The Upcoming Supreme Court Nominee

With the passing of Scalia a political superstorm is developing. Let me push off from the Times framing:

The opening of a seat on the Supreme Court was sure to roil the presidential campaign. Both sides will use the vacancy to rouse the most fervent members of their political bases by demonstrating the stakes in the election. Republicans will likely talk about the need to stop Mr. Obama from using the court to advance his liberal agenda while Democrats will warn their supporters about the dangers of a Republican president making the selection.

The unexpected timing of the vacancy will force Mr. Obama to make a choice about how far he is willing to go to confront Republicans and inject social issues like abortion into the fall campaign. Will he opt for a relative moderate in hopes of winning over enough Republicans to actually seat a replacement despite Mr. McConnell’s warning? Or will he choose a more liberal candidate at the risk of being blocked on the theory that it might galvanize Democratic voters?

Well, the danger of a Republican President making the appointment is that the Court remains on its current trajectory. To be fair, a Republican President, Republican Congress and four conservatives plus Kennedy on the Supreme Court must look daunting to Dems.

However, the Times seems to think Obama can either seek political advantage for the Democratic Presidential candidate by nominating an aspirational but not confirmable progressive darling, or put himself in the history books as a President who names three Justices. A tug of war between Obama's partisanship and his egomania? Tough call!

But I reject these false choices. Obama can name a seemingly sensible slightly left of center candidate and let the power of Washington DC take over. Has any justice in recent memory drifted to the right with the passage of years? A 'moderate liberal' today will surely "grow" and "evolve" in office into a reliable member of a five person progressive voting bloc that will approve any idea backed by Obama/Hillary/Bernie.

I am on the same page with Paul Mirengoff, who writes:

If so, Obama will select the person whose rejection will provide Democrats with the most political ammunition.

Most likely, this means Obama will select an African-American female. That way, when the Senate refuses even to bring the nomination to a vote, the Democratic presidential nominee and Democrats running for Congress can rally African-American voters while also complaining that the GOP is waging war on women.

Political calculation also militates in favor of nominating someone whose leftism isn’t obvious. That way, Republicans won’t easily be able to answer charges of racism and sexism by pointing out that the nominee is “outside the mainstream.”

One way for Obama to accomplish the second objective is to select someone whom the Senate recently confirmed with some Republican support. That way, the Democrats can refute claims that the nominee is deficient.

Well, a black woman would be fine - Paul suggests Loretta Lynch, confirmed with Republican support as AG, but of course that is a political, non-lifetime appointment. But a black man will be just as useful for political purposes - Cory Booker's name has floated by. When the Republicans squash the nominee Democrats can whine about racist, hate-filled Republicans. The usual stuff, but they need to turn out black votes without a black candidate, so this should help them.

And what about the Senate Republicans? The Times is wide of the mark here:

The situation also could prove complicated for Mr. McConnell, who since winning the majority in 2014 has labored to shed the obstructionist label and prove that his caucus can govern responsibly.

Approving an Obama nominee could provoke a backlash from conservatives, but a prolonged battle would put Senate Republicans in the middle of a campaign where Mr. McConnell had hoped not to be.

A backlash from conservatives? "Backlash" is putting it mildly - since a five judge progressive bloc will, just as a warm-up, promptly overturn the 5-4 Heller decision on gun rights and strike down any abortion restriction anywhere, conservatives correctly believe they are looking down the barrel of a gun. Metaphorically, I hope.

Then again, is there any chance that Republican Senators will look at an ostensible moderate nominee from Obama, study the polls, and conclude that a moderate lefty now is a better play than the nominee they would get from President Clinton or Sanders? Will they prefer the devil they know, as it were, and consider it safer to take the moderate liberal now than to hold out for a Cruz/Rubio/Kasich victory or a Trump crapshoot?

I think that even Republican Senators can estimate the same leftward drift Obama can rely on - no moderate lefty will remain moderate for long. Confirming one will dispirit the base to the point that the November election will be a formality, and a rout.

The Senate has to sit tight and the Republicans simply have to win in November.

EXIT QUESTIONS: There have been a lot of "Let it burn" conservatives fed up with the GOPe (i.e., the Rep establishment) on the immigration issue who have said that they will walk away this November if the party manages to nominate yet another immigration squish like Rubio/Kasich/Bush.

