Maybe with the vetting of Sandoval for SCOTUS is not the things many liberals to see,....

[imanamerican63]

but it is a very smart move by the POTUS. The republican guard will lose no matter how this turns out! If they don't having any hearing, they will look bad. If they do have the hearings and confirm the nominee, they will be going against their party's wishes and the POTUS will do what the constitution gives him the power to do. No, we may not agree with who is appointed, but remember there is chance for more liberal judges to get appointed by Hillary or Bernie. So, don't hesitate, VOTE!

[Trajan]

1. You are very accommodating

I am not ... Triangulation is a political ploy, where we need straight forward nominations that directly reflect our values ...

This two time Obama voter is again disappointed ...

[cascadiance]

2. Triangulating with the GOP is what the public is sick of! They've already HAD IT with the TPP!

And THAT is what will lose us the election, if they see us as a party that will screw things up by just giving in on issues that Americans really care about, while the right demonizes the Democrat in office for other bullshit reasons!

Meanwhile, we all lose!

Even if Obama names a "medium" progressive candidate, if Bernie wins the White House and we get a Democratic Senate elected in November, YOU CAN BET that Republicans will use the lame duck session to approve this selection rather than wait for a Democratic Senate along with someone like Bernie picking the replacement for Scalia. They will know when they need to cut their losses.

And then we all win. Bernie will have a chance to name an even more progressive in his term later to replace another justice like Ginsburg, who some might argue perhaps is waiting for someone like Bernie to name her replacement too, since she probably foresaw exactly what is happening both on Obama's and the GOP's side with the Scalia replacement.

But DO NOT name a Republican or a conservative justice just to get that candidate approved. You can do better than that, and will if Bernie gets elected!

[GoneFishin]

28. Yeah. Let's nominate someone even more extreme than Scalia, then we will have the Republicans

boxed in. They'll have to confirm him. That will teach them to play elevendy dimension chess with BO.

[mythology]

36. Um, you may want to rethink your theory

More than 60% of Democrats in 2014 wanted the parties to work together. Republicans wanted the opposite.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/do-voters-want-representatives-compromise

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2015/voters_blame_congress_more_than_obama_for_gridlock

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2015/hey_fellas_how_bout_some_teamwork

You can claim all you like that the voters don't want the parties to work together, but the evidence is pretty clear that voters repeatedly say they do want the parties to work together.

[brush]

4. 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 and blatant obstructionism of the repugs.

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.

[Hortensis]

7. "The president is no dummy." You and Imanamerican are so right!

Sandoval's also from the West, so there's a large portion of the country to maybe feel just a little dissed by his dismissal. Almost all justices these days are from the northeast.

Watching these maneuvers is fascinating. Just wish I could google the plot when I wasn't sure what was happening and could look forward to a new episode every week.

[DetlefK]

17. +1

There is no nomination of Sandoval. If the Republicans move their stance to holding nomination-hearings for a Republican, Obama can easily switch him for a Democrat.

[Marr]

23. Jesus Christ, it's been almost 8 years. Can we drop this '3 dimensional chess' bullshit, please?

You're right-- the President is no dummy. He's a moderate Republican.

[brush]

24. Almost 8 years and you can drop that crap too.

[GoneFishin]

29. +1. Yes he is a moderate Republican.

[merrily]

30. Some will never drop it--and that right there IS the 13 dimensional chess win.

I remember Jon Stewart saying early on, "Either he's a Jedi, very far from our understanding, or this thing is kicking his ass."

Smart as Stewart was, he missed the third option, like Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda.

[merrily]

6. How the hell is nominating a Republican to the SCOTUS bench even triangulating?

Isn't triangulating supposedly some imaginary point about half way between what a real Democrat would want and what a real Republican would want? Are we assuming a Republican would nominate a Nazi, so nominating a Republican is a mid-point? Or is he just doing what a real Republican would want to do, namely nominate a Republican?

[tk2kewl]

12. the triangle has collapsed into a singualrity

[merrily]

13. We've "progressived" from triangle to pinpoint.

[merrily]

3. Yeah, That's the ticket! Go with that.

[Dale Neiburg]

5. They look bad even if they only agree to hold hearings

At that point they demonstrate that their refusal is entirely partisan, with no principles at all behind it. Then the President can simply nominate someone else (who won't make it) since the point has been made against the Senate Repubs.

[imanamerican63]

8. This was my point that was making!

We are going to have fun watching the GOP squirm thru this process!

[merrily]

31. Cool. Now explain how we unring the bell that a Democratic President should nominate a Republican to

the SCOTUS. Talk may be cheap, but it is not without potential consequences.

[Chan790]

9. If the GOP schedules a hearing, Obama should immediately withdraw Sandoval.

He cannot end up on SCOTUS as an outcome of this. Full stop, end of story.

