Obama will choose a qualified black or hispanic or female or a combination candidate, the republicans will stall as long as possible. The fight will make sure that very few people who are not white males will vote for the republican candidate, the democrat will win. There is no longer a risk of low voter turnout on the Dem side since we all know whats at stake now. There will be no way to continue blocking the candidate, they will be grudgingly confirmed, then Bernie or Hillary will also replace at least one more Justice during their term if not 2.
Progress will keep progressing.
Like it always has.
Also, I kinda have to wonder how republicans think they can ever win a general election ever again.
50% of white males may vote republican, MAYBE even 50% white females(probably not), but no one else is voting for them.
At least 80% plus of Black, Hispanic and asian americans will vote democrat, almost for sure.
So how do you win an election with only half of one demographic at best? You dont.
So it doesnt even matter if Obama's pick gets confirmed or not.
IN FACT the smartest thing the republicans could do is to immediately confirm Obama's pick. Then they might possibly maybe have a chance to win the election and appoint the next 2. But they would never do that so.
Its win win for democrats.
You're more of an optimist than I am. Still -- the logic of it seems promising.
Someone said something like "Obummer picked idiots." As I understand it, Kagan was even recommended by Scalia. So . . . who's the idiot here?
I've been especially outraged by the forces behind Citizens United long before SCOTUS handed us their decision. "Money is speech, but you don't get to know who is speaking." Where does that nonsense come from?
So, Obama could likely pick a "moderate." He intends to do it within a month, or that is the news-analysis speculation based on his earlier score in timeliness. We can only wait and see.
Meanwhile, someone unearthed a 2005 statement by Mitch McConnell:
"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."
"[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"
Some politicians seem to have an historical myopia about their own statements. Trump, for instance.
Well, it will be an interesting year. No less -- an unpleasant one . . .
Facebook
Twitter