With the stakes now raised by Scalia's death do they still feel that way? Is the prospect of a Democratic President and a fifth liberal on the Supreme Court terrifying enough to get the Ace of Spades ringing doorbells for Rubio?

And with a hello from the other side, Mickey can not figure out why the GOPe won't bond with the base by surrendering on amnesty. Does the prospect of a tectonic Supreme Court shift prompt a re-think on their part? How will big donors fare after the Sanders Court strikes down the 5-4 Citizens United decision?

 

 

Comments

[henry]

TM, a, too much caffeine. b, what kind of loon would a Kasich appoint? These GOPe squishes make me nervous on far more than immigration.

[Man Tran]

First

[Jane]

Yikes!

[flodigarry]

The country is in the hands of the feckless Senate Republicans. I do not have a lot of faith in their ability to hold fast.

[Jane]

My hopes are on McConnell keeping his word. Seems to me this appointment is perhaps more important than who wins the presidential race - which is insanely important.

[Threadkiller]

Donald J. Trump–Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump

This shows what a complete & total liar Ted Cruz is- he said he wouldn't have nominated John Roberts. Really?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214989/right-stuff-ted-cruz …

Cruz even gives a shout out to Larry Tribe.

[Jane]

The most damning thing Trump did last night was spout democrat talking points. No conservative could support that.

[Threadkiller]

Romney praised TARP, why did conservatives support him?

[henry]

ABO was in effect, as a similar ABC(orB, orW...) will be this year. That Romney was an establishment type has little to do with Trump one way or another.

[Threadkiller]

The similarity is that some conservatives compromise.

[Clarice]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-walks-backs-attack-on-george-bush/article/2583272

[glasater]

On twitter some Indian jurist with the last name of Sri is being bandied about. That should drive tk over the edge..

[henry]

Glasater, born in India.

[Art in Newport]

Really didn't like Trump saying that Bush lied about WMD as an excuse for the Iraq War.

Slept on it, still don't like it.

Carson is my man now, but IVR, I guess

[Cecil Turner]

Just as if Obama were set on the destruction of America, I can't see what he'd do differently, so with Trump as a Hillary stalking horse.

[Threadkiller]

From Clarice's link:

Donald Trump sought Sunday to walk back his statements during Saturday night's Republican debate that former President George W. Bush bore responsibility for the Sept. 11 terror attack.

But the quotes they pull from the debate don't support the notion that Trump placed the responsibility of the attack on Bush.

The WMD stuff should do more damage against Trump, but why does he have to do a better job of defending Bush than Bush did?

[Threadkiller]

glas, SCOTUS Justices can be citizens, that is why Cruz qualifies for that position.

Natural Born Citizenship is reserved for POTUS.

The rock pile at the bottom of the ledge remains safe.

[glasater]

Glasater, born in India

I know, Henry!! :-)

What does one call someone from India?

[henry]

Right TK, gloss over what Trump said about lying into the Iraq war, what he said about PP in every Starbucks (mild exaggation on my part), or his calling everyone on stage but himself a liar. You keep backing him. Just understand what you are backing.

[Clarice]

Washington Examiner quotes Trump walking back the Bush lied shtick. Something for everyone

[Threadkiller]

We can talk about PP as well, henry.

But what I am saying now, and what I said last night is the WMD comments should hurt Trump.

[Threadkiller]

From the transcript:

CRUZ: I did not nominate John Roberts. I would not have nominated John Roberts.

CRUZ: I did not nominate him. I would not have nominated him. I would've nominated my former boss Liberman (ph) who was Justice Scalia's first law clerk

From Cruz during the nomination:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214989/right-stuff-ted-cruz

[Clarice]

Well there you have it--nominate lieberman for the post..

[matt]

In Europe and in America, people are mad as hornets because the political class has sold them down the river. I just can't believe a snake oil salesman and a dedicated Marxist are the avatars of this anger here.

If the choice is between the two I think Trump will win with some of the lowest turnout ever. Even my leftist friends have deep reservations about Sanders.

I just can't see Trump as a viable president. He is far too impetuous to be in charge of the launch codes and I think Putin would filet him and, frankly, most of the Republican field.

The Chinese may up to their asses in alligators come this week. Lunar New Year is over and nothing has changed on the economic front. Lots of unraveling to come. All talk of rate hikes has ceased for the time being, which basically just prolongs the agony.

European debt is now coming back to haunt us. Portugal, Italy, and the rest.

Now that Scalia is gone we have an uncertain Supreme Court. Maybe Bader Ginsburg retires now.

