President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 23, 2016 01:40 PM UTC

How Long Can GOP SCOTUS Obstruction Last?

  • 47 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

As the Washington Post reports, the all-important Senate Judiciary Committee is locking down against holding any hearings on a possible replacement for recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are determined not to hold hearings on President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, making it clear on Tuesday that they back the strategy being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said it is the “consensus view” of the panel not to hold hearings.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is drawing a similarly hard line, CNN reports:

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court.

“Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” McConnell said. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

The announcement prompted sharp criticism from Democrats, who contended that the GOP-led Senate was failing to do its job and would be risking its tenuous hold on the majority in the fall elections.

But some Republican Senators, including one up for re-election this year, are trying to put daylight between themselves and the intransigence of their Senate leadership:

In an op ed for the Chicago Sun-Times, Kirk wrote, “I recognize the right of the president, be it Republican or Democrat, to place before the Senate a nominee for the Supreme Court and I fully expect and look forward to President Barack Obama advancing a nominee for the Senate to consider.”

…Kirk writes in his editorial, “I also recognize my duty as a senator to either vote in support or opposition following a fair and thorough hearing along with a complete and transparent release of all requested information.”

Sen. Cory Gardner (R).
Sen. Cory Gardner (R).

Sen. Mark Kirk’s comments have been echoed by at least one other Republican Senator, Susan Collins of Maine. Last week in the immediate aftermath of Scalia’s death, we and others in Colorado took note of some “wiggle room” in the first statement from Sen. Cory Gardner–who had at least initially allowed for the possibility that President Obama might be able to come up with a nominee who could win a Senate majority. After we sniffed around some confusing news reports on the subject, Gardner’s spokesman rushed to assure us that Gardner’s position had not “evolved.”

The next day, Gardner’s position indeed “evolved”–to eliminate any possibility that an acceptable nominee might be nominated by President Obama. We’ll take some credit for helping suss out Gardner’s self-contradicting statement, but it’s clear in retrospect that a lot of Republicans were caught off-message by Scalia’s demise. Corralling everyone back into McConnell’s obstructionist fold was publicly rather, well, messy.

So what happens next? Polling shows the question of confirming a replacement for Justice Scalia breaks largely on partisan lines–for now. The question becomes whether Democrats can use the GOP’s hardening position to win support ahead of the November elections. Make no mistake, if polls show Democrats gaining the upper hand in this debate, Republicans will be strongly motivated to make a deal regardless of their rhetoric up to that point–especially since they could wield a lot of influence over a “Democratic” SCOTUS pick if they came back to the table.

If they don’t? It’s one last show of bad faith for the voters, right before a major election.

Tweet
Share

Comments

47 thoughts on “How Long Can GOP SCOTUS Obstruction Last?”

  1. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought for sure that at some point, Republican obstruction and radicalization would eventually bring them to a breaking point. But maybe this country is semi-permanently broken, politically. Maybe we really have distinctive sets of voters who believe 100% that their view is the right one, and that the other side isn't worth communicating with nevermind governing alongside. That would be sad.

    1. Democrats have taken the country to this sad point. In 2009 you had a chance to bring America together and you chose to tear it apart with lavish spending and socialized medicine. I believe the nation can heal but the division Obama created must end. That can't happen until Obama is out of the White House.

      2. Obama, who gave Republicans an entire summer to argue their case before the public rather than rushing PPACA through Congress before the recess? Obama, who worked with Republicans on the sequester plan? Obama, who nominated Elana Kagan at least in part on the recommendation of Justice Antonin Scalia?

        Or do you mean the Obama who was the target of this:

        …the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”

        How many times have you stared at this blog and seen any number of us "lefties" griping about Obama pretty much wasting his first term trying to be conciliatory toward the GOP?

        You're either completely delusional or completely dishonest. I have a guess as to which…

        1. Phoenix you're right on target.

          Senator McConnell is playing a dangerous political game. There is a little over eight months until the general election. That's certainly enough time for this to go very badly for the good senator and the Republican cause. He reinforced the image and narrative that the Republican congressional party is obstructionist and refuses to govern the country.

