Yes, Obama may nominate a GOP governor for SCOTUS and that's okay....

[okaawhatever]

Let's just make sure he doesn't get confirmed. The idea is to turn this scotus opening into a win in 2016 for both the senate & the presidency, or at least ensure some Republican losses.

McConnell & the GOP threw down the gauntlet when they declared their 3 No's. (No interviews, no hearings, no vote). Recent polling shows the Republicans are mostly blamed for Congressional gridlock, their refusal to hold hearings will play into that and increase their negatives. It is also one of the issues they poll poorly with for independents and moderate Republicans. Refusing to give a hearing to one of their own would significantly alienate both the moderates & independents in 2016.

If McConnell & Grassley fold and give him a hearing (display of weakness and capitulation) the more liberal Dems will be able to make him look bad in hearings and shut down a future Presidential candidate. A confirmation wouldn't be ideal, but it would solve two other problems. One, the purple state of Nevada would need another Governor, and he wouldn't be able to run for potus in 2020. He is a very formidable opponent, we shouldn't take him too lightly

Near term effect on scotus would be minimal. Since Obergfell, the LGBT community has room to breath for a while at least. Besides, even if he's anti-LGBT we don't need his vote. We have Kennedy for 5-4 majority. He's pro-choice so that will give us the majority there. Not sure about business, etc. but if he can help elect a Dem in 2016 any damage he does can be reversed pretty quickly.


Another approach Obama could take is to nominate a minority Democrat, such as a Mexican-American or African American woman who would be rejected immediately. If Obama noms someone like that the Repub voters would start their hate fest alienating that demographic and all sensible Americans. I'm not thrilled with doing something so highly political, but if the alternative is 3 more clarence thomas' and a Republican president in 2016 I'll "embrace the suck" as Pelosi says.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. More 3D chess?

but if the alternative is 3 more clarence thomas' and a Republican president in 2016 I'll "embrace the suck" as Pelosi says.

Just another hypothetical boogeyman to give his fans an excuse to proclaim he's something good by lurching farther to the right.

I'll be glad when we get someone in the White House that actually acts like a Democrat 24/7, and not just when it doesn't inconvenience the plutocrats.

[ananda]

2. Yeah

I am also tired of moderate Republican officials
pretending to be Dems.

That's what we'll get with Clinton too.

Sanders is the only alternative.

[Hortensis]

8. Seriously? This is what you

get from this opening to discussion? Look up 'circular reasoning.". I can't actually see that any new thought actually made it into the circle.

The practice of democracy is ALL about maneuvering for advantage, compromise and imperfection. Hate that, hate government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And no, that isn't corruption, it is the way democracy has to be.

It works okay when people work together on workable compromises, and it fails when people say my way or nothing. In fact, THAT is a corruption of the system, as we see by the GOP's behavior on this issue.

Okaa, The Hill says the Democrat strategy is to show that the GOP is obstructionist on every level and that we are sure we have the advantage. Of course -- they are dreadfully, destructively, dishonorably so, and we are coming into the home stretch of this election year.

Most currently undecided voters normally would be deciding this spring who they vote for next November. With the chaos in the GOP that usual dynamic will no doubt stretch out for some conservatives until they finally know who the GOP nominee is, but the SCOTUS obstruction will be dragging and dragging out at the same time.

McConnell has refused even to meet with a nominee, but Obama could invite other GOP senators to meet with him instead, lose-loses for McConnell no matter what the response. Also .

[delrem]

3. That makes no sense.

It contradicts the loyalty oath threads that focus on the importance of the SC.
It shows that the foundation of those threads is a lie.

Why would Dems anoint a REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN for the SC? Why?

Please, please don't say that it's because that's all the Republicans will let the Dems (those hapless filibustered nothings) to do.
Grow a fucking spine! Please, just grow a spine. Then talk the talk. Until then, it's probably just better to concede already.

[ladjf]

11. This would be another Obama cave in. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Parsing out newly won rights via a nominee who is openly hostile to those rights is mean and nasty

and typical of straight moderates. This is why we can never rest and never trust.

[delrem]

7. The terms 'moderate' and 'centrist' are pure political propaganda.

They have no actual content.

They're like the CIA's "moderate jihadists" in the ME. A total bullshit use of words designed for soporific effect, to gain acquiescence from a dull-witted population incapable of critical thinking.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Parsing some more? You focus on terminolgies used simply to soften the fact that is is straights

who do this. I'm just trying not to include the entire straight class so I used a modifier. You want to talk about the modifier, not the content. Again, that's why we can't trust, there is no good will involved just a bunch of bullshit.

[delrem]

10. No. I'm commenting on the terms USED.

You didn't invent the terms 'moderate' and 'centrist', and they are USED TO JUSTIFY REID'S PROPOSAL.
Read the various OPs on this matter and count the number of times it's USED TO JUSTIFY REID'S PROPOSAL.

eta: you tell me what is "moderate" or "centrist" about this statement.

The term "moderate" doesn't even apply! She is taking an absolutist position grounded in fundamentalist religious beliefs and social conditioning - and her absolutist position categorically denies human rights to the LGBT community.

But but but, Hillary Clinton is a "moderate" and "centrist", people say. To campaign against her is to be an "extremist", impractical, unrealistic. It's bullshit, pure bullshit. The issue is whether there's a categorical application of human rights, applicable to ALL, or not, and there's no room for compromise. No room for bargaining it all away with empty platitudes and soporific political hacktitudes.

[okaawhatever]

13. Let's not forget, it was a straight moderate who cast the swing vote for Obergfell. I also believe

LGBT rights are under greater threat with the 3 likely nominations that will be given to the 2016 President than this one nomination (again, I don't expect him to be confirmed). It would completely change my mind if it would alter the outcome for LGBT or pro-choice balance.

I just want the Dems to get the most mileage out of this opportunity as possible. I see a nomination of Sandoval going one of two ways.

1. Obama nominates him and McConnell refuses to even consider-that hurts GOP in swing states & GOP approval ratings among the voters who could tip the 2016 election fo both the Presidency and senate majority.

2. Obama nominates him and McConnell allows a hearing-here McConnell is seen as weak and unable to stand up to Obama. If a hearing were to happen, the Dems in solid blue states will be able to grill Sandoval on enough issues to reject him for aligning closely enough with their positions. (showing he's much more extreme than the average independent & moderate Dem voter think he is-again looking to him running in 2020). They will question him at length about all the issues where he is not aligned with the GOP, like being pro-choice. That will put him out of favor with the GOP base and hurt a possible run in 2020.

I don't know if he is truly anti-LGBT, I haven't done enough research, but I did read that he recently signed a transgender protection bill in Nevada (apparently without fanfare). It makes me wonder if he's really pro-LGBT or just positioning himself to deceive voters in 2020 on his true position. Either way I hope Dems and the LGBT community in Nevada forced him to go public with his stance.

I guess I see all this like playing pool. If you can't make the shot, make sure you place the ball where your opponent can't make theirs either.

[TBF]

5. Your headline is everything that is wrong with this party. nt

[delrem]

6. Third-Way has triangulated itself right into the heart of the Republican party.

Where they are now arguing that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between a "moderate" D or R, except that the "moderate R" is better and more deserving, because R's don't have to lie about it and so have a spine.

[joeybee12]

12. I doubt he will...he may vet him just to get the Repukes' panties

in a wad, but I really do think this is just a ploy.