Without TARP, distasteful as it was, the banking system would have crashed. Do you want that kind of chaos? How would the global economy have unraveled?

The masters of finance kicked the can down road knowingly and are whistling past the junkyard dogs even now hoping they are not at the wheel when the hurt comes.

Our political system has been tearing itself apart for political advantage, not the good of the country.

Until people get serious and start thinking rationally we're going to go off the cliff together with every man for himself.

The multinationals must bear their responsibility as must Wall Street. But we as individuals must also do so.

Materialism, consumerism, and the cult of the id must be mastered. The radical leftists propose radical leftist solutions which we know don't work. So where are the radical moderates?

The cardinal virtues are Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude. I think that Scalia got this. I don't know if most of the other Justices do. I know the political class does not for the most part. They have forgotten.

If we are to be faced with such disruption, we need to keep this in mind. Terrorism, economic warfare, uncontrolled migration. The response to these problems is to focus on global warming (How does it feel in the Midwest and on the East Coast today, my leftist friends? How's that global warming working out for ya?).

In the meantime the response to terrorism and the breakdown or lack of institutions in the Third World and to mass migration is laughable if the stakes weren't so high.

We can do so much better. But will we?

[Threadkiller]

More liar calling from the transcript:

RUBIO: Well, first of all, I don't know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn't speak Spanish. And second of all, the other point that I would make...

CRUZ: (SPEAKING SPANISH).

RUBIO: Look, this is a disturbing pattern now, because for a number of weeks now, Ted Cruz has just been telling lies. He lied about Ben Carson in Iowa.

The only one who didn't understand Spanish was the guy transcribing.

Here it is:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JDXczRDJJ4c

One of the most bizzare things I have ever seen in a debate.

[jimmyk]

TK, are you saying there's an inconsistency in Cruz's saying that (a) he would have nominated someone different; (b) given that Roberts was nominated, he supported his confirmation? I don't see any inconsistency. Or can one only support confirmation of one's own personal first choice?

[Threadkiller]

I am saying that Cruz's op-ed for Roberts is consistent with Trumps accusation that Cruz pushed for Roberts.

Debate captain Cruz changes the terms to "nominate" so he can argue semantics vs support.

It is in the transcript.

This is the same mess Cruz created with the "poison pill" he put in the amnesty bill.

He has to both agree and disagree with himself and his views to achieve the greater good for all of us dummies.

Trump saying a country that had 3000 citizens killed in the middle of a city isn't a country that was kept safe should get the same pass, if we play the pedantic exact definition game.

[henry]

Yeah TK, Rubio didn't help himself there. He claimed Cruz didn't know Spanish to hide whatever he said on Univision (I haven't seen a transcript in any language on that), then when Cruz hit back in Spanish Rubio jumped to the Liar thing. I don't understand why Rubio (or insert name here) can't say they learned more and changed their mind accordingly.

[Threadkiller]

I have to split.

Carson is my first choice as of when I said so last night.

[Threadkiller]

Speaking Spanish at a US debate when the topic is amnesty made me ill, henry.

Later.

[narciso]

Bravo Matt.

You thoroughly miss the point, tk, as I pointed out in the overnight thread. Just the next cataclysm is being hatched in a European hamlet or perhaps one of our own.

[Threadkiller]

Please write the point again for me narciso.

I will try to better understand it.

[Jane]

I submit, and will do so endlessly, that any person who is a conservative could not support Trump. Saying Bush "lied about WMD" was bad enough, but implying he was responsible for 911 should be the end for anyone.

[Threadkiller]

He didn't imply that, Jane.

[narciso]

He was irresponsible enough not to rule it out, yeats was also prescient

[Truthbetold]

TK

Contrary to what Trump claims, he answers to more people than you think.

[boatbuilder, Esq., Lord of All He Surveys]

The WMD stuff should do more damage against Trump, but why does he have to do a better job of defending Bush than Bush did?

Maybe because people might start to wonder whether he's playing for the other side?

[henry]

Per Twitter: Scalia had a heart attack.

Also, a bomb found under a rental car near Albuquerque airport.

[Threadkiller]

Cruz's debate coach:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1IqH3uliwJY

[sammy small]

Of course verbal sniping and campaign shenanigans are part of the shakeout to see how a candidate reacts when something unfair happens. That is symbolic of what a president will need to face in the real world.

