Biden hints at centrist Supreme Court pick

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Echoing some recent Republican arguments about judicial nominations, Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday suggested that President Barack Obama will not nominate a staunch liberal to replace Justice Antonin Scalia at a time when the ideological balance of the Supreme Court is up in the air.

In the wide-ranging interview that often turned provocative, especially when he complained about the Democratic presidential race he decided to skip, the vice president flatly said an Obama nominee in the outspoken progressive mold of former Justice William Brennan is “not going to happen.” Biden, who fiercely defended legislative prerogatives as the longtime chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also volunteered that “it was never intended for the president to pick whoever he wants and that’s it.” And he suggested the Senate has the right to consider not only a nominee’s philosophy, but how much the nomination would change the court, a common GOP talking point these days.

“This is a potentially gigantic game-changer,” Biden told a POLITICO reporter and a Washington Post reporter during a sitdown on Air Force Two. “My advice is the only way we get someone on the Court now or even later is to do what was done in the past.”

Biden mentioned two examples of Republican nominees who were confirmed in times of flux because they weren’t overtly ideological conservatives — current swing Justice Anthony Kennedy, “who wasn’t a conservative’s conservative,” and former Justice David Souter, who often ended up voting with the Court’s liberal wing. He said Obama also intends to nominate “someone who has demonstrated they have an open mind, someone who doesn’t have a specific agenda,” even though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he shouldn’t bother nominating anyone in his last year.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-interview-219476#ixzz40eUI4jNj

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-interview-219476

[villager]

1. Says the supporter of Clarence Thomas

No wonder nobody has any faith in the credibility of career politicos, anymore...

[navarth]

15. Sadly agree.

[TheBlackAdder]

28. Quick, get Roe v. Wade overturned so HRC doesn't have to. nt

[ananda]

2. Oh dear.

..

[Xipe Totec]

3. What's a centrist? Someone who steals your wallet and gives you back half the money in it. nt

[kairos12]

8. Steals your wallet and helps you look for it.

[TheBlackAdder]

30. Steals your wallet, finds it for you... but all of the money is missing.

.


That way, the thief feels good about himself, because the mark doesn't have to get new ID.


.

[CincyDem]

4. "Someone with an open mind..."

That characteristic, in and of itself, will shift the court dramatically leftward relative to Scalia's closed mindedness. And a moderate who is open to the facts is almost as good as a liberal since history shows pretty clearly that facts usually favor the future.

[iandhr]

13. Someone talking sense who would have thunk it.

[houston16revival]

42. Democrats owe the Republicans one here

We owe them a 'Roberts-type' stealth liberal

A wolf in sheep's clothing

[Scalded Nun]

5. Maybe I just don't get it

SCOTUS needs to move left, not just a nudge to the center.

Appeasing these ass-wipes will never work.

[iandhr]

6. Appointing a centrist to the SCOUTS to replace Scalia would move the court to the left.

Another Souter would be great

[MillennialDem]

9. Appointing Hermann Goering to SCROTUS would move it to the left

[Stryder]

60. Ooohh.

Far too true.
And why did that make me laugh?

[lordsummerisle]

73. lol n/t

[Uponthegears]

55. Appointing

a liberal would change history.

[iandhr]

59. With the current composition of the Senate that's not doable

If the President nominates a centrist particularly one that is already been confirmed unanimously to a different federal court there are several people who fit that description. If the Republicans vote that person down they look like obstructionists and it would make it easier to win the presidential election. Then if we take back the Senate we can nominate a progressive and then the Republicans wish they would've voted for the compromise candidate.

[Uponthegears]

66. Ah

but there are some liberals who fit that description shhhhhh I am not sure everyone on the other side know who they are.

[7962]

68. Thats why the Indian-American guy looks good.

He was approved for his current position unanimously. How could the Senate have ANY credibility if they suddenly refuse to approve someone they already approved with no dissent?

[iandhr]

70. Indeed you are right.

And I why he is going to use the short list.

And I also think we can use his name Sri Srinivasan.

[Calista241]

10. Well, you can blame all the people who didn't vote in the last two off cycle elections

If we had control of the Senate, we could get an awesome jurist, but since we don't, we're stuck with who we can get approved.

[iandhr]

12. Indeed

[Stryst]

29. Can you?

Because, at least in Florida, I would blame the state level Republicans that made it so hard to vote. I'm an Air Force veteran who can't vote because I can't get an ID. There are more guys in my American Legion chapter without ID than with. But go ahead, blame us.

[sharp_stick]

34. We have to start paying a lot more

attention to State level elections. The pukes win because they take State houses and change the rules for the Federal elections.

[Stryst]

38. And they buy this privilige for pennies on the dollar

What it costs to own a federal senator.

[24601]

46. It's cause you were in the Air Force. I'm an Army vet and registered to vote when I got my FL

Driver's License. I didn't even have to ask - they asked me.