          Through his statement today he drew a line in the sand and dared the President to nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court. If President Obama backed down (he won't) and failed to nominate someone, the senator would be letting everyone know how weak the President seems to be and correspondingly the Democrats. Once President Obama sends the Senate a nominee and it dawns on the electorate that Senator McConnell and the Republican Party rejected the nominee before they even knew who he or she would be, his argument that the people should vote on who should pick the nominee will ring very hollow. Under McConnell's new theory of governing which, by the way, violates the process established in the U.S. Constitution, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the President should have never asked for a declaration of war on December 8, 1941. Since this was such a momentous decision and meant an extended period of warfare lasting well beyond the 1942 elections, both President Roosevelt and Congress should have let the people vote on it in the 1942 election to see what direction the nation should go even though the Constitution states the Congress exercises the power to declare war regardless of when the next election is scheduled. There's nothing in the Constitution about deferring either the power to declare war or vote on the nomination for a Supreme Court justice to the electorate. In fact the opposite is true. Congress is delegated the duty of considering a nominee and voting the nominee either up or down. If the electorate doesn't like their decision, we can vote them out of office. The next election isn't for and was never designed under the Constitution as a confirmation hearing in any sense. The election is designed for the sole purpose of rendering a decision on what kind of job we think our elected officials have done. In the present case, its clear, they've refused to do their constitutionally mandated duties and therefore should be turned out of office.  

        1. I guess we can practice the Discipline of Gratitude as Mrs. Clinton calls Craig and be glad that we don't have that kind of a drab and gray mind to carry around with us everyday.  Let us be glad that Moldy shows us the full dimensions of dull thinking that is incapable of original or witty thought so we can cherish those moments when the creative spark fires up in us and we can assemble thoughts with the ease of a carpenter building a cabinet.  The guy is like a dumb animal that needs shelter and to be fed but is incapable of higher language or rational thought with moments of intuitive understanding.  We should feel sorry for this fool and his dreary, zombie mental cognition abilities.  There but for the grace of God.

      4. There's a chart on another thread that shows how much less the spending under Obama has been than under previous Dem and R Presidents and the tearing apart is entirely due to your party’s disgusting racist hatred of a centrist President who always bent over backwards to be the President of all Americans, not just black Americans, so much so that he faced criticism from black American leaders for not doing enough to address their concerns. Also ACA didn't create socilaized medicine. It's all private sector except for expanding existing Medicaid.

        The economy is in much better shape than before Obama took office. The hatred is on your party's hands. America has not been ruined but put on more solid ground than the shambles your last President left in. By every objective measure.

      5. and socialized medicine?

        You mean that market-based solution conceived by Newt Gingrich and AEI as an alternative to Hillary-care, and the prototype of which was later tested as Romney-care?

      6. So Democrats are to blame for taking the country to the sad point where all Republicans have been able to do for the past several decades now is nominate assclowns and douche-cannons ??? …

        … and that's all Obama's fault, eh, fluffy?

        You're sure a very kind of special special there, kid …

      7. Why is it that a Democratic President's effort to carry out the promises he made during a winning election campaign is divisive, according to Moderatus, but a Republican who tries to carry out his campaign promises is not acting divisively?

        Mr. Obama won an absolute majority of the popular vote – twice. He has, and had, a mandate. If anything, he did not go far enough.

  2. Send the Rs a thank you note for energizing our base and nominate Lotetta Lynch to the court.   Black women are the single most important part of the Democratic base yet there has never been a black woman on the court.

    1. Or nominate Srinivasan or Kelly, both recently unanimously approved to lower circuit courts, to highlight Republican obstruction, bettering Senate races in swing states.  The base is the base.  Black women love Hillary.  Maybe better to aim for the middle.

      1. I'm thinking the Republicans are locked in to the point where they'd oppose the nomination of Zombie Scalia if it were put before them.

        Reagan went for a moderate in Kennedy after Bork was Borked, and got it past Senate Democrats. Maybe it would work for Obama. The unanimous approval thing counts a lot, too. Nominating Kelly, who was approved 96-0, would be a good choice I think. And she's got a background as a public defender, which is experience sorely lacking on the Court. In contrast, Loretta Lynch's nomination was 53-46 – not an auspicious start to what is sure to be a contentious process (if Republicans even let it off the ground).