That plus a candidate's track record in dealing with national and international issues I believe is the strongest basis for predicting future performance, not so much what is promised during the campaign.

Right now, one candidate stands out in that regard....Cruz.

[cheerleader]

Threadkiller, isn't it funny that Cruz thought that Tribe liking John Roberts was a good reason FOR Roberts instead of it setting off alarm bells?

"As his opposing counsel, Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, observed, “I like [John Roberts] a lot. I even liked him when he defeated me in [Rust], 5-4.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214989/right-stuff-ted-cruz"

The uniparty loves playing mind games with the poor sap with both R & D voters. The elites laugh about it over drinks paid for by the taxpayers and Mama Bush "adopts" Bill Clinton as her son.

[boatbuilder, Esq., Lord of All He Surveys]

What is really troubling to me is that Rubio would be clueless enough to think that Ted Cruz doesn't speak Spanish. Was he trying to bait Cruz into speaking Spanish so they can claim he is some kind of Trojan horse for amnesty?

The guy's father is Cuban, he represents Texas, he's intellectually brilliant and it's 2016. He presumably also speaks French and German. Christ, even I speak enough Spanish to pretend.

[Barbara]

Heart attack. Hmm.

I did not learn of Justice Scalia's death until this morning, and I am stunned.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--but why does he have to do a better job of defending Bush than Bush did?--

Apples and rotten oranges.
Bush did a poor job defending himself from a scurrilous lie.
Trump repeated the scurrilous lie.

[Miss Marple]

henry,

The saying it was a heart attack came from a county judge. Here is the entire article in The Hill:

"Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died of a heart attack, Presidio County Judge Cinderella Guevara told a Dallas-Fort Worth television station on Sunday.

Guevara pronounced Scalia dead at 1:52 p.m. on Saturday and ordered an autopsy after reviewing the case with a U.S. Marshall and talking to Scalia’s doctor.

Scalia was visiting a ranch in Presido County with friends on a hunting trip when he passed away.

At the family’s request, the body was moved from the ranch to El Paso, Texas, where it will be prepared to be flown back to the East Coast, tentatively on Tuesday.

Scalia was 79."

------------------------------

I didn't link it because the comments after the article are uniformly vile and I didn't want anyone to read them.

[Truthbetold]

Cheerleader

You think they are not laughing about people following Trump?

[Threadkiller]

Law of Nations was written in French.

[Truthbetold]

TK

What makes you think Trump gives a damn about the Constitution?

[Miss Marple]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3446624/Is-Supreme-Court-Justice-Indian-American-litigator-Sri-Srinivasan-choice-pivotal-position.html

[lyle]

I don't think the entire financial system would have crashed without TARP but Citigroup would be no more. And I frankly would not be lamenting its demise. Fuck off and die, Jack Lew.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

I don't have a big problem with the "didn't keep America safe" bit.
He didn't. Saying Clinton could have taken OBL out leads to what things could Bush have done to stop 9/11.
FDR didn't keep America safe in 1941, and in a much more irresponsible way than Bush, but in the buck stops here tradition if it happens on your watch you share some of the blame. That doesn't mean some other person could or would have prevented it, only that responsibility for these things is part of the job description.
That's one reason an adult like Bush didn't defend himself and why cowards and foundlings like Clinton and Barry pass the buck faster than the Federal Reserve creates them, which in itself is quite a feat.

[Threadkiller]

Rotten Apples and rotten oranges.

FTFY.

[Threadkiller]

Saying Clinton could have taken OBL out leads to what things could Bush have done to stop 9/11.

RUBIO: The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him.

[Truthbetold]

Lyle

Read Dodd Frank. The next bank crises that comes is going to be fixed by what they call a bail-in. Cypress style.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Without TARP, distasteful as it was, the banking system would have crashed. Do you want that kind of chaos? How would the global economy have unraveled?--

I would prefer that kind of chaos to the last eight years of transferring vast sums to these banks and their cronies through debt our descendants and we will have to pay off. QE infinity, ZIRP and NIRP are all an extension of the idea the market is insufficient to clear itself.
The dumbasses who effed up should have lost everything and had their bones picked over for a penny on the dollar by the ones who didn't engage in the behavior the market was dying to punish. Instead the Government killed the market and rewarded the dumbasses.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Bush not defending himself sufficiently is not on a par with the lie he was subjected to, so the equivalency of calling them both rotten is not apt.

