Let's be real. The Republicans aren't confirming Obama. GOP will do anything except one: commit political suicide, and that's what it would be for and GOPer that voted Obama onto the Supremes.
I think if Obama were to basically punt and nominate Orrin Hatch, moderate conservative yet old enough not to last long, that he would get voted in. I just don't think that that's the kind of legacy Obama is after though. I mean, we're basically talking about Roe v. Wade. No way Obama nominates someone with a anti-abortion paper trail. And anyone else is unconfirmable in this climate and since it was Scalia (if Ginsburg had passed none of this would be happening I don't think).
All true. I would add that given this Administration's history, they're going to push for the biggest FU nominee that they can possibly realize, anywhere in the US. The Senate will immediately distrust any nominee that it sends, and it won't matter anyway. That President Obama sent them at all, is fatal. I would argue that the far, far, far greater harm to the GOP would be to capitulate and relent to this Administration, again. You've already got an openly rebellious candidate taking their nomination, and who they aren't likely to stop anyway, and this would only add so much fuel to an already consuming fire.
Disagree with the last bit. Scalia makes it a bigger deal and all the rhetoric and politicizing would be diminished, but the GOP wouldn't confirm a nominee for Ginsburg's seat either. They'd try to obtain a conservative majority on SCOTUS. Neither party is interested in balance.
You don't think this would be happening if Ginsburg were the one who had passed? You're fooling yourself with rosey glasses.
Two things: 1. In the universe of SCOTUS opinions, Roe. v. Wade might be the absolute worst from a legal analysis perspective.* The most liberal law prof in the world will agree that as well. 2. Roe v. Wade is safe. Stare Decisis doesn't keep everything alive, but it will keep an opinion that well known and controversial alive. *Grutter v. Bollinger is in the convo. Thanks for that one, Sandy.
How does something being controversial support stare decisis? I would think just the opposite. "Controversial" and "settled" are kind of like opposites right? And it's "well-known" precisely because it's controversial. Plessy versus Ferguson was arguably more entrenched than Roe vs. Wade. I'm not saying it is likely, but if you added a couple of more Scalia type jurors (or even Roberts type jurors) to the court, it could easily fall.
