Why I am not surprised that Obama would choose a Republicon for SCOTUS

[rhett o rick]

“The White House is considering the 52-year-old Sandoval (Nevada Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval for the Supreme Court vacancy), two people familiar with the process said Wednesday. “

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/possible-choice-of-nevada-governor-a-test-for-senate-gop/

It's really no surprise that Pres Obama is considering the nomination of a Republican. Since elected most ofl his nominations/appointments have been Republicons or Conservative Democrats.

Here is a partial list:

Tim Geitner, Lawrence Summers, Ben Bernanke, William M. Daley, Jeff Immelt, Dave Cote, Jeb Bush, Robert Gates, Gen Stanley McChrystal, Jacob Lew, Jeremiah Norton, Gen Petraeus, John Brennen, Chuck Hegal, Michael Taylor, James Comey, James R. Clapper, Robert Gates, Leon Panette, Robert Mueller, Michele Leonhart, Lois Lerner, Arnie Duncan , Rahm Emanuel, Penny Pritzker, Michael Froman, Republican Senator Judd Gregg, Kenneth Salazar, Tom Wheeler, Charles Ramsey

[thereismore]

1. I think there is a risk that the President is undercutting his own legacy with this choice. nt

[RKP5637]

5. Yep! n/t

[Chan790]

14. Considering how stridently Sandoval believes that the very notion of national healthcare...

is unconstitutional. He would be a justice that would move Heaven and Earth to overturn the ACA.

Let's not nominate that jackass to the SCOTUS.

[LiberalLovinLug]

78. I think he'd be a stalwart for them against Single Payer

The reason the conservative court backed the legality of the ACA was that it benefited the private insurance industry. But the Third Way Ds along with the GOP are freaking out about Sanders possibly getting in and they'd have to live with HIS choice for SCOTUS.


They want to put in a corporate friendly choice, and Obama will bend over backwards (as usual) to pick a favorable Republican choice in order to top of his legacy and "get er done" before he leaves office. And the Repubs will make some manufactured noise but once Obama drops his final card on the table, the most wingnut even the Turd Way can stomach, then they will stamp the approval before the possibility of Sanders Presidency becomes reality. The last thing Obama, and the DLC want is for Sanders to come sweeping in and "trump" all the work he did capitulating away the public option and overshadowing one of his biggest accomplishments....Obamacare, it is all set to be the center piece of not only his term, but in the first room you enter in the Obama Presidential Library.

[A Simple Game]

29. Do you mean undercutting his legacy or the legacy you want for him?

There may be a difference. He may be trying for the legacy he wants to have.

[thereismore]

43. Specifically the ACA. I think he wants that as a legacy. This guy could rule against it. nt

[brush]

31. Hold up, folks. A leak of a name is NOT a nomination.

IMO the president has no intention of nominating Sandoval. You'll notice his name, out of several being considered, is the only one leaked.

He's putting extreme pressure on the repugs refusal to even hold a hearing with this leak. It's to show the hypocrisy, dereliction of duty and blatant obstructionism of the senate repugs to the nation.

Sandoval is also a Latino so it won't go over well in the Latino community if the repugs keep it up with the "no hearing for any nominee" obstructionism, thus guaranteeing even more Latino votes for dems in the November general election.

The president is no dummy. Too many here don't seem to notice, or maybe just ignore, that second-term Obama learned his lesson well and no longer tries for bi-partisanship with the repugs. In the last couple of years, with executive actions, he's time again demonstrated that he doesn't give a damn what they think.

Again, a leaked name is not a nomination.

[merrily]

39. And if the Republicans call what you imagine to be his clever bluff?

Then what? Bait and switch?

[brush]

40. Could be. Stay tuned and watch it unfold.

[merrily]

42. That's going to be difficult since the rationalizations I'm seeing today have me laughing so hard.

It's getting even deeper than usual at DU today.

[brush]

56. One name only has been leaked out of several in consideration

That does not a nominee make.

[merrily]

62. Duh. But what does that have to do with my post about funny rationalizations of DUers?

[brush]

84. And I guess you "imagine" a strategic leak . . .,

done all the time in DC, to be the nomination.

