If Stevens knew anything about the Constitution, he’d know that only “the next president” is allowed to nominate someone for the SCOTUS (but only if the current president is a Democrat and congress is controlled by the GOP).
I hope President Clinton will nominate all women for the Supreme Court. I love the ones we have.
Currently have. Sandra Day O’Connor, not so much.
Butt out Stevens. Stop trying to bring rational thought to GOTP politics. This is being handled expertly by Sen. Mitch “Turkey Fugger” McConnell!!!1111!!!11!!
I think the wheels are about to come off this wagon very soon…certainly before the election. The scenarios they are staring at are all more unfavorable than appointing Garland. The only down side is the perception of caving…but they are more at risk in their key battleground Senate races for denying the hearings.
With Trump, they have no idea who he would appoint, and they won’t have a majority to push it through anyway. Yes, I know, historically is been rare for the Senate to deny a SCOTUS appointment, but by their antics, they have thrown that idea in the dumpster.
With Hillary, they will get someone more liberal and much younger, and again, won’t have the majority to stop it.
Or they can go with an older moderate that Orrin Hatch said would fly right through…before he was nominated.
It’s whats called “painting yourself into a corner”.
"With Hillary, they will get someone more liberal and much younger, and again, won’t have the majority to stop it.
Or they can go with an older moderate that Orrin Hatch said would fly right through…before he was nominated."
I’m still not clear why we need another Judge.
Why don’t we just prop up Scalia, Weekend at Bernie’s style, and let him vote?
I guarantee even a know-nothing like me can unerringly predict his vote and even describe his convuluted “logic” every…single…time.
My Republican friends tell me surely if life starts before birth; it can continue after death.
What’s always weirded me out about this is that they’re perfectly capable of voting Garland down with a straight face if they want to. This is not about the court at all, it’s about refusing to admit that a black man is president.
You realize some republican lawyers started floating that very notion, sans the corpse? Their theory was that Scalia’s POV are so well known, that he doesn’t actually have to be there, the court can just cast his vote based on his record.
And I wish I was kidding.
I know…that’s whom I’m mocking.
I’m not sure (really) that Justice Stevens understands the process. How can the Senate hold hearings when the Majority Leader and the Chair of the Judiciary Committee refuse? It’s kind of like my kid telling me, “Go ahead and buy that bright orange Mustang,” when I don’t have any money and my spouse says, “Hell no.”
On the other hand, if they held shadow hearings with Democrats from the Judiciary Committee asking the same kinds of questions, that might point up the intransigence.
I think it’s about not having any other issue by which to motivate their
base to get out and vote — They are OUT of options —
March on Washington - with Steven & O’Connor as Grand Marshals
I had great respect for Justice O’Connor until, she caved in and gave W Florida. THEN, she suddenly needs to retire and let W appoint her replacement because “she didn’t want to retire with a Democrat in office.” Her opinions, in general always seemed reasonable, but her legacy is tainted for me with her partisanship–although not nearly as blatant as the rest of the “conservative” bloc, there, nonetheless. 