in her place).

 

[Chris0nllyn]

My money is also on Srinivasan.

IMO, not a horrible choice but I do think his role in US v. Windsor will make the Republicans fight efforts to appoint him.

 

[Hijinx]

On the first: Judge Srinivasan is Indian (i.e. of Indian descent and born in India), in case you're interested. He came to the U.S. with his family at a very young age. Being Asian perhaps makes him somewhat desirable politically, for those that care about diversity, as we've never had an Asian Supreme Court Justice. But I don't think that would be the primary reason for him being considered. Ideological preferences aside, he's pretty qualified and fairly widely respected. Accepting that a given Justice was going to be appointed by President Obama (or probably most other Democrat Presidents), I'd say he's better than what we might expect to get - ideologically. He's a quite reasonable choice I think. And I think under most circumstances he'd have little trouble getting confirmed.

On the second: There's some truth in that, but I don't think we can (or should) expect another Justice Scalia or even another Justice Kennedy when it comes to the ideological leanings of the eventual nominee. It isn't going to be someone most would consider a conservative, at best it will be someone that many would consider fairly moderate.

On the third: That's part of my purpose in starting this thread. If anyone is interested, we can discuss these possible nominees and others can do what they want to look into them.

On the fourth: For various reasons, I sure as heck would not want the next Supreme Court Justice to be appointed by a President Trump. I'm too familiar with his views on certain issues and things that he's said in the past and things he's advocated for more recently to feel good about the idea of him picking Justices. I don't think he has much regard for the Constitution, not to the extent that it might get in the way of things that he wants (and feels entitled) to do. (Can you say Kelo? A good decision? Seriously?) That's not to say that I'd want a President Clinton or Sanders or Bloomberg or even Biden to pick the next Supreme Court Justice. I would not.

Lastly, at this point I think it's worse than a crapshoot waiting on a Republican President. I think that ship has sailed, or at least it's been unmoored and is drifting away from the docks. I obviously don't know exactly what's going to happen with the nomination process going forward (though I do have number of thoughts on what's likely to happen, assuming that Mr. Cruz is going to stay in through tomorrow - a safe assumption at this point I guess). But I don't think that any of the likely scenarios will leave the eventual Republican nominee with much of a chance to win the general election, absent the kind of significant game-changer that I've referred to in the past (e.g. Mrs. Clinton being indicted mid-campaign or someone like Mr. Bloomberg running as an independent, and frankly - at this point - I think Democrats could even overcome the former happening if it happened early enough for Mr. Sanders or Mr. Biden or some others to step in and effectively run in her place).

I don't want Trump picking a SCOTUS either, but could he pick one worse than what Hillary would pick?
Would Hillary pick Obama? I dunno, they owe each other a lot.
As for Hillary, she will be the Democrat nominee. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that she will be indicted. Not by Obama's puppet Loretta Lynch.
I disagree with you on the democrats chances of beating Trump. I believe they could beat Cruz handily, but Trump ?? Not so easily, unless he chooses to put Hillary in ---like many already suspect.

 

[Tilted]

My money is also on Srinivasan.

IMO, not a horrible choice but I do think his role in US v. Windsor will make the Republicans fight efforts to appoint him.

Is there something in particular about his role in Windsor that you're referring to?

Sure, any nominee that President Obama picks will face considerable opposition from Republicans. Many Republicans will, e.g., take issue with their ideological views (documented or assumed). But his having advocated for a position which the current Supreme Court eventually adopted won't be enough to refuse to confirm him (without likely paying a political price). There are a number of Senate seats that effectively answer to more than just the base of the Republican party, it isn't a given that they would win a general election if they are their party's nominee. Some seats need to be concerned with that less than others, but the typical Senate seat is different than the typical House seat in that regard.

 

[Hijinx]

Is there something in particular about his role in Windsor that you're referring to?

Sure, any nominee that President Obama picks will face considerable opposition from Republicans. Many Republicans will, e.g., take issue with their ideological views (documented or assumed). But his having advocated for a position which the current Supreme Court eventually adopted won't be enough to refuse to confirm him (without likely paying a political price). There are a number of Senate seats that effectively answer to more than just the base of the Republican party, it isn't a given that they would win a general election if they are their party's nominee. Some seats need to be concerned with that less than others, but the typical Senate seat is different than the typical House seat in that regard.