[mythology]

113. How do they "call" the bluff?

If this is a bluff, Obama has all the cards. He's the one who can then turn around and say "oh this is obviously political" or he can say that Sandoval didn't pass the Obama camp's vetting.

It's not like the Republicans can say "yes, we confirm Sandoval" without Obama officially putting him forward as the nominee.

There's very little downside to Obama if this is a bluff.

That said, Sandoval should never be anywhere near the Supreme Court.

[merrily]

115. Even a rumor that a Democratic President might nominate a Republican to the SCOTUS

is an epic fail, but I no longer expect the 13 dimensional chessers to grok that or to admit to grokking it.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4975-Obama-Considers-Nominating-a-Republican-to-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States&p=26955#post26955

[PJMcK]

76. Exactly! (n/t)

[rhett o rick]

79. I didn't say it was his choice, I said it wouldn't surprise me if he chose a Republicon. nm

[FrodosPet]

91. Or maybe someone supported by a Republicon?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027639633

[merrily]

36. Not only his own. He has disintegrated the bottom line rationale for LOTE voting for POTUS.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4975-Obama-Considers-Nominating-a-Republican-to-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States&p=26955#post26955

[disillusioned73]

57. Great link..

& post.. thanx

[merrily]

61. Awww, shucks. Thank you.

[brush]

77. Are you still pushing this? Why not wait until there is an actual nominee . . .

before trashing the president?

[yortsed snacilbuper]

2. je$u$ H chri$t

Not a republiCON

[droidamus2]

3. The problem is...

The problem is that President Obama thinks meeting the Republicans halfway is compromising when he is the only one moving.

[RKP5637]

6. And is a consistent pattern. Compromise does not mean caving in, yet IMO there has been a lot of the

latter in this administration.

[tk2kewl]

25. the hallowed 3rd way

[merrily]

44. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7638163

[merrily]

41. Does he? Are message board posters really that much more insightful than a Democratic POTUS

who was graduated from Harvard Law School?

At what point do we start telling ourselves the truth?

[freebrew]

49. It has been a pattern...

doesn't take much insight to see it coming when it's happened so many times before.

PBO negotiates by starting in the middle and giving into the right.
Anything left of center is ignored. Not what we were sold in 2008.

As for Harvard:

A college diploma, no matter the school, cannot teach critical thinking.
So, while one may learn all of the facts and basic principals, understanding the reasoning is left to the individual.

[merrily]

51. On DU and even JPR, I see all the time how Democrats who are U.S. Senators or POTUS

are clueless or scared. I don't believe either of those things. I especially don't believe that the average message board poster is so much more insightful than someone who has had an Ivy League education, maybe even prep school and probably a law degree in the bargain. All that to avoid realizing just how badly and how deliberately we're getting screwed. Talk about a fscking inconvenient truth!

[freebrew]

54. Some of them certainly look clueless...

maybe it's an act, maybe not. A lot of crooked shit going on for sure.
Some of them playing the 'dumb' card to deflect it, maybe...

You think an Ivy League school is better than others?
Any college degree is NOT a guarantee of intelligence, IMO.

I think SOME of the posters here are extremely insightful. Present company included.
Many are not, we can agree.
I don't know if it's insight or suspicion or maybe just paranoia.
But some things seem so obvious, it's frightening.

I'm truly hoping that people start to realize how badly we're screwn.

Trying my best here in Mid-MO to GOTV for Bernie. Funny, even the locals don't like DT.

[merrily]

63. Which Democratic US Senators do you think look clueless?

You think an Ivy League school is better than others?

I didn't say anything like that, but I don't think they're the worst schools, either.

Any college degree is NOT a guarantee of intelligence, IMO.

I didn't say that, either, but a college degree is not a guaranty of stupidity. What I am saying is, there is no reason to automatically assume stupidity, rather than intent.

I'm truly hoping that people start to realize how badly we're screwn.

They will, if they pay attention and stop making excuses for people who know better. If they keep telling themselves stories about politicians being clueless or scared, who knows when or if they'll wake up? As I said, it's an inconvenient truth. Many people would rather fool themselves.

