Republican governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval being considered for Supreme Court

[TheProgressive]

I thought Obama was a democrat?

I know Democrats thought they were voting for a democrat - I guess we were wrong (again).

Brian Sandoval, the centrist Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination to the Supreme Court, according to two people familiar with the process.

Sandoval is increasingly viewed by some key Democrats as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president.

<snip>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?postshare=1491456337269807&tid=ss_tw

[sharp_stick]

1. Don't believe everything you read

Nice attempt at an Obama smear.

It's early in the game and the number of names being floated is huge. My guess is you probably don't care (again).

[TheProgressive]

3. I expect a Democratic president to nominate a Democratic justice...

Smear? No. A democratic president nominates democrats - get it?

[sharp_stick]

5. Please point out the non Democratic

justice that Obama has nominated...I'll wait here.

[TheProgressive]

8. Please wait while I offer up the chained-CPI for Social Security.

Time for real democrats to take over the third-way.

[sharp_stick]

10. Oh yeah

when did he do that?

Probably when he was appointing that Republican justice for the SC. He's been busy doing a lot of stuff that never actually happened.

[NOVA_Dem]

20. Right here in his budget

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/news/economy/obama-budget/index.html

Change how inflation is measured: Obama has already gotten blasted from the left for supporting a switch to "chained CPI," which is a new way to measure inflation that would reduce projected federal spending by slowing the growth in federal benefits that are annually adjusted for cost of living. Those include Social Security benefits.

[Hortensis]

40. ThePrg, this guy is far too middle-of-the-road/bipartisan for today's GOP.

They won't want him. They want to reinterpret the entire Constitution until it is unrecognizable. They need an extremely conservative activist justice who would sneak off to secret meetings with anti-government plotters, but they would settle for a solidly dependable conservative vote. They wouldn't get that with Governor Sandoval.

Plus, ultraconservatives are scarred and bitter by many decades of naming conservatives to the court only to find them "moving left" in their decisions. Of course, it's not that they really move left so much as that far right ideology is at odds with constitutional law and can't be justified. Except by people like Scalia who pretend to worship the Constitution, mine it for excuses to rule as they wish, and toss it aside if it contradicts those wishes.

In any case, the nation will see Obama offering a candidate both sides can accept -- one the Senate approved unanimously for a judgeship in 2005!, and very likely see the GOP blocking even that as usual. Or the GOP could approve a candidate even the most wishful do not mistake for the man they want.

But I'm guessing this is a first move, with more to come. This is an election year and the stakes in this extremely high-skill game for top-level players are enormous. Oh, and remember, President Obama is himself a constitutional scholar. He's no dummy.

A Responsibility I Take Seriously
By President Barack Obama on Feb 24, 2016 at 8:00 am

The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It’s a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead. It’s also one of the most important decisions that a President will make. Rulings handed down by the Supreme Court directly affect our economy, our security, our rights, and our daily lives.

Needless to say, this isn’t something I take lightly. It’s a decision to which I devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation with legal experts, members of both political parties, and people across the political spectrum. And with thanks to SCOTUSblog for allowing me to guest post today, I thought I’d share some spoiler-free insights into what I think about before appointing the person who will be our next Supreme Court Justice.

First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified. He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I’m looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law. I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand. ...

http://www.scotusblog.com/

[div class=Some Democrats believe that nominating Sandoval could fracture the front of Republican opposition and force McConnell to take up the nomination in this contentious election year. It would also put on the spot a handful of Senate Republicans who are up for reelection in blue states in November.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?postshare=1491456337269807&tid=ss_tw

[fredamae]

2. And HRC has firmly Committed herself

to carrying on PBO's legacy. I can only assume this means similar Leadership choices as well.
How the Dem Party gets Dragged towards the Right Wing.

[HERVEPA]

52. Obama's Suprem Court nominees have been consistently liberal you know.

[Kip Humphrey]

4. I didn't sign on for this.

[bbgrunt]

6. ....but Bernie's "not a democrat"!! eeeeeek!

[snooper2]

7. This short thread already shows how people just believe whatever they read...

Amazing...