Why should Republicans pay any more price than Democrat paid when They Borked Bork?
Which was none.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Is there something in particular about his role in Windsor that you're referring to?

Besides being on the winning side?

I just think hard-core evangelicals (or, at least those who still believe gay marriage being a right is worth fighting over) will use the fact that he argued before the court as a reason not to appoint him.

Of course, you also have his role in Skilling v. US which liberals may fuss over. Mother Jones has already mentioned it.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/who-sri-srinivasan-supreme-court

As a big fan of civil liberties, his role in US v. Jones (police putting GPS tracker on a vehicle without a warrant) gets a thumbs up from me.




Regardless, I'd be willing to be the next nominee will be a minority or woman.

 

[Tilted]

I don't want Trump picking a SCOTUS either, but could he pick one worse than what Hillary would pick?
Would Hillary pick Obama? I dunno, they owe each other a lot.
As for Hillary, she will be the Democrat nominee. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that she will be indicted. Not by Obama's puppet Loretta Lynch.
I disagree with you on the democrats chances of beating Trump. I believe they could beat Cruz handily, but Trump ?? Not so easily, unless he chooses to put Hillary in ---like many already suspect.

I'll keep repeating it such that there'll be no place for me to hide if I'm wrong smile:

Without the kind of game changer that I've referred to, Mr. Trump would lose a general election (even to Mrs. Clinton, though he'd perhaps fair worse against some others that I can think of). I don't say he might lose, I don't say he's likely to lose, I say he will lose - meaning, with a very high degree of confidence, upper upper 90%s. My confidence in that is even higher today than it was a month ago. I say that for a number of reasons, thinking about the big picture and thinking about a collection of smaller pictures (meaning, particular aspects of the race and, e.g, particular demographic issues). His best chance would be if he'd already coordinated with a prominent more-liberal potential candidate (e.g. Mr. Bloomberg, who has said he won't run) to run as an independent and split the votes of Democrats. But I'm betting against that.

I think he would get beaten badly enough (and Republicans would fare poorly enough in other areas, e.g. in the Senate) that after the fact the kind of conspiracy theories that you allude to would flourish. Many will argue that he was a Manchurian Candidate of sorts (for lack of a better term), that his candidacy was a scheme cooked up by Democrats (or perhaps the Clintons in particular) to sabotage the Republican party - to help Democrats not only win the White House again, but increase their chances of getting the Senate back and maybe even bring the House into play (though the House is still a stretch) and leave the Republican party devastated going forward. To be clear, I don't at all think that's what's going on. I do not think Mr. Trump is intentionally helping Democrats. There are better explanations for his participation in general and many of his actions in specific. What I'm saying is that he will lose, and it will be so clear after the fact that he was always going to lose that it will fan the flames of those kinds of conspiracy theories.

I was talking with a particular friend of mine a couple of days ago. He has thought that Mr. Trump had a chance to win (and presumably he still does, he didn't tell me he's changed his mind - not yet anyway). The conversation went something like this, heavily paraphrased: You don't think Mr. Trump has a chance to win? No, no chance. Hmmm... you're scaring me. Are you just being hyperbolic? Are you trying to draw me out on why I think he has a chance? No, I mean it. He has no chance. I don't think you mean that, I think you're just challenging me to convince you otherwise. What would it take for me to convince you that I'm being completely sincere? He has no chance. Pick a number and we're on for it. I'm not messing with you, I'm not trying to draw you out. I'm telling you what would happen if he were the nominee.

He picked a number, a number that I would not agree to unless I was unusually confident - even beyond how confident I've typically been going into past elections. (I have wagers with others at this point.)

Anyway, there you have it... If I end up being wrong, it will be in spectacular fashion having left myself little equivocation to work with.

But I won't be.

 

[Tilted]

Why should Republicans pay any more price than Democrat paid when They Borked Bork?
Which was none.