If Obama wants to play that kind of chess with the GOP, play it with some 70-something nominee (someone like Kay Bailey Hutchison...that would be a master-stroke because blocking her nomination would endanger Ted Cruz's ability to get reelected down the road. KBH has some powerful, wealthy friends in TX.)...not a 51 year old Republican who wants to overturn the ACA, ban wind-and-solar-based alternative energy and believes that regulating Wall St. should be a crime.

[LonePirate]

10. No need to withdraw him as he won't be nominated in the first place.

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

[femmocrat]

16. I am leaning toward the "trial balloon" explanation.

Especially since the governor says he hasn't been contacted, it seems like bad form to float his name out there. I think Reid is just trying to embarrass the senate repubs. Can anyone imagine that they would refuse to meet with a sitting republican governor?

[B2G]

15. Obama nominates, a hearing is scheduled, and

THEN he withdraws his nomination?

Oh the brilliance of it all! The optics would be legendary!

[madville]

18. Or he nominates him and they call his bluff

By skipping the hearing going straight to a floor vote?

[B2G]

19. Better still.

I can only surmise this is a stupid rumor.

[Old Codger]

22. I hope you

Are right about that... it would be a total disaster

[Chan790]

21. Even at that point, the President can withdraw his nomination at any point before confirmation.

They'd still have to have a motion to have a floor vote and that takes like 15 minutes.

There's no way for them to successfully call his bluff.

[Chan790]

20. Too slow!!

[merrily]

32. We don't need this fscking game of a Democrat considering nominating ANY Republican to the SCOTUS.

I don't care if he or she is 112 years old and on life support.

[Chan790]

35. No, you're right, we don't.

But if he's committed and bound and determined to do it...I hope he has the sense to do it with someone that is going to die within the next 10 years, not a 51 year old that could conceivably serve for 30 years.

[merrily]

38. Committed? How is he committed? How is he bound?

You'll have to excuse me. I consider this such a disaster and a betrayal that I probably can't be anything but short tempered about it.

IMO, he's already hurt the Party and the country, just by floating the possibility and that bell, like putting "entitlements" on the table, cannot be unrung. The damage is already irreversible. The best he can do is say he'd been at the dentist, had a mouth full of novacaine and some staffer misunderstood him.

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

[Chan790]

42. You clearly missed the word "if" there.

[font size=7]If[/font] he's going to actually nominate a Republican to humiliate the Republicans in the Senate, I hope he has the sense to choose someone old that will die soon.

I don't disagree with you that it's a bad idea...but it's the kind of "3-D Chess" bad idea I've come to expect out of this administration. He does something indisputably conservative and the moderates in the tent try to spin it as just Obama outsmarting the GOP.

[merrily]

43. No, I didn't. But the word "if" connotes that at least a possiblity of something exists

In this case, no such possibility exists. He is not committed or bound, full stop. Ergo, there is no point saying what should happen if he were committed or bound. He isn't.

Again, I am gong to beg off on discussing this right now.

[nichomachus]

11. Very smart -- assuming he wants the Democrats to lose in November

If Hillary muscles her way past the will of the people and becomes the nominee, she will have only two pillars in her campaign: (1) Vote for me because of the Supreme Court and (2) I'm a woman. Take away one of those, and she's toast.

[B2G]

14. And if the Democrats refuse to confirm him

The THEY look like the obstructionists.

If they do, we get a moderate justice.

Tell me again about how Obama is the 'master of 3D chess'. I'm all ears.

[Bucky]

25. Please note: Obama is not nominating Sandoval

Vetting him, without actually calling him ahead of time, is just a way of trolling the Republicans.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. Thank you! Because I. JUST. CAN'T.

[merrily]

33. Please note: it stinks, no matter why he did it.

Trolling the Republicans? Do you think this is some kind of social media game?

[Bucky]

39. Yes. It's PR. It's giving GOPrs a chance to look stupid

This is very much a social media game. His goal is to break up GOP unity. I think it's the perfect move.

[merrily]

40. Poster, please. That is so unimportant compared to the damage it's done.

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

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. It was a brilliant move, but sadly too many here just want to bash the president without using

critical thinking skills.

[merrily]

34. Oh, please. The only lack of criticial thinking skills is on the part of those that knee jerk

start claiming things like this are brilliant.

[CoffeeCat]

37. I have no problem with Obama

nominating a Republican to the SCOTUS. As long as the nominee is not an idealogue, but someone who respects the constitution.

Of course, Scalia said he respected the constitution. What a joke. It would have to be someone who had a track record of judicial decisions and restraint that reflect basic Democratic principles.

[merrily]

41. IMO, you should have a huge problem with just the mention of it.

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