[freebrew]

88. I totally agree...

Even the part: " What I am saying is, there is no reason to automatically assume stupidity, rather than intent. "

That's pretty scary, I have been called CT for expressing those ideas, but been around too long to ignore them.
I've seen it too often.

But, to answer, Roy Blunt seems not too bright. That Akin guy that lost to Claire seemed almost stupid.

But, I think you are talking of something else, like maybe their reasons for their actions?
They may be stupid but conniving?

I think many are puppets for their owners. We had a majority once in both houses.
Still got nuthin' done.

Fun thoughts, sort of...hang in and keep posting. You're one of the good ones here.

Oh yeah, I ramble a lot...

[merrily]

92. They are not Democratic Senators. Thank you for your kind words.

[stupidicus]

73. I'd say BS too

BUsh did a fair job of hiding his criminality behind incompetence, and they largely use timidity, etc, to hide their collusion

[bulloney]

66. As for Harvard:

When I see all of the crooks and incompetent people in high places in our government, financial markets and other businesses with Ivy League degrees, I don't put much stock in that credential. It's all reputation & legacy and little substance as far as I'm concerned.

[Docreed2003]

107. And it's been the same way since 2009...

I understand his position, and when he wrote about compromise, I considered it idealistic and at the same time pragmatic, given where we were in 2009. It's no longer 2009. Please Mr President, DO NOT acquiesce to the GOP. You can't start a negotiation from a position of weakness. I pray this is a red herring, but I fear it's not. Someone needs to put out an APB for the backbone of the DNC. The majority of the country supports the president and for the life of me I can't believe that he and his people would do this in the name of "compromise". I'm sick and tired of the eleven demensional chess. I played along when SS was on the table as a "compromise"; if this goes forward, it's a bridge too far for me.

[bkkyosemite]

4. He is doing many things that did not show up in his campaign speeches

that are not in line with what he promised those voting for him.

[RKP5637]

7. Yep, all of those great inspiring speeches he gave, seems a lot has been forgotten. n/t

[seabeckind]

8. Go along to get along.

Back to the Rahm philosophy of not sacrificing the half-assed in search of better quality.

I'm still waiting on that picket line promise. I guess the tennis shoes were at the laundry.

[merrily]

46. LOL! Don't let the utterly unthinkable become the enemy of the utterly undesirable.

[sharp_stick]

9. Please let us know when he does so

Since elected "most of his nominations"...What an unmitigated load of utter bullshit.

[rhett o rick]

15. Are you arguing that "most" isn't accurate? Do you agree that those I've listed are

mostly hard-over conservatives?

[brooklynite]

18. Is Justice Sotomayor a full-blown conservative, or just a DLCer?

[rhett o rick]

22. If you have a point to make, please state your point. Trying to insinuate via questions

is a logical fallacy. "Wasn't Obama born in Kenya?" Insinuation via question.

[sharp_stick]

21. Most is not accurate, not even close

Here's a list of Obama's nominations, You can break it down into handy categories. I'll take 50% +1

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/nominations-and-appointments

And no those that you listed are not "hard core" conservatives.

[rhett o rick]

23. If you find any progressives in the list, please share them. I've listed

some of the most important nominees/appointees and they are strong conservatives.

[sharp_stick]

24. Moving goal posts is fun

You said most of his appointments are conservatives, I called BS. You said that list of yours contained "hard core" conservatives, I called BS..Now they're just not progressives.

[rhett o rick]

34. I admit I haven't analyized all of his appointments, but using the list I provided

I think I am safe in recognizing a pattern. I think those listed are the more important ones and not a progressive among them. If you wish to refute my conclusion, plez feel free.

By the way are you ok with the Pres nominating a Republicon?

[GoneFishin]

10. I believe that is how he rolls. Rahm Emanuel was his friggin' Chief Of Staff. He was faking his

progressive leanings.

[Lorien]

12. All DLCers do. nt

[ananda]

13. No, he was always center-right.

That's what "progressive" really means to the Reeps
who joined the Democratic party since the Republicans
when soooo far right.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

11. mITCH mcCONell beats Obama like a,

rented mule!