There are similarities, but there are also significant differences - (potentially) both in the respective nominees and in the circumstances and political realities in play at the time. (I absolutely am not saying that it was okay for Democrats to bork Mr. Bork, or even that it was more okay than Republicans not even considering whoever President Obama nominates now - I'm speaking to the politics of the respective situations.)

For one thing, Republican leadership made the boneheaded move of coming out right after Justice Scalia passed away and stating plainly that they wouldn't consider anyone that the current President - one with nearly a hear left on their 4-year term - nominated. That was a bad move politically. It was about appeasing some of the base, and it may have a net political benefit for particular people. But it was an ill-advised move when it comes to the aggregate prospects of Republicans in the coming election. It put them in a box they didn't need to put themselves in.

(And, yes, I'm familiar with what some Democrats have said in the past about nominations toward the end of presidential terms. I'd criticize those statements as well, maybe not as being bone-headed politically though. In those cases, the people making the statements were lucky enough not to have to actually confront the choice of considering a nominee or not. They made the statements generically and there didn't end up being a vacancy, so they got away with it to a greater extent than Republicans might this time around. This time Republicans were imprudent enough to make such statements even knowing that the situation was actually going to play out. So they won't be getting lucky in the way that people making similar statements have in the past.)

 

[TheLibertonian]

Well he's not a harvard graduate, and he's not from New York, and he does have quite a bit of experience. Seems a fair choice to me to review in depth.

 

[Tilted]

Returning to the point of the thread, here are the six potential nominees that some think are in the running. (Some have suggested that the list is down to 5 or even 3 now.)

Chief Judge Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit

Judge Patricia Millett, D.C. Circuit

Judge Sri Srinivasan, D.C. Circuit

Judge Jane Kelly, 8th Circuit

Judge Paul Watford, 9th Circuit

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, District Court for the District of Columbia


Judges Millett and Jackson don't seem likely choices to me. And although Chief Judge Garland is among those on the shortest list I've seen (a list of three), I don't expect him to be the choice either. For one thing, he's a little older than I would think President Obama (and most Presidents) would want his nominee to be.

 

[Tilted]

Well he's not a harvard graduate, and he's not from New York, and he does have quite a bit of experience. Seems a fair choice to me to review in depth.

He (i.e Judge Srinivasan) and Judge Watford are the only ones on the supposed short list (of 6) that didn't go to Harvard.

 

[TheLibertonian]

He (i.e Judge Srinivasan) and Judge Watford are the only ones on the supposed short list (of 6) that didn't go to Harvard.

Which to me is a big sticking point.

Harvards a fine school so I understand, but if you want a variety of viewpoints you need, IMO, to not all come from the same background. It's also why "not being from New York" is up on the list.

 

[Tilted]

It's being reported that President Obama will announce his nominee at 11 AM.

 

[Hijinx]

It's being reported that President Obama will announce his nominee at 11 AM.

Whoop de doo.

 

[awpitt]

It's Merrick Garland.

 

[Vince]

It's Merrick Garland.

You think the Senate will approve this guy?

 

[Tilted]

It's Merrick Garland.

That surprise me a bit. I think he's a fine choice, ideological differences aside. But I would have thought his age would make him less desirable, he likely wouldn't get to serve on the Court and influence future decisions for as long as a younger nominee would have.

I wonder if the President is nominating him thinking him get confirmed or assuming that he won't? If the latter, that makes a bit more sense to me. Basically, he'd be avoiding wasting someone he (and perhaps his successor) would want by nominating them now when their chances of getting confirmed were slim (if he thinks whoever he nominates now won't be really get considered). None of that is to suggest that I think President Obama doesn't think Chief Judge Garland is a good pick.

At any rate, Chief Judge Garland will present a bit of a problem for Republicans intent on not really considering whomever the nominee was. But he's not as bad for them as some of the other picks might have been. They would have had a really difficult time, e.g., refusing to fairly consider (or even refusing to confirm) Judge Srinivasan. I think the same is more or less true for Judge Watford.

 

[Tilted]

You think the Senate will approve this guy?

Barring some bombshell reason to oppose him being found (which I wouldn't expect given how long he's been around and how noteworthy he's been while in the federal judiciary), I would say it will be difficult politically - looking to the upcoming general election, not when it comes to the Republican base - for them not to.