Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dead. The maneuvering begins!

In today's New York Times: Obama Chooses Merrick Garland for Supreme CourtJust announcing the news, haven't read the article yet.--Percy

The Senate Republican leadership is abdicating its responsibility to the future congress and will not consider this nomination.

quote:

---

I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote, Mr. Obama said. If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.

​

But later in the day the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, called Judge Garland and said that the Senate would not take action on his nomination.

​

Mr. McConnell also informed Judge Garland that they would not be meeting in person at the Capitol on Thursday.

​

Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House, the leader decided it would be more considerate of the nominee’s time to speak with him today by phone, Mr. McConnell’s spokesman, Don Stewart, said in a statement. The leader reiterated his position that the American people will have a voice in this vacancy and that the Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the person the next president nominates. And since the Senate will not be acting on this nomination, he would not be holding a perfunctory meeting, but he wished Judge Garland well.

---

This Republican obstructionism of the Nation's judicial function is anathema to the statesmanship that characterized the US Senate for more than 200 years. This is a sad day for the republic and portends even greater malfunction of, indeed malfeasance by, this Nation's most storied deliberative body.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Working against Obama is his vote to filibuster Alito. Obama says that he regrets having done so, but Republicans will certainly use his past vote against him.

The Republicans could have had their revenge on Sotomayor and Kagan but they didn't. I don't think Alito has anything to do with the Republican's intransigence here. I think it's just plain broken, incompetent Republican leadership afraid of the right-wingnut faction of their own party.

I agree. The Alito filibuster vote is just ammo to use against Obama. Obama will have to deal with that when he attempts to use his bull pulpit against the senate.

Republicans are in a totally lose-lose situation.If they continue to deny even calling a hearing for this nominee, they appear obstructionist.
If they move forward with a hearing but vote against confirmation, they appear partisan.
If they call a hearing and confirm the nominee, they alienate their base.They are totally backed in a corner.Personally, I don't think they are being very forward looking. Obama put forth a moderate candidate in an effort to undo the gridlock. If the Repubs continue to obstruct, that will likely start to galvanize the left in lieu of the upcoming election, since Hillary can beat The Donald or Cruz over the head with this.If I were the Republicans, I would move forward with a hearing at least. And even still, a confirmation here actually would work out better for them. They must understand at this staqe that the presidential election is all but lost. And they are on the verge of losing the senate. If they continue to placate to their fringe, they risk a scenario whereby the next administration can nominate whomever they like.

But Alito was not filibustered was he.

Yes, he was, but just barely before a cloture vote cut off the filibuster attempt. Despite not having 41 senators formally adopt the filibuster, Obama voting for, the democrats continued to delay the vote on Alito in a de facto filibuster by continuing discussion. Thus the cloture vote. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Maybe you do not understand the whole fillibuster thing. There was no filibuster.

quote:

---

Some Democratic Senators who opposed the Alito nomination considered using a filibuster option in the attempt to block the nomination. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said, "The filibuster's on the table." While other Senators warned not to rush to a decision, Dick Durbin (D-IL) said "I don't think we should assume that's going to happen at all." He added, "Ordinarily it takes six to eight weeks to evaluate a Supreme Court nominee. We shouldn't rush to judgment."

​

At the conclusion of the confirmation hearings, January 12, the threat of a filibuster appeared to grow more remote as Durbin called a filibuster attempt "unlikely". Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said, "I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster. This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."[13] She changed her position on January 27, saying that she would vote no for cloture.[3] Fellow Judiciary Committee member Joe Biden (D-DE) said, "I think he is going to be confirmed." Other Democrats such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), and Byron Dorgan (D-ND), however, said they would not support a filibuster, though they all voted against confirmation.[14][15] In addition, Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Joe Biden (D-DE) indicated that they did not support a filibuster.[4][5] Later, however, Joe Biden announced on the 29th that he would vote no for cloture.