Seriously, what county are you in? Every one has a Supervisor of Elections - for Hillsborough, where MacDill AFB and Tampa are located, it's Craig Latimer. My wife loves these guys and works the elections.

It's too late to register for the March Presidential Primary, but not for the August Primary (all other races) or the General.

Here's the URL for Hillsborough: http://www.votehillsborough.org/

Get in touch with your county SOE and ask for help - it's an elected position and they love helping constituents.

[yeoman6987]

57. You can get a free veterans ID from the VA

I did that.

[Stryst]

67. I'm on 10% disability from the VA

and can't cash my checks right now. When I called and asked about a VA ID, my office told me that my disability rating wasn't high enough to qualify for one.

[yeoman6987]

71. Damn it! I am sorry to hear that. Ugh!!!!!

[former9thward]

78. Why can't you Get an ID?

You didn't explain that.

[Efilroft Sul]

16. Seriously, it's time to put the boot on the conservatives' necks.

Don't let up until their windpipes snap and bodies stop convulsing. And then you chop off their heads.

[onenote]

51. That's some big talk. Now tell us how to accomplish your plan.

[Efilroft Sul]

64. The Republicans are going to put themselves down. We just have to apply the shoe leather to them.

Right now, Reince Priebus and his RNC staffers are shitting blood over the slate of candidates, especially since last Saturday night's debate. The vitriol here between the Sanders and Clinton camps has nothing on the GOP feuds. Whereas our two candidates have a sense of civility and respect for one another, none of that exists between the Republicans. They out and out hate each other. And the more their brand of crazy is on display for the general public, the better. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP convention in Cleveland breaks out into a tables, ladders, and chairs match.

So while we continue through primary season and summer conventions, the Republicans will try to find some sense of unity by just saying no to anybody President Obama nominates to the Supreme Court vacancy. I don't care for a centrist jurist, so if the Republicans are going to have a hissy fit and deny the nominee a chance, I would hope the president nominates the polar opposite of Scalia if only to bring out the crazy in the Republicans even more. Failing that, then I hope he nominates a qualified female or minority jurist, because such a selection will bring the sexists and racists out of the woodwork.

All this hatred will work against the Republicans. As the saying goes, "When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, stay out of his way." So, yeah, stay out of the way of the GOP candidates. They're doing our work for us. And I hope the president nominates a judge that absolutely freaks out the Republicans and that they unwisely hold things up all the way to the first Monday in October, which is but a month away from the presidential election itself.

By the time we vote for the next president, the GOP's standard bearer and his party are going to look so discredited to the voters that America will put them all down. Hard. And with the Supreme Court given a much-needed shove to the left during the rest of President Obama's term and Democratic president #45, the insane conservatives can be sent to the dustbin of history, hopefully for good.

[Wibly]

36. Neither will being radical

A moderate candidate would move the court to the left, and would put the GOP in a position where any fight against the appointment would be seen as obstructionist, which in turn would lead to a Dem win in the upcoming presidential and house elections. That in turn would lead to a Dem win and the appointment of a Liberal next time.
Appointing a Liberal right now would likely only encourage the GOP base to vote, and would risk giving them the house back, and quite possibly help their presidential nominee.
There is need to sound strategy here, not just partisanship.

[Fuddnik]

7. Well, there's a fucking surprise.

I never expected anything better.

[DefenseLawyer]

11. I have raised this fear from the beginning

President Obama still wants to be seen as bridging the divide and bringing everyone together, not to mention helping his "legacy" by having a third justice appointed on his watch. So to reach those goals he may let the Federalist Society approve his nominee. I'd rather have no one than another conservative.

[geek tragedy]

23. they're talking about moderates, not federalist society wingnuts nt

[DefenseLawyer]

31. I know what they're talking about

But once you go down that road of resigning yourself to a "compromise" candidate, you run the risk that you compromise too much.

[geek tragedy]

49. it comes down to how much of a gamble one is willing to make.

get a reasonably human being in there and instantly upgrade the court by a fair degree, or double down on the election, with the upside being we get a real liberal appointed and a downside being that we get another Scalia/Alito type to replace Scalia.

[turbinetree]

14. Ian Millhiser said it best in his book.......................

on basically why we need a left leaning U.S. Supreme Court nominee...............instead of a right leaning jurists

We do not need another 35 years of right wing ideologue to give the right wing a agenda to continue the spread of propaganda that they run on------------------enough is enough

Honk---------------- for a political revolution Bernie 2016


It is about getting a Progressive President, U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and Sate and Local Legislatures

Democracy begins with you --------------tag your it------------Sanders / Hartmann

Democracy is not a spectator sport-----------------get involved--------------Hartmann

[BillZBubb]

17. This is an example of why conservaDems are so dangerous.

They keep the party tied to the "moderate" track in the face of fanatical right wing actions. Does Biden think ANY repug president would knowingly nominate a moderate? They only nominate people who pass a strict litmus test of right wing ideology.

