Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS death watch (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  At worst, Obama will replace Ginsburg and Breyer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, 207wickedgood, Vince CA

    I would expect Ginsburg to announce her retirement some time after the new year.

    Hopefully, Breyer will do so as well so at the very worst, President Obama can solidify the liberal wing of the court.

    While we are all hoping for Scalia or Kennedy's seat to be vacated, I feel that is more likely in the 2016-2020 term.

    A key here is saving minimizing losses in the 2014 Senate races and then having a shot at 60 in 2016 with that beautiful map of opportunities.

    This way a Democratic President would have the best shot of avoiding a filibuster of what will likely be the biggest Washington has ever seen.

    So many good things can happen while bad things can be stopped if we get the court back.

    In the end, I hope Obama dos not only get to replace Ginsburg and Breyer.

    •  CFlaDem - Supreme Court Filibuster (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83, Vince CA

      Unless the President nominates someone completely out of the mainstream the GOP will give the nominee an up or down vote. I don't see a filibuster on a nomination to the SCOTUS.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 06:20:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But a 60 majority in 2016, with a Hillary or say (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jgumby, Vince CA

        O'Malley could appoint (as someone suggested on another thread) Elizabeth Warren. The warren/Scalia discussions would be interesting.

        "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

        by TofG on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:03:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ToG - Warren will be too old in 2016 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vince CA

          Warren will be 67 in 2016 and 71 by 2020. The trend is to appoint judges in their 50s. In addition, Warren has never been judge, so there is no paper trail on how she would decide cases, and she has ruffled many feathers including in the Senate. However, first and foremost the Senate is a club and if over the next four years Warren is able to do what Hillary Clinton did, be an inside player and club member in good standing, who knows?

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 09:46:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Young judges (0+ / 0-)

          This is why judges like Diane Wood should be out of the question.

          It should be progressives judges in their 40's to early 50's. We need judges who will be on the court a long time and can make it through to retirement if a the republicans god forbid hold the white house for an extended period of time.

          We cannot have situations where progressive judges like Thurgood Marshall are forced to retire in a republican administration and be replaced by closed minded right-wing judges like Clarence Thomas.

      •  It's only a matter of time (0+ / 0-)

        Before a SCOTUS Nominee is fillabustered.

        If it is the swing vote on the court, the right will fight it like hell.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site