​

On January 26, while vacationing in Switzerland, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) called for a filibuster to block Alito's nomination.[16] Despite the support of his fellow Massachusetts Senator, Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)[6][7][8] and Harry Reid (D-NV), the top Democrat in the Senate, other Democrats were afraid the measure would backfire and were cautious to support it. Just one day after Kerry's call for a filibuster, Reid further stated that the Democrats did not have the votes needed to sustain a filibuster to block the confirmation of Alito. "We're going to have a vote Tuesday morning," Reid said. "Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster."[17][18]

​

The Democratic Senators from Massachusetts, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, attempted to gain support for a filibuster of the nominee, however they gained little support even within their own party. The Senate voted for cloture on the nomination 72-25. Three senators didn't vote, including Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican John Ensign, who had been injured in a car accident earlier that day. All of the members of the Gang of Fourteen voted for cloture with the majority.

---

Now if there was a filibuster the cloture vote would not have passed.
Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia
Nope, not listed here.
Filibuster in the United States Senate - WikipediaDid he vote for the attempt to filibuster? Yes. Was there a filibuster? No.

I think my updated post crossed paths with your post.Confusion reigns.Sorry.

How Obama Threw A Curveball With The Safest SCOTUS Pick Imaginable - TPM – Talking Points Memo

quote:

---

But Garland was almost certainly not who Senate Republicans were expecting when they drew the hard line soon after Scalia’s death that no Obama nominee would be considered. Just last week, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- a member of the Judiciary Committee -- said he didn’t believe Obama’s assurances to him that he would nominate a moderate.

​

"[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," Hatch told Newsmax. "He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."

​

Garland is a 63-year-old straight, white male. He is a moderate, by most standards, with a reputation for playing by the book. His resume has the sterling pedigree one comes to expect from a Supreme Court justice: Ivy League education, clerkship for Justice William Brennan, prosecutor for the Department of Justice and the chief judge on the nation’s most influential appeals court. Even Fox News admitted he is the most conservative Supreme Court nominee put forward by a Democratic president in the modern era.

---

I've heard the opinion from a couple of sources (don't now have the links, one was on NPR) that having 9 Garlands would be a fine Supreme Court.I think it is a great choice. Garland probably has at least 10 years in him. And I'm thinking Hillary going to be the next president, and is going to be making more SCOTUS appointments.Moose

Once the Republicans vowed to set aside precedent in a nakedly partisan move, why wouldn't Obama rub it in by choosing a candidate that they couldn't reasonably object to ? Why give them an excuse for fighting him ? If the appointment is "about the election" why not help the Republicans make themselves look bad ?Obama has been pretty moderate throughout his terms, so I'd have expected him to go for a moderate anyway - certainly so long as the Republicans run the Senate. But the Republicans just walked into this one.

You read it here first.The Republicans do nothing pending the results of Nov. 8.If the Republican nominee wins election then the Senate continues to do nothing until after the new President selects his nominee in January/February. I see as highly unlikely the Republicans winning the Oval Office and losing the Senate at the same time. That's not going to happen so ignore it.If the Democrats retain the White House then we have some game space.If the senate is left in Republican hands then the Republicans will move to confirm Garland before the 114th Congress ends on Jan 3, 2017, so they won't have a greater fight on their hands from an equally qualified but less politically palatable nominee by the new President.If the senate changes to majority Democrat then I expect the Senate Republicans to try to rush a Garland nominee to confirmation before the nomination can be withdrawn and the new Congress comes into session on Jan 3. and the new Democrat senate takes its place.Here's the ego question: Does Obama withdraw the Garland nomination Nov 9th, leaving Clinton to name her choice? I think if the senate changes party the pressure to do so will be quite strong.

Whenever I hear the republicans talk about waiting for the election so the voters can have a voice, I wonder if they really thought it through.Since this year is an election year, waiting for the voters to speak applies to all positions up for election doesn't it?So none of the 24 Republican (and 10 Democrat) Senators up for election should vote on anything this year.The entire House of Representatives should sit out the year since the voters haven't spoken yet.The President should pocket veto everything anyways since he has to wait for the voters to speak.We have to wait until after the election AND the new people in office. No lame duck votes.Hey, this could help the budget. Since we're waiting for the voters to speak and these people are just sitting around, let's stop paying them. Send them & their staffs home.On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the voters know that the election results stand for the entire term of office.What a stupid stupid argument.Edited by 14174dm, : Trying to convert from rant to discussion

Welcome to the USA!