Biden's way will lead to a perpetual ultra-rightist court. Maybe that's what he wants???

[iandhr]

19. David Souter was nominated by a Republican President

[geek tragedy]

22. the senate is not going to approve a liberal justice. Nominating a liberal justice

is exactly the best thing the Republicans could hope for--they get to reject the nominee and they don't pay much of a price for doing so.

[iandhr]

18. This is actually a good strategy.

Nominating a moderate to replace Scalia is a win-win.


1. If he/she gets confirmed we replace an extremist right wing ideologue with someone who would vote with on several (but not all key issues.) An improvement from Scalia


2. If Republicans reject a well qualified moderate especially someone who was confirmed unanimously to an appellate court (several of the Presidents circuit court nominees fit this description.) then in full view of the American people they look like a bunch of extremists. We can then use it to keep the Whitehouse and win back the Senate and then either Hillary or Sanders can pick a Progressive which will make the GOP wish they were more cooperative.

[Red Knight]

27. I kind of agree with that

While I have no doubt the right wing wants to jam a rightwing ideologue and would stop at nothing to push one through and would not apologize for it, I do think there could be some strategy involved.

There's no certainty that the democrats win the general election. There just isn't.

So throwing out a liberal nominee just gives them their talking points and a political poster for why they must obstruct and why their voters need to turn out. That sounds more hollow and makes THEM look extreme to the independents if they reject a centrist. And if the nominee is confirmed it's still better than Scalia.

I'm all for tilting the bench as far to the left as possible.

But Obama does have to consider strategy here. If the Dems lose--let's face it--the right will push through an extreme candidate and Ginsberg isn't getting younger. They could end up dominating the court for decades.

In this case--I say, be smart. Use good strategy. Make the right look like the obstructionists they are.

[Gregorian]

32. I'm wondering the same thing. And the length of vacancy might be a consideration too.

They might be weighing the risks of all kinds of things.

I'd like to see us demand a progressive. But the problem is a Catch22 in that we're up against a republican Senate that will only allow a "center" Dem. If, or rather when, we obtain a thinking majority of Senators, we can begin moving the country in a sane direction more aligned with the other countries of the world, and reality. Haha.

[houston16revival]

41. I don't think

they're going to allow any of Obama's nominees to pass

They are just firing up their insane base

The proof is they could have blocked Obama's nominee by just
foot dragging and negative leaks and voting no

That's not good enough for their strategy

[geek tragedy]

20. there are three scenarios, none of them involve getting a liberal on the court

1) nominate a liberal, Republicans have a politically easy time voting the nominee down, Scalia replaced by Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Clinton/Sanders.

2) nominate a centrist, Republicans pay a sizeable political cost for voting the nominee down, Scalia replaced by Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Clinton/Sanders.

3) nominate a centrist, centrist replaces Scalia.

[Justice]

26. Scenario 4 and 5

Democrats take back the Senate and in January before Obama leaves office, Scalia replaced by Obama's pick.

Liberal gets on court if Hillary or Bernie win.

[geek tragedy]

43. if Democrats retake the Senate, they're almost certainly winning the WH

Scenario 5 is pretty much the same as scenario 1.

[elljay]

50. Hillary Will Not Appoint a Liberal

She will appoint a centrist. After all, she's going to give us a third Obama term.

And, if she is anything like her husband, here is what the NY Times had to say in 1994 about Bill Clinton's judicial appointments:

While running for office two years ago, Bill Clinton promised to reshape the character of the Federal courts, reversing the trend to the right under the Reagan and Bush Administrations.

But given the opportunity to choose more judges in his first two years than any President in history, Mr. Clinton has made selections that are not expected to change the ideological hue of the bench, although they have won high praise for their diversity and quality.........The new judges were deliberately chosen to fit squarely in the judicial mainstream and were, by and large, replacing liberal Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/17/us/president-s-judicial-appointments-diverse-but-well-in-the-mainstream.html?pagewanted=all

[onenote]

52. I had no idea Ginsburg and Breyer were such "centrists."

No two Justices on the Court voted opposite to Scalia more often than those two.

[geek tragedy]

61. So, you consider Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to be centrists? nt

[elljay]

75. Ginsburg Yes

Breyer, somewhat less, the rest more towards the center. None of them are as far to the left as the Republican judges are towards the right, though. It is subjective- you may think Hillary is progressive; I find her on the conservative side of moderate. Same for Obama. Don't get me wrong - anyone appointed by Obama, Bernie, or Hillary will be much better than Scalia. However, after so many years of far right decisions, slightly liberal justices will be an improvement, but not enough to undo all the damage. I want to see someone who will shake things up.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

21. Another example of an unwillingness to fight for the left

We have so few leaders on the left that speak the truth and fight for it.