I guess it is the times, shows why Trump is doing so good.

[TheProgressive]

9. Do you suggest that democrats just sit back and say nothing?

Amazing...

[snooper2]

11. It is a random article by two unnamed sources LOL

I'll wait until the White House actually um, names some names

[TheProgressive]

12. I guess some people are more in tuned as to how politics work...

[snooper2]

13. If you think the White House is floating names, you'll see the names on talking head tv

[Andy823]

48. Yep

Of course we have a lot of Obama haters on DU, have for some time now. I think as long as it's something bad about the president, they are more than willing to accept it as truth, instead of actually waiting to see what really happens.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Two notes on this

first off this is unarmed sources... we call this in the business a TRIAL BALLOON.

Second, you do not name people to the bench because they are democrats. You nominate them because they are qualified, IN a far less divided country, which you obviously do not remember, Democratic presidents did indeed nominate republicans to the bench and the other way around. The Bench should be as insulated from this stupidity (partisanship) as possible

As a final note, you really expect the president to nominate a liberal to the bench in this environment? Please pass whatever you are smoking. If... and that is a big iff, the seat remains empty, until after the elections, and the dems get their act together and nominate the progressive in the race (that be Sanders) and his coattails extend to taking back the Senate. then you can see a more liberal person appointed to the bench. (Yes I am calling their bluff that they will not even hold hearings, a competent party, which the Dems are not, would use that against Republicans)

[TheProgressive]

15. Funny how republican presidents are able to appoint hard core conservatives...

...while democrats are required to appoint conservatives as well...

What I expect is a democratic president to nominate a democrat justice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. And I expect the third branch to lose even more neutrality

if we do that.

Sorry, but this partisanship will be the death knell of the United States, we are walking towards a hot civil war. We have been in a cold one for since 1996 at least.

And you can expect whatever you want. But on this one. POTUS is correct, in saying that parties should stay out of the courts.

[TheProgressive]

23. Partisanship?

The SCOTUS has taken the power to enact law. This is indeed a fight for the future of the USA and the planet. You better well damn believe I am pushing for a progressive liberal supreme court justice. The failure would result in a lock for the oligarchy... and that's when the hot civil war would actualy begin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Yes partisanship

read all about it. There are reams of academics writing abut this and how damaging it is.

[TheProgressive]

28. There is a difference between...

..republicans and establishment democrats who want an oligarchy, and
progressive liberal democrats who want a healthy prosperous educated civil and social democracy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. And progressive democrats are really nowhere close to power

[dsc]

18. Ginsburg was nominated by Clinton

who I know you hate but the simple fact is three of the four Dems nominated in most people's lifetimes are out and out liberals. Only Breyer isn't and he is way, way, way more left than Souter was right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. hate is such a strong word, I suppose

after you said that, I can freely ignore the rest of what you typed. Mostly, once you assume such, there is no use in even attempting to have a conversation. You made it, into the soft ignore list.

By the way I did read it. Tell me, how different was the environment when Clinton nominated Ginsburg, and how many in the Senate voted for her. That would be your first clue. And with that, let me open teh list, and yes, add your name to it.

[KamaAina]

49. The key phrase there is "and the other way around".

As long as the repukes continue to use all their SCOTUS appointments to stack the court with young right-wingers like Roberts who will be around for decades, we have to counter them, or watch the judicial branch go the way of the legislative.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. But as long as the driving principle

Is triangulation that ain't gonna happen

Oh and by the way, Roberts has had some pretty liberal rulings lately.

[WillyT]

17. Jesus...

[davidn3600]

19. He may nominate a moderate to make it harder for the Republicans to block

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Somebody who gets current politics,

[TheProgressive]

25. And America loses....

I prefer to fight instead of cave... but that's your choice...

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. America already lost

It did when it collectively decided to go down this path and the democrats never challenged republicans as they continued to take the country to the right,m and instead joined them with the DLC crap. This, the fact that this president cannot appoint a flaming liberal to the bench, is the result of 25 years, at least, of Democrats not fighting and being utterly incompetent.