[Miss Marple]

I wonder how the "Leave" numbers are. I imagine this won't help Cameron one bit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3446048/Fury-Angela-Merkel-s-attack-dog-threatens-UK-trade-war-Brexit-claims-t-survive-without-us.html

I think my favorite part is where Sir Bill tells the German guy that Britain fought 2 world wars against Germany and they were no going to be dominated by an EU controlled by Germany.

[Threadkiller]

I thought the the distinction was the fruit?

Bush did a rotten apples job and Trump made a rotten orange statement?

:-)

[jimmyk]

I would prefer that kind of chaos to the last eight years of transferring vast sums to these banks,

Not to mention turning around and extorting funds from these banks to pass along to La Raza and other activists. It's as if they needed to keep those geese alive so they could still lay their golden eggs.

[jimmyk]

in the buck stops here tradition if it happens on your watch you share some of the blame.

But that is a sort of question-begging pro forma "I take responsibility" that doesn't get at the more important issues. No president can keep us 100 percent safe. The important question is "What did he do wrong, knowing what he knew at the time?" Ditto for Clinton.

[pagar a bacon, country ham and sausage supporter]

Jimmyk, I cannot understand how it can be legal to:

"turning around and extorting funds from these banks to pass along to La Raza and other activists". Why can they give that money to La Rasa and yet claim all the Social Security funds that taxpayers send in have to go into a General fund?

[Thomas Collins]

My son's political theory PhD dissertation proposal has been approved. The topic is the relationship between Edmund Burke's economic philosophy to his theory of politics, and whether they are complementary or contradictory. For example, does Burke's defense of chivalric virtue undercut, or further, Burke's embrace of market capitalism.

[Jane]

TC, When do we get the answer?

[jimmyk]

Why can they give that money to La Rasa and yet claim all the Social Security funds that taxpayers send in have to go into a General fund?

The simple answer is that no one tries to stop them. We had some links here a few weeks ago on this, and I recall there was some basis for a legal challenge. But I guess our betters in the Stupid Party don't think such a challenge would be prudent.

[cheerleader]

Threadkiller have you seen this?

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2005-07-27.htm

FOOL ME EIGHT TIMES, SHAME ON ME

July 27, 2005l

.....Of course it's possible that Roberts will buck history — all known human history when it comes to the Supreme Court — and be another Scalia or Thomas. (And we'll hear this news while attending a World Series game between the Cubs and, oh, say ... the Detroit Tigers.)

That will not retrospectively alter the fact that Bush and all the other Zarathustra Republicans cheering for Roberts haven't the first idea what kind of justice Roberts will be right now. They are telling us their hopes and dreams.

I share their hopes and dreams! I also hope it doesn't rain in August. I'm not throwing out all my umbrellas, and I won't be "proved wrong" in that decision even if the rain never comes. This is a fact: Right now, we don't know.

Republicans are desperately trying to convince themselves that Roberts will be different because they want to believe Bush wouldn't let us down on the Supreme Court. Somewhere in America a woman is desperately trying to convince herself that her husband won't hit her again because he told her "things are going to be different this time." (And yes, that woman's name is Whitney Houston.)

Bush said "Trust me," and Republicans trust him. It shouldn't be difficult for conservatives to convince themselves that Roberts is our man. They've had practice convincing themselves of the same thing with Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter.

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

[Thomas Collins]

I'll check with him, Jane. He doesn't seem to be one of those "let's stretch this out" types, so we'll see.

[Old Lurker]

I'm too depressed to go back and read all the threads, but was this posted and discounted, or are we in fact absolutely screwed? If this is true and unavoidable, then why would anyone doubt Obama would use this opportunity to make the most hard core appointment he can name and in just a few days? Anyone who would think he would not do something because it might look bad does not understand the man.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html?intcmp=hpbt1

[Miss Marple]

Old Lurker,

That is why I asked earlier today what is stopping McConnell from calling the Senate into session today?

I would pre-emptively call an emergency session and tell everyone to get their butts back to DC.

Of course, I am not super smart like the people in DC, so maybe I am missing something.

[jimmyk]

OL, see Clarice's link at the end of the previous thread (Scotusblog). I read that as saying the Senate could probably prevent him from doing this.

[jimmyk]

Actually it was two threads back, so here it is again:

http://linkis.com/www.scotusblog.com/2/GGmwA

[Frau Hilfe!]