[Chasstev365]

24. Yes; That is a geat idea!

Because that's exactly how the Republicans would play their hand. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? This is why we need Bernie Sanders!

[geek tragedy]

47. No, this is not why we need Bernie Sanders, it's why we need 51 Democrats in the Senate. nt

[GoneFishin]

25. Let me launch the excuse making, apologist, ass-covering party. "We couldn't get a real liberal on

the court because Republicans."

[geek tragedy]

44. it is not a character defect to account for reality and math when making decisions

Democrats do not have the power to even force a vote on the nominee. That is a simple fact.

54 Republicans > 46 Democrats and Independents.

That is math.

[Wibly]

33. A moderate really is the only option

Given that Obama himself is only moderately Liberal, and here in Canada would be defined as a Red Tory (meaning compassionate conservative), and that a very Liberal nominee would only feed the GOP fight against a nomination, its pretty obvious Obama will have to appoint a moderate.
Also, by appointing a moderate, Obama will be backing the GOP into a corner, wherein Mitch and the boys will be seen as willfully partisan and belligerent if they oppose to strongly. Which, in turn, would not be good for the GOP at a time when they really need to reach out to the middle, if they hope to keep the House and win the presidency.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. The center between reasonable and batshit crazy?

Oh I've seen this movie before. It doesn't end well.

[Roy Rolling]

37. That is why Democrats lose

They are cowards. They are too cowardly to replace a bat-shit crazy right-wing Justice with a left progressive.

Fucking morons. They piss me off more every day and make me realize why Republicans don't respect Democrats.

[onenote]

39. Care to opine how to get a avowedly "liberal" justice confirmed by bat shit crazy right wingers?

Big talk. No plan.

[geek tragedy]

45. You have it exactly backwards. Democrats can't replace Scalia with a left progressive because they

lost the last election. Mathematically, it's impossible for President Obama to get a left progressive to replace Scalia.

Impossible.

No amount of praying to the Great Rainbow-Colored Unicorn in the Sky will change that.

[houston16revival]

40. DLC Written All Over It

Obama seems to believe if he occupies the center long enough the masses will return

I'm not saying it's a bad strategy, or won't work out sort of OK, being reasonable
has merits, and this is more realistic than a liberal nominee with the GOP Senate we have

One can hope, the GOP rejects the deal, Democrats take the presidency and Senate
and the center holds once again

Will we get a liberal then?

Just remember, a centrist is a 50% improvement over Scalia

[Odin2005]

48. Capitulationist BS.

Expect more of this if Clinton becomes President.

[onenote]

53. I keep asking what the plan is to get the RW controlled Senate to confirm an avowedly

"liberal" (as defined by some subset of DU that apparently regards Ginsburg et al as "centrist&quot justice confirmed.

And all I get are crickets.

[geek tragedy]

62. it's called doing math (54 is greater than 46) nt

[still_one]

54. Though I know some believe that the President should nominate the most progressive person, there is

no doubt in that case the republicans would reject such a candidate, in fact they would most likely reject any candidate the President put forth.

However, if the President nominated a centrists, that the republicans had voted for from a lower court appointment by the President, and if that candidate had at a minimum supported Roe, and thought Citizens United was a bad decision, while the republicans might reject such a candidate, they would be hard pressed to justify rejecting him or her for the SC if they approved him for a lower court.

[BeyondGeography]

56. That certainly puts Srinivasan very much in the mix

[warrprayer]

58. What else is new

In the corporate states of America?

[Skittles]

63. he can f*** himself

[Owl]

72. Exactly!

[yurbud]

65. if true, maybe the Republicans are right--wait until the next president.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

69. I don't have a problem with this.

[4dsc]

74. Centrist lost our last 3 elections

and now they want to fuck up the SC? Please make them go away.

[californiabernin]

76. We must not have the continuation of this administration!

Time for a change!

[Agnosticsherbet]

77. With a Republican Senate, if Scalia himself were ressurrected and submitted, they would say no.

It isn't how liberal or centrist or even conservative. This Senate will not approve an Obama nominee. at least in my opinion.

If Republicans lose the Presidential election and retain the Senate, they will not approve the next President's appointments.

Obama should appoint the best jurist he can find since they are going to be rejected out of hand anyway.

[aspirant]

79. What happened to the legal issues?

Support a jurist that votes to repeal Citizens United, Corporate person-hood, bankruptcy laws screwing the people, money is speech ETC ETC issues the people want resolved

Why are we falling again for this divisive crap of liberal vs conservative when we can force these issues down the Repubs and Blue Dogs throats

[malthaussen]

80. How about we wait and see before getting all exercised?

It's funny that people are so eager to speculate before the fact.

-- Mal