Can we be honest about what happened when Reagan tried to nominate a RW-er?

[oberliner]

It seems like people have forgotten the whole Bork episode.

Or maybe just are too young to know about it?

[struggle4progress]

1. "Bork is a Cox-Sacker!"

[oberliner]

4. He would've been awful

I'm glad we were able to stop him!

[Warpy]

40. Much worse than Scalia

because Scalia had many years of being a doctrinaire right winger who occasionally did come down on the side of the constitution. It's only in his final 12 years or so that he started to lose it publicly, causing me to suspect organic brain syndrome.

Bork was just another vicious ideologue. He was proposed because he was the darling of the truly lunatic far right. He was stopped as much by Republicans as by Democrats.

Sadly, he might be approved if he were proposed today.

A strongly liberal Justice would not be approved. A moderate will face a fight.

[tk2kewl]

2. are you trying to draw a connection to the current situation?

i'm not sure what it is?

[oberliner]

3. We fought hard against Bork

We can expect them to fight hard if Obama nominates someone they similarly despise.

[tk2kewl]

5. ok

so you advocate a centrist I assume? I can get with that thinking. Mainly at this point I do not want a corporatist or someone who will continue to rollback privacy rights. Do you have a suggestion?

[oberliner]

7. Yes, I would advocate a centrist

I don't see a true liberal having any shot of getting confirmed.

I actually don't even think they would confirm a moderate considering how much they hate Obama, but they might have to.

[TDale313]

6. They'll block anyone he nominates. They've said so.

Yes, I expect both sides to object if they feel the nominee is unqualified. In this case though they feel the President is unqualified and don't intend to give anyone he nominates even a look. Not the same.

[oberliner]

8. A moderate might have a shot

Justice Kennedy was sure as hell not the person that the ideological wing of the Republican party wanted.

[TDale313]

17. Ya know who they're suggesting?

Lindsey Graham suggested he could get behind a "consensus" candidate like Orrin Hatch.

Newt said Obama should nominate someone in the Scalia mold.

You. Can't. Work. With. These. People.

The only way they'd dream of confirming an Obama nominee was if he nominated a RWer and even then many would obstruct just on principle. They are not acting in good faith.

[oberliner]

20. That is hilarious

However, in the case of getting a Supreme Court judge confirmed - we do have to work with these people. At least if we want anyone confirmed during Obama's term. There is literally no other way.

[TDale313]

22. And if they aren't willing to play ball?

If it's nominate a conservative or nominate someone they won't confirm and leave the seat open?

You are assuming they'll confirm if we give them someone "moderate". I'm not. I don't have a good answer, but again I say they have no intention of acting in good faith.

Editing to add: I do have my answer. Nominate the best nominee he can find. Send it to the Senate. When they won't confirm beat them over the head with that fact and work like hell to elect a Dem President and Senate who will fill the vacancy.

[Marr]

47. Democrats really *don't* have to work with them here.

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Let the GOP block as many moderate, reasonable, qualified candidates as can be found. The more the better. This is an election year and they'll be shooting themselves in the foot all over the country. The Dems will take the Presidency again and they'll bend.

[oberliner]

50. Choosing a moderate constitutes working with them

Choosing a more progressive, leftist candidate would be not working with them.

[Crunchy Frog]

63. Orrin Hatch being your definition of a "moderate"?

[oberliner]

64. Jane Kelly was confirmed 96–0 for her seat on the 8th Circuit

Someone like her maybe.

[rurallib]

51. Orrin Hatch? good lord

Would hardly call him moderate.

Sotomayer was a good pick with little baggage. Surely there must be someone in the minors in that mold. They must have a list assembled that has been screened already by some Repubs. The nominee will most likely be someone we never heard of.

[tk2kewl]

10. so given that stance from the GOP would you nominate a strong liberal?

i mean, if they're going to tie it up anyway, maybe you get some air time for the progressive/liberal agenda. make the GOP attack things that are emerging as very popular.

[TDale313]

19. Yeah, probably. My take anyway.

Or someone so incredibly qualified that it makes them look like the obstructionists they are.

[davidn3600]

55. Obama likely wants a legacy though....

If the Democrats had 55 seats in the Senate....I say go ahead and nominate a strong liberal and push him/her through. But that's not the case. The only way anyone has a remote chance of getting confirmed is if they are a centrist or a person who appears to be a compromise (ie: favor gun rights but also favors abortion, etc).