[truebluegreen]

16. In this particular case, I'm inclined to think he is trolling.

If they support the Republican nominee, it is clearly not about the newly-invented principle* of not nominating in the final year of a term.

If they don't support the Republican nominee, it is clearly all about massive holding-your-breath-until-you-turn-blue obstructionism.

So he floats the idea, waits to see which way they want to look bad, and then names the wildly-qualified jurist** that he actually wants.

I live in hope, I know, given the above list and past behavior....

*the "Democrat President" principle or the 3/5s of a term principle, you decide
**who is still not the one I would likely want, which is a RBG clone

[Sanity Claws]

52. I tend to agree with you on this

[brooklynite]

17. Jeb Bush?

[rhett o rick]

26. That's what I said. nm

[desmiller]

28. "Please Clap"

[rhett o rick]

99. Here's what Obama said about Jeb.

"We are also honored to be joined here today by another champion of education reform, somebody who championed reform when he was in office, somebody who is now championing reform as a private citizen -- Jeb Bush...The truth is I've gotten to know Jeb because his family exemplifies public service. And we are so grateful to him for the work that he's doing on behalf of education. So, thank you, Jeb."

Ah yes, Jeb was the champion of privatizing education in Florida.

[brooklynite]

100. IOW President Obama DIDN'T appoint Jeb Buch to a position.

[rhett o rick]

102. He seems to admire Jeb a lot. Show me where he admires progressives as much.

The point here is that Obama is a hard line conservative. He admires the Bush family.

[brooklynite]

105. Elena Kagen & Sonia Sotomayor

We're talking about SC Justices, right?

[rhett o rick]

106. LOL.

[ladjf]

19. Here we go again. Another cave in. nt

[pintobean]

20. No one has been nominated yet.

And, from your link:

“Neither Gov. Sandoval nor his staff has been contacted by or talked to the Obama administration regarding any potential vetting for the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court,”

[rhett o rick]

27. Yes I am aware of that. What's your point? nm

[GummyBearz]

30. At least he isn't talking about nominating Rahm Emmanual

[merrily]

32. Dunno why. I'm gobsmacked.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4975-Obama-Considers-Nominating-a-Republican-to-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States&p=26955#post26955

[rhett o rick]

53. Thanks for the great post merrily. nm

[desmiller]

33. Hopefully, it's a poker face strategy

He's probably setting them up for fall elections. If they deny him a republican nominee, they're toast.

[Shadowflash]

35. If Sandoval does get nominated

It kinda kills the 'We have to elect ANY kinda of Dem president, at any cost, because of the SC' argument.

If they are going to nominate Cons, anyway, what's the point?

[treestar]

37. He has no choice given the unprecedented declaration no one will even be considered

note this was not a strategy until there was a black President.

Or cave into them and not appoint anyone?

as someone pointed out, liberals knowing this will not want to accept the nomination. Not a circus they will want to be part of.

People should not have stayed home in 2010. This is what those who did that deserve.

[rhett o rick]

55. Ah yes the "he has no choice" or "his hands are tied by the mean Republicons" argument.

That's the trick that all Conservative Democrats play. They pretend to be progressive and when push comes to shove they too easily acquiesce to the tough Republicons. It's all a con game. They don't even try. It doesn't make sense to make your first offer in negotiations something the other side would settle for. The Republicons are laughing their heads off. Once again they've got Obama on the run.

[treestar]

89. He does have to get Senate approval

And you heard what McConnell said, so your post makes no sense.

I bet it's the first time in history there would be a one year vacancy on the court and defiantly the first time and opposing Senate treated the President this way.

[LiberalLovinLug]

81. How about a shocking new approach?

Actually nominate a more liberal choice and watch the Repugs deny deny deny. And then another, and another. This will only cement in the minds of the public how childishly stubborn and incompetent the GOP Senate is. And eventually, especially after a new Democratic President is elected if it came to that, they would HAVE to approve someone.

[treestar]

90. Someone made a good point that

none of the liberals would want to be nominated. And they say they are not even going to start hearings. Who'd want that "honor?" Proposed Supreme Court judge for one year with no hearing.