A future historian will have fun with this period of the US, and after we go openly fascist in November, which I will blame the democratic party and HCR for, not the voters. well what can I say? Enjoy the ride, it will get extremely bumpy.

[TheProgressive]

32. And this is why people need to organize and fight for what's right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Son I have been in the streets reporing on the few who are in the streets

protesting.

And if you think most Americans are going to take to the streets over a Supreme Court justice, I think the Coronado bridge is for sale... you might even get it cheap.

You are taking to the wrong person. I have been in the front lines... but you know what? IF Americans cannot be bothered to take to the streets for things they understand (and when they do, like Occupy they wet their kicked to the curb, the few that dared that is), you expect them to take to the streets over the supreme court? That is funny. But if they do... tell me where, and if this is within my coverage area I will be there, with camera, notebook and recorder.

I believe it should be ahem documented and reported on.

[dragonfly301]

39. If no one took to the streets when

Thurgood Marshall was replaced by Clarence f'ing Thomas then no one will be protesting Obama replacing Scalia with a moderate Republican ...except maybe the Republicans - not conservative enough!

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. The courts are a mystery wrapped in an enigma as far as most Americans

are concerned. Supreme Court appointments, never mind BOTH parties talk them up in campaigns... are far, and I mean this far, from what Americans are concerned with.

They matter, more than most Americans understand, but like budgets, they are dry and hard to understand. So give me more puppies please.

[TheProgressive]

43. 'Son'....

I suggest you find a very large ladder to get off the horse you are on...

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Your OP is full of it

and I just went down the same tone you are using.

And do you honestly think the American people will take to the streets over a supreme court justice? Really?

[KamaAina]

50. Srinivasan is a moderate.

Sandoval may be moderate by the standards of repukes, but he's still a repuke.

[L. Coyote]

26. Just for purposes of Republican dissent of Republican obstructionism, of course.

No way Obama would play lame duck and roll over to Mitch on this one. Mitch is wrong and Obama is on the side of the Constitution.

Besides, if the Republicans don't cave on this, they will lose both House and Senate. As is, they may hold the House.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. You are assuming the democratic party will be even half way competent in

rubbing their faces in it. I'm not.

[TheUndecider]

53. Rank an File republicans

Are loving that their boys are being obstructionist on this. The only republicans losing votes over this will be the very few who come out and say they should advise and consent, as the Constitution instructs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Yup

This is where a competent party would use it to fire their base and independents. I have not seen even an attempt to do this

[L. Coyote]

56. Define competent party.

[L. Coyote]

55. The number of remaining rank and file Republicans fit in a tea cup.

The independents and the uncommitted determine the outcome every time in Presidential races. What matters even more is turnout. Demographic groups are so politically distinct the one that turns out their votes tends to dominate. If the young vote, Republicans are extinct.

[doxyluv13]

27. puke

nt

[randys1]

33. un FUCKING acceptable

[dragonfly301]

35. What happened to Sri Srinivasan?

a moderate who just 3 years ago was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

from Slate -

"who would likely refuse to overturn treasured conservative precedents like Heller (establishing an individual right to bear arms) and Citizens United (allowing unlimited corporate electioneering). If the Senate confirmed a Srinivasan type now, it might have to swallow a slight liberal SCOTUS tilt—but it could, by and large, avoid dramatically altering the balance of the court."

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. They are floating a balloon

I suspect that other balloon did not go well and got shot down. AA must have been intense

[KamaAina]

37. O.M.F.G.

[Matariki]

38. What was this in exchange for?

How does this make sense?

[Broward]

42. Obama is always seeking consensus with the right.

He will occasionally fight hard for but against the left. See the TPP.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. That is a dynamic that we have been in since at least Clinton

it is called triangulation.

The OP also seems not to understand that.

[book_worm]

46. It's funny but presidents sometimes do select Republicans for Supreme Court

with good results: Souter and John Paul Stevens were both Republicans who turned out to be liberals. Remember you are replacing the most conservative Justice with a centrist.

[CharlotteVale]

47. I thought the Supreme Court opening was supposed to fire up the base.

Guess Obama had other ideas.