That kind of pick would put the GOP in a tough place and may be enough to pull over enough moderates to win confirmation.

But if Obama nominates a strong liberal, no matter how qualified...forget it.

[TDale313]

59. I'll say what I said elsewhere.

People are assuming the Repubs will confirm if he nominates someone "moderate". I don't think they will. They're gonna leave us with a "my way or the highway" choice of strong conservative or the seat stays vacant. If those are the only choices, I say send the absolute best nominee to the Senate. When they won't confirm beat them over the head with their obstructionism and the rest of us need to work like hell to get a Democratic President and Senate that can fill the vacancy.

But I've seen *nothing* over the last few years that makes me think they'll except even a moderate at this point, and IMO a vacancy would be better than filling the seat with a conservative.

[davidn3600]

60. But if he nominates a strong liberal to replace a strong conservative, voters may understand

In that situation, voters may understand why the GOP is blocking it.

If it is a moderate, the GOP has a tougher time justifying what they are doing to the voters.

But like I said in another post, I don't think the voters really care about the Supreme Court. Whenever either party tries to make the Supreme Court an election year issue, the attempt falls flat. The only voters that seem to care are political junkies and hard-liners of each side. Most average voters really don't care.

[SusanaMontana41]

66. The GOP will block it anyway!

Appoint the best person, Mr. President. We'll take up the fight.

[oberliner]

82. How can you fight the fact that there are 54 Republicans in the Senate?

It is literally not possible to win a confirmation hearing without some Republican votes.

[SusanaMontana41]

91. I get it! Point made.

Appoint the best person, Mr. President!

[SusanaMontana41]

67. BINGO!

Appoint the best person, Mr. President. Shove the Constitution down McConnell's throat.

[Zorro]

9. Bork was a particularly odious and offensive nomination

[oberliner]

13. The current Senate has 54 Republicans

Including some of the most odious and offensive folks you can imagine.

[vi5]

11. Look, at this point "Not Scalia" is a step up on the court.

I don't mean I want a conservative on there, but I'd rather get someone young and not necessarily a hardcore liberal firebrand (not that one would get through anyway). If he were replacing RBG or a sitting liberal then I'd feel differently. But even shifting one seat from hardcore wingnut to even a centrist is a bonus.

[oberliner]

18. Agreed

I think a centrist nomination is the way to go. Someone it would be hard for the Republicans to shoot down.

[Rex]

12. Doesn't really matter...Congress cannot pretend 300 plus days are 'too soon'.

All the arguments in the world are moot...Congress can either look weak and petty or follow the law and nominate whomever Obama appoints. They cannot pretend 300 plus days is way too short...everyone in the world will call them on such bullshit.

[oberliner]

15. Just suggesting that Obama nominate a moderate

Whatever our equivalent of Kennedy would be.

[Rex]

21. No thanks, I will take a progressive instead. We have enough moderates on the court.

I will take a progressive over a moderate any day of the week. And if they fight him on it, they will lose due to time imo. If Scalia would have died close to the election, then maybe there is something to think about in appeasing all sides...how is that working out for us BTW?

I think Obama will pick a progressive and Congress will appointee them kick and screaming along the way.

[oberliner]

23. A progressive will not get confirmed

Surely you must realize that.

[Rex]

24. They have before, surely you must realize that. nt

nt

[oberliner]

26. Not replacing the most RW member of the court

And during an election year.

Do you really think Republicans would vote to confirm a progressive nominee to take Scalia's slot?

[Rex]

28. Yes they won't have any choice in the matter, that is if they want to stand a chance in next years

election. They cannot hold him at bay for almost a year. Of COURSE they will put a progressive in there, they just believe it will not happen - because so many people pretend it cannot happen on BOTH sides.

Just watch...this is going to be extremely fun watching Congress squirm for almost a year and then lose the election!

[oberliner]

32. So you can envision Republicans in the Senate voting to confirm a progressive Obama nominee?

Knowing what I know about the Republicans in the Senate, that would really surprise me.

[Rex]

42. If they want any kind of chance at winning the election next year, then yes I do.

Even the GOP cannot be that dumb and petty...er...wait...damm...they can be can't they? Even for a year...I forget these same people blocked the ACA 50 plus times!

Still, they either do what he wants or lose the presidency...tough choice imo.

Scalia shuffled off at the worst possible moment for the GOP.