But if someone or a series of judges / candidates are willing to do it, it might work.

237 days is the longest vacancy.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/18/richard-blumenthal/sen-richard-blumenthal-correct-longest-supreme-cou/

We found Blumenthal's 237-day gap. It began when Lewis F. Powell Jr. retired on June 26, 1987. It took nearly eight months to find a replacement. Ronald Reagan's first choice, Robert Bork, was rejected by the Democratic Senate, mostly along party lines. His second choice, Douglas Ginsburg, withdrew after admitting he used drugs, both as a college student and later as a professor at Harvard.

Anthony Kennedy, Reagan's third choice to fill Powell’s seat, was confirmed without opposition by the Senate on Feb. 3, 1988. He was sworn in Feb. 18, 1988.

And that was because of 2 failed candidates that had hearings. In this case, they are not even going to start a hearing!

[LiberalLovinLug]

108. The Democrats do not have a taste for political theatre

But sometimes its needed. That's one thing Republicans know all too well. They are masters at the the traveling road show.
Democrats seem to be ever so shy as to embarrass their 'friends and colleagues' on the other side. Decorum is valued above all. Sometimes when someone pokes you in the eye you gotta kick em in the nuts. Embarrass them. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[LonePirate]

38. Obama is not going to select a Republican for the Supreme Court. See link inside.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56cdf699e4b0ec6725e4c4bf

People need to recognize a PR stunt when it happens and this one is a highly successful one. Of course pre-existing opinions would need to be abandoned first.

[pintobean]

47. It's more fun to be outraged

over something that hasn't happened.

[LannyDeVaney]

58. No kidding ...

the vast overreaction to every little news dribble is ridiculous.

Hasn't history shown that President Obama knows how the game is played, is consistently the only adult in the room when working with Congress, and nearly always comes out on top?

[Arkana]

71. Republicans said flat-out they would not consider any of his nominees.

So Obama puts up someone they can't possibly object to--and when they do, out of spite, they look even worse.

[Jester Messiah]

45. He's been listening too much to Hillary's "don't try for more, just settle" spiel. [nt]

[JEB]

48. How many times have I read, right here on DU,

that we have to win the presidency because of the Supreme Court? So...

[IDemo]

50. -

[RussBLib]

59. he's still just vetting

He hasn't "chosen" a Republican for SCOTUS yet. I doubt that he would.

[yellowcanine]

60. Maybe wait to trash the nomination until it actually happens?

Just sayin.'

[bulloney]

64. Yet, you've always been hearing how Obama has had this extreme-left agenda

that's pushing this country into a socialist hell-hole.

This is what 25+ years of dumbing down the country via RW hate radio and Faux Snooze has done. It would make Goebbels green with envy.

[OnyxCollie]

65. Leon Panneta is a Democrat.

He did say 9/11 was the reason for invading Iraq, so there's not much difference there.

[Initech]

67. Its' his last year in office. Obama owes no favors to these assholes.

Pick a liberal judge, let us take back the court.

[Populist_Prole]

68. Ah yes, more 3 Dimensional chess

And I'm sure another of a series of olive branches to the GOP will put him in good graces with them....NOT!

[SwankyXomb]

82. Must be me

I can't tell the 3D chess from Calvinball.

[Arkana]

69. This would be a valid complaint, except HE HASN'T CHOSEN ANYONE YET.

Sandoval's on the short list, that's all, and I'd bet money against him being the choice.

[Tarc]

70. This is a tricky situation

Do you put someone up that maybe enough Senators will support even though he/she isn't a full ideological match? That way at least Obama gets to be the one to put someone up. On the other hand, several Republicans Senators up for reelection in battleground states are getting slammed for their just-say-no-right-out-of-the-gate rhetoric here and are now in m,ore danger of losing their own elections than before.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

111. You want to nominate anyone that they can't find a good reason to oppose

Example: Bill Clinton was disbarred over the Monica thing. They'd bring that up as a legitimate reason to oppose.

Joe Biden would be a shrewd choice. He was on the J-com, he'd Veep, and he's well liked. He can also choose to come preside over the Senate (he can't vote except in a tie, but he can make his presence felt). They'd be stupid to oppose him, as he'd likely only be on the court for 5 years or so.

