Politics The 2016 US Presidential Election

You're not going to get money out of politics until there's a Constitutional amendment.
Financial regulation
Voting regulation

Question is...who's got the balls to put themselves out there like that. Too much conflict of interest, not enough spine (on the Hill at least)

 

I will not celebrate death. I didn't celebrate when Bin Laden died, I didn't celebrate when Fred Phelps died, and I will not celebrate Scalia's death either.

But damned if this isn't going to make things more chaotic. It's going to be an interesting year.

 

Scalia's death has the potential to substantially upset the political balance of the Supreme Court. The Republicans have so much at stake if they want to maintain their entrenched power (with regards to both the conservative-leaning Supreme Court and the Republican control of Congress). This is just another thing to help them along in losing their collective minds. I think if Obama appoints a progressive justice, and it actually goes through, this in addition to Trump's continued popularity will feed into a definite existential crisis for the party. Trump continues to distance himself from the Republican establishment.

 

Isn't it sad that we expect the people in power to screw things up even worse?

 

It typically occurs in 2-3 months. There have been a few rare exceptions where a lame duck president allowed the election to impact the choice (LBJ comes to mind), but none this far out from the election.

If there isn't a confirmation by the inauguration it'll be a bit surprising, and I think most of the blame will fall on the GOP. Unless Obama picks a WAY, WAY left leaning choice, in which case the blame may be split somewhat.

 

1) I made sure to capitalize both of the qualifiers on 'lefty'.
2) I wasn't speaking to my thoughts, more as to how the media and public may end up perceiving it.

I fully understand that part of the privilege of electing a POTUS is getting to appoint SC Justices that align with that given political persuasion. I was speaking in general terms.

 

McConnell is already posturing like they're going to reject any nomination Obama makes, but it's so much bluster. The repubs will get crucified if they actually attempt to obstruct an appointment for that long, and I don't see any way they could possibly not know that.

 

This is more speculation than anything.....but given the attention this will get, does Obama throw an initial nominee out that he KNOWS will get shot down, so that he can then nominate a more palatable choice, knowing that the Dems can make huge political hay of it if the GOP won't let the second one go through?

Say, throw out someone like Pam Karlan? There would be a solid argument that she's a credible candidate. Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, was mentioned in the past as a replacement for Souter, but someone that Obama knows the GOP would fight tooth and nail. Nominate her, let the Senate fight against it for several weeks, spin it in the media to the Dems advantage, then withdraw the nomination and put someone else up for it who is more moderate? The way I figure it, if they win the first fight and Obama says "fine, I'll move to a more moderate candidate" they can't fight another qualified nominee without looking like they just want to be obstinate for the sake of being obstinate.


Not saying he SHOULD do this, or it should be necessary, but I would think this type of strategy would at least be considered by his advisers?

 

Not that this has ever stopped them before.