Scalia (to Obama): How dare you? I have reserved a room next to me in Hell for you.
Now let’s get Hillary elected, Sri Srinivasan on the court and stop CONservatives from using the court as a political trump card.
Good idea but there’s still the problem of the 60 vote threshold even if the Democrats take control of the Senate.
One thing at a time. Having a progressive court for the next twenty or so years gives a lot of breathing room. Makes me smile to think of it it does. 
The problem is that the road to a progressive court has to go through the 60 vote roadblock.
McConnell is using his current Senate majority to block Garland but has strongly implied that he would use his minority position to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee who is not at least as conservative as Scalia. Therein lies the problem.
Not a problem; eventually, through attrition, the court will consist only of Elena Kagan.
Love the snark, but Federal law sets the floor at a six justice minimum to constitute a quorum. Unless a Democratic majority changes the Senate rules on Supreme Court nominees the GOP could decide to live with the current 4-4 deadlock and wait for one of the liberal members to “retire” ala Scalia, giving the conservatives a 4-3 majority.
We really need to win back the Senate. McConnell using it to block a hearing on a nominee should be enough cause for any so-called progressive fence sitters to wake up.Make no mistake; the anti-choicers will not stop chipping away at women’s rights and there will be more cases before the SCOTUS in no time
And the president is spot on in his statement. Love how he is out front lauding this decision.
which is why a strong GOTV plan is so important in this election.
Uh oh. The Supreme Court done messed with Texas. What’s next? Conservatives blathering on about Texit?
I think the bigger impediment is simply being in the minority. When the Democrats have a majority next year, they will be able to bring the issue at last to a vote. It should prove much more difficult for Republicans to actually vote against a supremely-qualified candidate than to continue to kick that can down the road.
Then it’s time for the “nuclear option” to apply to SCOTUS nominees, too: a straight up/down vote.
I agree with you on the political risk of voting against an eminently qualified nominee. I have always thought that was the motivation for McConnell and Grassley to deny a hearing to Garland so GOP Senate candidates did not have to go on record as being shameless party hacks. It will be interesting to see the GOP posture after the election, if their Senate leadership thinks they can continue to play games through the Senate elections is 2018 because Democrats are notoriously bad at voting in mid-terms.