If she'd play along, Sandra Day O'Connor would be another shrewd pick. Yes, she's probably more conservative than we'd like, and she'd take the gig for a year, tops -- but I double dog dare them to say no.

Anita Hill --eminently qualified, and bound to make heads explode. Shrewd because no one over in Republican land will be able to keep their feet out of their mouths.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

72. This and TPP...

and...

Not the Hope and Change I voted for!

[stupidicus]

74. Pavlovian conditioning?

lol and eom

[SoapBox]

75. It would be another black mark

on his legacy.

Disappointing.

[rhett o rick]

80. Is now a good time to discuss pardoning Bush, Cheney, and the War Crime Gang? nm

[snooper2]

83. Thread Fail Again LOL... Maybe you'll get to 200 replies with the next "name" that "pops" up

LOL

[rhett o rick]

85. These types of responses always mystify me. If you don't agree with what I said why don't

you simply say such. Instead you use the term "thread fail" as a pejorative as if you are trying to insult me. By the way what does "Thread Fail" even mean? Is there a way to keep score?

[snooper2]

86. Fail is an awesome word...you can type anything in a YouTube search, then put fail at the end

Comes up with GREAT videos!

Oil Change (add Fail)

Jumping Jack (Add Fail)

Driving Fail

Phone Fail

[earthshine]

95. Okay. Your posts are a FAIL, just like Obama's attempts to show he's progressive.

Let's all share a cup of TPP with a side of chained-CPI.

[pintobean]

87. Another fine job.

[whistler162]

93. These types of threads always amuse me.

nothing has been said or done just some 99th hand rumor from some supposed source.

http://www.amazon.com/Zone-Smelling-smelling-Inhalant-Carbonate/dp/B00W2DJ1KI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456448692&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=smelling+salts&psc=1

for the vapours

[Pisces]

94. I am surprised you are still here spewing garbage. Ugh.

[me b zola]

96. Reminds me of how he began health care negotiations excluding single payer from the start

Here, this is the time to swing for the fences with a nominee. The polls have supported my earlier assertion that the public has no appetite for the bullshit on Capitol Hill, and those obstructing a vote for the SCOTUS nominee may very well be voted out. Republicans are going to block anything and so you might as well swing for the fences knowing that we will pick up congressional seats as a result of republican obstruction.

[earthshine]

97. My prediction is that they will drag this thing out until after Hillary gets the nomination.

And then Obama will nominate a conservative.

It's what the third-way does. Put on a liberal face and then give it up to the conservatives.

When Obama was elected we had majorities in both houses. He did nothing to make sure that we kept them. And DWS was his willing agent.

This is the legacy that Hillary wishes to continue.

I voted for this man twice. I've been shaking my head in disbelief for seven years.

[nolabear]

98. He didn't do it. He won't do it. Not that the reactions here won't be as if he did.

[DonCoquixote]

101. Sandoval quit

because he knew that if the Cons rejected him, it would have made them a) either break their promised deadlock or B) made them look like idiots to maintain the deadlock..this was a rare,actual case of a chess move that worked.

[PoliticAverse]

103. He's out, and he wasn't even in! n/t

[Algernon Moncrieff]

110. The suggestion has also been made that is was a pure trolling move

...to see if there would be pushback from vulnerable Republicans against McConnell for a pick that seemed reasonable

[Warpy]

104. Not only that, but he knows the Senate will make asses of themselves fighting against one of their

own, it's been his strategy from Day One on a variety of issues. The next offer he makes, once they've worn themselves out, won't be nearly as palatable to them.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

109. The object at this point is to make the selection that the Senate will look most foolish opposing

Personally, I think he should nominate Biden. Then I think Joe should show up in the Capitol every day and assume his President of the Senate role.

[Skittles]

112. yet I am constantly assured Obama did all he COULD to fix the economy

seriously

[Proud Liberal Dem]

114. Doesn't sound like Sandoval is one of the looney ones

At any rate, I believe that he has already publicly declined to be considered. Obama was probably messing around with Republicans anyway.