Brought forward from last thread:

Sotomayor was in 'Cleoville recently speaking (ka-ching!) to eager female activists-in-training. She reminded the *invited* women folk to remain true to their communities and not forget their roots. They needed to help others in The Climb as they had been helped.
Gack!

Gaia help us if another self-identifying Wise-anybody is nominated. One is embarrassing and destructive enough.

[James D.]

I read that as saying the Senate could probably prevent him from doing this.

There's a lot of things the Senate could have prevented Obama from doing since January of 2015 (and the House since January 2011), including many things that are arguably forbidden by the Constitution, and they've largely sat on their hands.

[Threadkiller]

From the link:

Could President Obama make a nominee during that recess?  Only if the Senate is taking a recess lasting longer than three days, and does not come in from time to time during that recess to take some minimal legislative action.  Both of those circumstances would be entirely within the Senate’s authority.

Better head on back, McConnell.

[Threadkiller]

To James' point, what has stopped Obama?

[henry]

McConnell is dumb enough to fuck this up and use it for "fundraising" in a classic GOPe consultant move.

[Miss Marple]

jimmyk,

Thanks for bringing that link forward! I went looking for it and couldn't find it.

It is snowing like heck outside. I think we are supposed to get 4 inches or so.

[Old Lurker]

Boy I am with you, MM.

I have no idea what the parliamentarian rules rules are for that, or what the quorum requirements might be, but I'd have about 60 Gulfstreams approaching DCA by about now, and the heat cranked back up in the Senate Chamber.

You know, IF this story is correct and this easy to know, then knowing how we are balancing on a knife edge during these 5:4 times on potentially fatal issues to the republic, then I would want to know why the GOP has not had a contingency plan in place (assuming they don't) to protect the five seats they sometimes have. I mean, would it not have been easy peazy to just avoid ever having a real adjournment until the coast was clear?

When the result of a sudden loss of one justice might be the loss of the entire game, then even if the probability of that happening is tiny, the Expected Value of the outcome is still death.

That's why you never agree to play Russian Roulette no matter hole many chambers are in the gun...

[Janet S.]

I just saw a snippet of something called the Trumpet Awards on TV. Not sure what it is, but one of the award winners was saying she was glad Trump wasn't President & how she's glad Obama is President.
The audience all clapped wildly & smiled.

looking online .....the lady speaking was Princess Basmah Bint Saud.

Anyway...another concern if Trump or Cruz both go down in flames will be the "WE WON" crowing of those that don't want to stop illegal immigration or the flood of Muslims coming to America.
It will be awful.

[Janet S.]

When Bush was POTUS the Dems. sent Sen. Jim Webb in to do something so Bush couldn't take recess actions.

[Clarice]

Elizabeth Foley at Instapundit thinks Obama could make a recess appointment now--valid only until the end of the term unless confirmed. I think the Republicans should fight this tooth and nail and call off the recess immediately.

[Tom Maguire]

eah TK, Rubio didn't help himself there. He claimed Cruz didn't know Spanish to hide whatever he said on Univision (I haven't seen a transcript in any language on that), then when Cruz hit back in Spanish Rubio jumped to the Liar thing.

I read a fact check on that, at the Times I believe. Ought to post it.

Their gist - Cruz got lawerly with his "repeal on first day" formulation. Rubio had said, roughly, the executive order would not be allowed to stand and would be scrapped as Rubio managed the transition to whatever the new system was.

Earlier Cruz had said "Rubio wouldn't promise to revoke the executive order" and got beaten down as wrong. Hence the "first day" qualifier.

And Rubio was responding to the general charge, not the timing detail.

Yeah, I ought to post that, along with the Roberts thing.

[Threadkiller]

GREENVILLE, South Carolina — The chairman of the local Republican Party here confirmed to local television that 2016 frontrunner billionaire Donald Trump’s concerns—and those of his closest competitor Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)—with the Republican National Committee (RNC) allocation of debate audience tickets are well-placed

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/rnc-under-fire-over-debate-audience-stacking-as-local-gop-chairman-confirms-party-donors-get-debate-tickets/

Fool a mope once...

[Miss Marple]

Clarice,

Why is this so hard for them to figure out? Is McConnell going to dither around until Obama comes out tomorrow announcing he has appointed someone?

Then McConnell will stare into the camera and sputter, but it will be too late.

And why aren't Cruz and Rubio on the phone calling him and telling people to get their rears back to DC?

I don't get it. We KNOW what Obama is like. Why expect him to do something different?