        1. I think the rise of partisan gridlock started with the abortion issue.  Republicans were able to cast it as a good vs evil encounter with no compromise possible because it was murder then when it worked at the polls, they expanded the good vs evil theme to every issue and the only acceptable answer was no compromise so no governing partnership.  The general strategy is to oppose getting anything done when you are in the minority than ram all your pet laws through when you are in the majority.  It is such a corrosive concept that like the Flint pipes their entire party is poisoned and they don't even know it.  It's going to take some monumental failure on their part like Clinton winning the White House to cause them to reassess this strategy of No.

        1. Kelly IMHO fills both needs. Public defender background, assault survivor, female, received strong support from Sen. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley during her Appeals Court confirmation process. Tom Goldstein over at SCOTUSblog thinks she's one of the top candidates.

          He also mentions Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the DC District Court. She's been confirmed at least twice by the Senate (Judge and Sentencing Commission) with no opposition, and has the added benefit (to the base) of being black. Her downside is that she's not an Appeals Court judge or state Supreme Court judge, which are the places from which Justices are usually elevated.

    2. You mean the Loretta Lynch who is strongly opposed to marijuana legalization and believes it to be more dangerous than alcohol? Who likes warrantless phone snooping? Sure she'd be oodles better than Scalia, and she does present a symbol for some to rally around, but is she the best candidate for the job?

      I have to imagine that there are more inspiring candidates out there for Democrats to rally around…

        1. I just think there are better candidates out there than Lynch. She's doing okay as AG, but I don't find her inspiring, and she was a contentious nominee with a bare majority confirmation vote. She's just not the right person at the right time.

          And yes, it would be nice if someone on the Court questioned why weed was Schedule 1.

          1. There was a white male from Montana who was a Presbyterian and was supposed to be a pretty evenhanded jurist on a District Appeals Court.  Wouldn't it just twist Republicans in knots if Obama nominated someone outside of Harvard who was a white man, a Christian, came from the West and was in his 50's.  Talk about mind fucking Republicans when they least expect it and then let them explain why the guy can’t get a hearing or a vote.

            1. "There was a white male from Montana"

              …and I'm waiting for the rest of the limerick

              bandana,banana, ran a, stamma,  fan a, bwana, tanna,

              blanda, Anna, Wah -na, Shanana, canna (bis) plannah, Obannah,

              2. There was a while male from Montana who was adroit at judging in his pajamas.

                He heard them all bicker and beg while cooking his eggs then rendered a verdict that was just bananas.

                1. You are my inspiration, GG.

                  There was a white male from Montana

                  Sent to the Supremes by Obanna,

                  They whined and they begged

                  "Personhood for all Eggs!"

                  But the new judge said "Man, that's bananas!"

    3. I don't see it. The inevitable vicious attacks on her wouldn't hurt Rs among anyone who would vote for them anyway.  Not sure it would have a significant energizing effect either. A nomination of someone so hated by Rs would simply allow Rs to say it showed that Obama had no intention of nominating anyone in the spirit of conciliation or with a serious chance of confirmation. Never mind they have no  interest in conciliation or confirming anyone but a sharp stick in your eye nomination like the AG would let them blame their obstruction on Obama. I'd say go with someone with a sterling rep, someone Rs had easily confirmed before and let them be the ones to look completely unreasonable.

  3. This is not going to happen.  Period.  Obama can and should nominate.  It will never see the light of day in the Senate.  They need a win for their base.

    1. The fuck do they win? 4-4 court is more favorable to Democrats than the 4-5 court.

      Refusing to fight doesn't net them anything, and it only helps Sen. candidates like Duckworth, Hassan, Feingold, and Strickland make a better argument against these assholes. If this doesn't send the turtle back into the minority than I don't know what will (scratch that, EVERYTHING ELSE THEY REFUSE TO DO should do it too).

      1. It would also help other races as well…

        Murphy or Grayson in Florida – more Murphy than Grayson IMHO – would benefit.

        Kirkpatrick could benefit in Arizona, and could win in a contest against either a damaged McCain or one of the Tea Party ultra-whackos.

        It could also help us hold Nevada, and Bennet could also benefit, since he's known as a middle-of-the-road, why-can't-we-all-just-get-along kind of guy.