[oberliner]

46. I am surprised that you think so

I mean there are some states where they barely bother to run opposition candidates for Senate since the Republicans always win.

For instance, in Wyoming, Senator Barrasso won his most recent re-election with close to 90 percent of the vote. Mike Enzi won with over 70.

Jeff Sessions got elected with like 97 percent of the vote, I think, last time around.

[Rex]

48. Well people seem to care about a vacancy during an election year and if the GOP

keeps saying NO it will negatively impact their chances. According to current events and not due to historical events imo.

[jeff47]

30. Could you point me to the part of the Constitution that says

there are right-wing and left-wing seats on the court?

[oberliner]

31. There is none

Can you point me to the part of the Constitution that says Senators have to confirm a justice that they don't believe is suitable for the job?

[jeff47]

35. They don't have to confirm. They do have to hold a vote.

If they want to turn down judge after judge after judge, they are free to do so.

In public. So everyone can see what they are doing.

[oberliner]

37. Exactly

Since they have to hold a vote, why not nominate someone that actually may have a shot at getting confirmed?

[jeff47]

39. Because the Republicans do not control the Democratic party.

Or at least, that's the way it's supposed to work.

I recommend Obama nominate a member of every single minority group for the Republicans to reject. I also recommend Schumer start talking about removing the filibuster completely, since Democrats are likely to take the Senate in 2016.

The Republicans can then get to choose between an Obama pick where they have a little power, or no power whatsoever.

[oberliner]

41. This is what happened with Bork though

Reagan nominated who he wanted - and who the RW of the Republican party liked - even though Democrats had the majority in the Senate. Democrats do not control the Republican party, after all.

Democrats fought him tooth and nail - and he was eventually rejected.

Finally, Reagan nominated a relatively centrist person and every Democrat voted to confirm him.

If we nominate someone that the Republicans reject - and they end up winning the next presidential election and still maintain control of the Senate, can you imagine the monster we could end up with?

[jeff47]

52. You're pretending the Senate is behaving rationally.

It is not. Therefore, we should not treat Republicans rationally.

If they want to come together and do this like it is usually done, they will be welcomed.

If they want to cater to their base, then we are free to make that hurt as much as possible.

[phylny]

65. I totally agree with you.

I'm so tired of trying to play nice with this group of idiots. President Obama should do what he damn well pleases, just like they would if they had the presidency.

[vi5]

70. Congress can do whatever the fuck they want, unfortunately.

They learned that early and often over the past 8 years. The media won't call them on it. Dems won't call them on it. They do what they want and they get away with it because, you know....both sides or some other bullshit that "our side" has enabled.

[exboyfil]

14. We paid our penance

We got Clarence Thomas for Thurgood Marshall.

[oberliner]

29. Just barely

I wish more people had stood up and voted against his confirmation.

[Hortensis]

16. I remember. But Bork was an originalist

nominated to the Court at a time when certain right wing leaders, including Lewis Powell (shortly before his own appointment to the Court) and members of the uber-wealthy, had already organized a secret plan for changing our nation through changing the way the Constitution was interpreted. To do that they had to pack the Court with people who would support their pro-business/anti-government/anti-labor ideology. Like Bork.

It's very common to say Bork's rejection introduced the interparty strife we now have over SCOTUS nominations, but it would have happened anyway. Battle for the future direction of our country was already joined.

[oberliner]

36. I think Republicans will fight hard against a nominee they similarly despise

I think Obama ought to at least consider choosing someone moderate.

[Hortensis]

45. The GOP has a reason for insisting that they will oppose

all nominees. Please take note of the thread you're answering and what is at stake.

This is a lifetime appointment, and the plan I just described requires filling it with a strong conservative.

It is true that developments in the election, and machinations by the Obama administration, could conceivably push right-wing leaders, known and secret, to accept a moderate (who might swing both ways). That would only be if they felt it necessary to protect their chances of electing one of their ultraconservative candidates to the presidency.

Note that the next president will very likely name another 3 justices to the court as the current ones continue to age over the next 9 years -- that's 3 in addition to filling this vacancy. Winning the presidency in order to name those justices is far more important to both parties, and to the future of our nation, than anything else. The stakes are enormous.

[Protalker]

79. Remember Cruz accused Hagel

Hagel a Republican Senator was accused by Cruz of taking money from North Korea. Hagel a combat veteran, what will they do to a liberal?