They can get to DC quicker than he can from Rancho Mirage. Fire up those planes!

[henry]

Thanks TM... more Senate ticky tack instead of pointing out they actually agree with each other on this.

[Tom Maguire]

Re:

What is really troubling to me is that Rubio would be clueless enough to think that Ted Cruz doesn't speak Spanish.

Ted Cruz has described his own Spanish as "lousy" and refused a Spanish-language debate during the 2012 campaign, saying (plausibly) it excluded the English speaking audience.

[Threadkiller]

Cruz got lawerly

Its what he does.

[Old Lurker]

Thanks for posting that link.

I would worry about the technicality of calling them back since the requirement to adjourn needed the consent of both houses which, since that happened, I wonder if it ties the hands of one house to come back early. Of course I have no idea about that because I was never a Constitution Law Professor... :-) But assuming McConnell does have that right, whatever the mechanics are that should have occurred hours ago.

The second thing which I see, following the links, seems to be a confidence (?) that a recess appointment only lasts until the next session ends. Is that black letter unarguable ironclad Constitutional "truth"? If so, at least that limits the time period for burning us down.

But even if that is so, if I'm Obama and I see cases on the plate right now that have the potential to derail some of my big issues like Global Warming, EPA, Affirmative Action, Abortion, then why would I not ram a feisty Holder into that room to get as many 5:4s as they can get during 2016 then let the chips fall where they will later?

People who love Obama would expect him to do just that...on to do it Monday.

Just sayin.

[Threadkiller]

It's...

[Old Lurker]

Seems damn simple to me, Clarice, and it seems more important for our side than anything else underway right now. As I said several threads back, screw arguing about the election until this door is nailed shut.

Like my old professor taught me in B'School (when he was arguing that we should never let our busineses run out of cash) "Planning for the Long Term does you not a damn bit of good if you don't survive the Short Term.)

[Threadkiller]

Vato si quieres dicelo ahora mismo, dicelo ahora en español, si quieres.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/13/rubio-hits-cruz-with-a-surprise-left-hook-he-doesnt-speak-spanish-watch-how-cruz-responds/

Very Presidential.

[Old Lurker]

...I forgot Immigration on my list for this session.

This is a no brainer for Obama. Pick up that phone and pen and put his most strident bomb thrower in that room at SCOTUS when the doors open tomorrow.

Why wouldn't he?

[jimmyk]

Ted Cruz has described his own Spanish as "lousy"

Even so, it may be good enough to understand what Rubio said on Univision, and if not, it would have been easy enough to have it translated. I think that was a prepared comeback by Rubio that was not very effective.

[Momto2]

I think the senate needs to expect the worst case scenario from O as that is his history. If there is a legal, semi-legal, or illegal action he can take to further his agenda he doesn't wait around - he doesn't worry about what the press will say.....

Should we be contacting our senators and demanding they go back to D.C.?

Also the thing about him filling a spot and then the R's being able to remove that person next year.... do we *really* think that is going to happen? Imagine the screaming and gnashing of teeth at how "rude" for a new president to waltz into office and "kick so -and -so who is such a wonderful person off of the court"! Sure the D's would do it in a heartbeat but the R's??? I'm not feeling it!

[Old Lurker]

Mom, I'm saying that having all of the 2016 cases go Obama's way is a lot more important to him than having that person off the court in 2017.

To repeat. No Brainer. Use the Phone and the Pen.

[Jim Miller]

Miss Marple - Congratulations to Carmel High School; that's quite a record.

Do you have any connection to the school?

[Stephanie]

new fred

[Miss Marple]

Jim Miller,

No, except it's in my area. I just thought it was a really amazing accomplishment, and I like to post positive stuff when I can.

[Tom Maguire]

Glenn has linked to a law article with This One Weird Trick by which a motivated Senate majority can trump a recess appointment.

The gist - since the Senate controls their own calendar and sessions, just declare Feb 16 at noon the end if the current session and Feb 16 at 12:01 as the start of a new session. All recess appointments then expire Feb 16 at noon.

Unusual, arguably unprecedented. Which means it has as much precedent as a recess appointment to the Supreme Court.

[henry]

TM, I'm not sure I trust McConnell in a legal game of Royal Fisbin. But that is a funny and inventive way to shove an "I Won" down a lame duck's throat.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Princess Basmah Bint Saud--

I'm guessing that's a typo but it's a damned funny one.