  4. So should the Dems bog down the workings of the Senate, which can be ground to a halt with parliamentary maneuvers, to belie Mitch McConnell's claims of "restoring the Senate?" 

    1. It's been reported by various reputable sources that yes, that is the case. R leadership has laid down the law that no action will be taken on any Obama appointment to the Supremes. Heard it on NPR and elsewhere. Which, of course, doesn't mean Obama isn't going to put one out there. The more obviousy reasonable his pick is, the more easily that person has been confirmed to other positions by Republicans, the more unreasonable it makes Republicans look going into the election and I'm pretty sure that's the kind of choice Obama will make, not an in your face statement choice.

      1. The article Daft notes mentions a twitter report that the Republicans will block a Clinton/Sanders nominee, rather than an Obama one.  I think that's why more evidence is desired.

        1. oops. If they seriously plan to block any Supreme Court nominees for an entire presidential term tacked on to a year of the remainder of Obama’s term, they’ve gone completely over the edge.

          1. Of course if Dems take the Senate and the WH and Rs seriously decide to block any Supreme Court nomination for the duration the Dems will be perfectly justified in going for the nuclear rule change option.

    2. There's really no reason for a Republican majority senate to approve any Democratic Supreme Court nominee, ever. The Republican agenda is to keep breaking things until they get their way. Any reasonable projection of vacancies give the Republicans either a tie or conservative majority in the court.

      Even if Sotomayor an Kagan outlive Roberts and Alito, they'll hold out until they can get a R president. As time goes on it gives them a chance to get a president who will have multiple nominations to make on inauguration day.

  6. you can't discount the Completely Ignorant in this sit, like Jon Cornyn of TX, and they are mostly on the Republican side:

    "We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame duck president," said Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TN).

    They decided in '12, that decision lasts until Jan, 2017.

    When asked if they would start the process after the new president took office or if they would consider doing it in the lame duck session, Cornyn replied "No, after the next president is selected. That way the American people have a voice in the process."

    Yes, he really is that stupid, and so are his supporters. And so are Democrats who don't refudiate him.

    The Republican members of the Judiciary Commitee were unanimous in agreeing not to move forward with any Obama nominee for the Supreme Court, said Cornyn, who was in the meeting. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who was not in the meeting, later said that GOP senators were told at their weekly lunch that the Judiciary Committee Republicans were in unanimous agreement on the strategy. Meanwhile, Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-IA) and the rest of the committee Republicans sent a letter to McConnell outlining their plan to block any Obama nominee for Scalia's seat.

    Teamwork: protecting McConnell's ass.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that "there's no use starting a process that's not going to go anywhere and we are going to let the next president decide," when asked why there would be no hearings. When TPM asked if he had political concerns about the decision not to move forward with a nominee, Graham responded."I have zero concerns politically." "I think this is what they would do," Graham said referring to Senate Democrats. "For them to say they wouldn't do this is a lie."

    If only our side could ever be as diligent and coordinated……..Lindsey threw down the gauntlet……..

    1. "There's no use starting a process that not going to go anywhere …

      … unless it's, what, the 68th vote to repeal Obamacare??  All opposed, say … "

  7. Have they really thought this through?

    There is still a contingent of moderate pro-choice, pro-gun safety, pro-education suburban Republican women who remain registered with the GOP but frequently vote Democratic. (Think of it as counterpart to the old segregationist southern Democrats in the late 60's and 70's voting for Nixon and then Reagan before finally changing parties.) 

    Does McConnell, Cornyn, Cruz, et al. really want to present this election as a referendum on this Supreme Court seat knowing that those pro-choice, pro-gun safety, pro-education suburban Republican women may be pushed into voting for HRC (or the Bern) if this is presented as Roe v. Wade being in the balance?  

    The real treat would be seeing HRC nominate Obama for the vacancy right after taking office! Be careful what you wish for…..you may get it.

    1. I'm sure they've thought it through. They've been told by numerous ultra-winger groups that either they block the nomination completely or they lose support. They're scared stiff of the base they've acquired. Without it, they're toast. The rest of the Republican hangers-on they hope to continue to dazzle by demonizing the Democrats.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

49 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!