Who will Obama choose to replace Antonin Scalia? Here are 7 of the strongest candidates.

[KamaAina]

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987836/obama-supreme-court-shortlist

Against tremendous opposition from Senate Republicans, Barack Obama has declared that he will too nominate someone to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

We don't know for sure who's on the president's Supreme Court shortlist, and his lists from 2009 and 2010, when he picked Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, don't necessarily apply now. Those two were replacing liberal justices and faced a Democratic Senate. Today, Obama has to pick a nominee who's not just acceptable to a Republican Senate, but acceptable as a replacement for Scalia.

That's a tough task, and as hard as Obama's inclinations are to predict, forecasting the reactions of Senate Republicans is even harder. With that being said, here are seven names you'll likely hear in the days and weeks ahead as leading contenders to succeed Scalia, in most cases because they're especially likely to be confirmed. Be sure to also check out ThinkProgress's Ian Millhiser and the New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin, who have very useful lists.

[Gabi Hayes]

1. Any and all nominees this year are doomed from the start....

for obvious reasons.

Who is going to be the sacrificial lamb?

He knows that anyone he puts up will be subject to the most outrageous, mendacious contumely imaginable, which could mean a career-killing inquisition. What up and coming forty something would subject him/herself to that kind of abuse?

[patricia92243]

2. I thought the same thing - who would be willing to go through all that - just to be rejected.

If Obama cold nominate someone, the Senate turn them down, then nominate again just as quickly as possible, senate turn them down - over and over again, it would help The Republicans look like the fools that they are.

But once again, who would be willing to be sacrificed that way.

[onenote]

5. That would be a most unwise strategy

We've mocked the repubs for bringing up proposals to "repeal Obamacare" over and over and over again despite it being clear that they can't pass. Obama would look foolish if he renominated someone after they were rejected by the Senate. To put it in context--how would we have felt if after Bork's nomination was defeated, Reagan kept renominating him?

[patricia92243]

8. I didn't mean to re-nominate that same person over and over. I meant different people each time - j

just so the public can really see what the Repubs are really up to.

[onenote]

13. Sorry for misunderstanding. You're correct. If one gets rejected, nominate another.

[Skittles]

6. so - a president shouldn't do his duty

Last edited Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:10 AM - Edit history (2)

because repukes will act like assholes?

[patricia92243]

7. I didn't mean the Prez. I meant several nominee being willing to put themselves through the

garbage from the Repubs just to be turned down.

[artislife]

3. President Obama

should just appoint one while they are on recess.

[onenote]

4. Except, despite what people are saying, the Senate most likely is not in a recess of sufficient

duration to allow for a recess appointment.

The order adjourning on Friday the 12th calls for pro forma sessions. And even if those pro forma sessions don't take place under the terms of a "concurrent resolution" passed by both the House and the Senate, there are two obstacles. First, the concurrent resolution allows the Majority Leader to call the Senate back into session at any time that the public interest requires with the concurrence of the minority leader. The Canning case addressed, but did not clearly resolve how these sorts of resolutions impact the duration of a recess -- one can't really whether the recess will be long enough (ten days is the minimum) to allow for recess appointments until the ten days have passed. Moreover, the Canning court pointed out that in Senate parlance, Sundays are not considered "days" -- thus, the current "recess" from that started on Saturday the 13th and ends on Monday the 22nd, doesn't meet the ten "day" minimum.

The current recess/concurrent resolution approach is nothing new -- and the fact that Obama, despite having a significant number of non judicial (as well as judicial) nominees bottled up by the Senate, has not attempted a recess appointment during any of them.

[librechik]

17. yeah--more courage, Mr President, It's your last rodeo!

to quote Peyton Manning….

[DFW]

9. I like the suggestion of Klobuchar

Her Senate seat will be safe in Democratic hands with Dayton as Governor of Minnesota, and her Republican Senate colleagues will have to show some considerable lack of decorum if they trash her during hearings or refuse to confirm (much less hold hearings).

McTurtle will be rubbing his temples for a while trying to figure out how to shut out a respected Senate colleague.

[bigdarryl]

10. To old plus that would be a seat that has to be defended in November and right now there is no

Candidate because shes not running foe reelection it's to late in the game for a November election

[DFW]

11. 55 is too old?

She could be on the Court for a quarter century and not be as old as Bader-Ginsburg is now.

Plus, she won re-election in 2012, so her replacement would be in there until 2018.

[bigdarryl]

14. I'm 56 but for a newbie for the SOTUS yeah I think early forties to mid forties is a good age

ew ob

[Amishman]

12. Kelly or Srinivasan are good options

very qualified individuals and their previous unanimous approvals means any senate repub bullshitting will be exposed for the partizan nonsense it is.

[bigdarryl]

15. The Srinivasan guy scares me because he's a blank slate

[librechik]

16. Why does he have to replace him with another Scalia? I don't like this meme.

oh, I know he's a captive president, but not allowing him to appoint whoever he wants is going too far.

[oberliner]

18. He can appoint whoever he wants, but he needs a few Republicans to vote to confirm

Since they hold the majority in the Senate. He needs to pick someone that at least 4 Republicans can vote yea on.

[librechik]

19. yes, and since they took a blood oath in 2009 to NEVER vote yea

I will be going insane. Wake me up when it's over!