Thus, the Senate will not even debate the Supreme Court nominee

[question everything]

What I don't understand is why many think that this will "backfire" on the Republicans. Most voters could not care one way or the other. We thought that the government closing by Cruz would hurt the Republicans. And... they increased their majority in the House and took control over the Senate.

The Teflon party. Like Trump. Voters are not smart enough to connect the dots, or to even think beyond... the next ball games.

[elleng]

1. This:

Senators Mark Kirk and Susan Collins are first break in Republican dam of Supreme Court obstruction.

'One vulnerable Republican incumbent senator can read the way the blue state polling winds are blowing, and is breaking from the rest of the party over blocking President Obama's eventual Supreme Court nominee. . .

Being from Obama's home state is certainly a factor, since the president is from there and chances are pretty good that the unprecedented obstruction of this president's nominee will not be a particularly popular thing. It's been a while since any polling was done in Illinois, but the last time PPP checked in last summer, it wasn't looking good for Kirk. At all. He had a 42 disapproval rate, with just 25 percent approval.

Kirk doesn't stand entirely alone. Maine Republican Susan Collins says "it's clear that the president can send up a nominee—regardless of where he is before he leaves office," and that the Senate "should follow the regular order and give careful consideration to any nominee that the president may send to the Senate." Note, she stops short of calling for hearings and a vote, leaving it at "regular order." That gives her wiggle room to not fight back too hard when Mitch McConnell decides to entirely ignore the nominee.'

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/23/1489445/-Senators-Mark-Kirk-and-Susan-Collins-are-first-break-in-Republican-dam-of-Supreme-Court-obstruction?detail=email

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027636077

[Bagsgroove]

2. Yeah...it could backfire

Obama is left with two choices. Nominate a "moderate" (Nevada's Republican governor Brian Sandoval'a name has been floated) and hope that changes Mitch's mind, or Obama could nominate someone whose obstruction would hurt the Republicans politically. Oddly enough, the fact that Sandoval is both a Republican and Hispanic would probably fit that bill too.

I doubt it will work though. My guess is that the GOP will not consider any nominee. But this could still come back to haunt the Republicans.

The most dramatic way obstructing an Obama nominee now could backfire is if in 2017 a President Sanders or a President Clinton has a Democratic majority in the Senate. Mitch McConnell and his buddies will be faced with a far more progressive nominee than they will get from President Obama...and have no way to stop it.

[Cordy]

3. It's a given Mitch won't Cave.

Mitch spoke his mind he won't cave.

I think Obama has some good options.

Obama could appoint the Justice directly to the supreme court using his EO power. This would put Congress into a tizzy of outrage and what to do about it. It most likely would pop American eyes wide open. It might likely call for an impeachment. It would shame the republicans and highlight 8 years of obstructions. By tying congress and the national media up on the issue, the Hillary email problem would fade away, making it much easier for her to topple Trump in November. And in the end, Mitch would be begging Obama to appoint a justice to the Supreme court. I see this as a win.

A second way I think might work, is for Obama to appoint a justice after congress adjourns, in that interm period. Not sure how that works, or if it is possible. But I don't think Congress adjournment shuts down government.

[Bagsgroove]

4. How does that work?

I understand the recess appointment option (and that's not likely to work - SCOTUSBlog), but what in the Constitution gives a president the power to "appoint the Justice directly to the supreme court using his EO power?"