[Hortensis]

84. The worst they can do is refuse to confirm. You know,

we have our strengths too, and some strong assets. One of them is that we can be honest and forthright about what we want to achieve and why, while they must hide the truth about what they are doing and why they are doing it. Please note also that, although it's true they control the Senate right now, they are in grave danger of losing it in November to us. Also, the court can continue to function with 8 justices indefinitely, and, although undesirable, that would be more to our advantage and more of a problem for the GOP.

I don't want to make it sound as if I think they are stupid because many definitely are anything but, but we are talking about ultraconservatives here. There is a dysfunction in extremist thinking that causes them to not be the equal of more moderate liberal and conservative thinkers. Among other things, they tend to be fooled by their own imaginings of how the world is and that not infrequently puts them at a disadvantage in dealing with reality. It's no accident that Democratic administrations have so often outmaneuvered strong-conservative opponents.

[Protalker]

85. Thanks

Hope for the better angels. After we have our candidate may we unite and take back congress.

[Hortensis]

88. Yes!! I don't know if there really is an old Chinese curse

about people living in interesting times, but I feel there should be.

[BillZBubb]

25. Obama should nominate the best qualified judge who shares Democratic ideals.

Screw the republicans and screw "moderates" for appeasement. Do you think any republican president would knowingly nominate someone not far right?

And yes I propose a litmus test on abortion rights, voting rights, Citizen's United and corporate power. The nominee should be strong on abortion rights and voting rights (and including affirmative action), against Citizen's United and wary of corporate power.

[oberliner]

27. Reagan did knowingly nominate someone not far right

After the Bork failure.

That's how Kennedy was able to get confirmed unanimously.

[BillZBubb]

33. That was then--and he first nominated a far right criminal.

But I am talking about today's republicans. There is no way a republican president at this time would nominate someone who isn't far right on the major issues.

[oberliner]

34. If a Republican president nominates someone far right, Democrats should not confirm them

I am sure Republicans feel the same way in reverse.

[BillZBubb]

38. That's a pathetic false equivalency.

The republicans make clear their no-compromise approach. The Democrats will approve loons like Thomas, Scalia, and Alito if they can't find a compelling judicial reason to disqualify him. The republicans will disqualify anyone who is left of W. Bush.

[oberliner]

49. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3

That wasn't really all that long ago.

[Marr]

71. What are you, a tree? It was 23 years ago.

"Not long ago"?

And the GOP has not hidden it's obstructionist goals.

[oberliner]

73. Both of President Obama's Supreme Court nominees were confirmed

Sotomayor was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 6, 2009, by a vote of 68–31 which included 9 Republicans voting to confirm.

[Marr]

74. Yeah. She was a reasonable candidate.

What's your point, exactly? Are you under the assumption that people here are expecting Obama to nominate Noam Chomsky?

[oberliner]

77. My point is that a reasonably moderate candidate can get Republican votes

And that Republican votes will be necessary to achieve a successful confirmation.

Some have suggested here that he should go with someone more liberal, I am proposing someone more moderate in order to get those votes.

There is literally no chance of confirmation without a few Republicans. The math just doesn't add up otherwise.

[Marr]

78. I agree with that, but I suspect when disagree on what constitutes a 'moderate'. /nt

[oberliner]

80. Let me offer a few possibilities and you can tell me what you think

1. Jane Kelly

2. Sri Srinivasan

3. Jacqueline Nguyen

[spanone]

43. bork carried a lot of baggage....and not good baggage

President Reagan nominated Bork for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987 to replace Lewis Powell. A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued. Opposition was partly fueled by civil rights and women's rights groups concerned with Bork's opposition to the authority claimed by the federal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states (at his confirmation hearings for the position of Solicitor General, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax),[20] and his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork was one of only three Supreme Court nominees, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito, to ever be opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union.[21] Bork was also criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy",[16] most notably, according to critics, for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.

Before Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell's expected retirement on June 27, 1987, some Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. [22] Democrats also warned Reagan there would be a fight if Bork were nominated.[23] Nevertheless, Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

To pro-choice rights legal groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle.

On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators (John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT)) voting against him.[32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

[MohRokTah]

44. Bork would have probably been confirmed had he not participated in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre

To this day I believe that is the one and only reason he did not make it to the court. He could have weathered the rest just like Rhenquist had.

[demwing]

53. If Obama wants a centrist, he'll first nominate a bonafide Progressive

They'll block anyone he puts up first, so he can get as liberal as he likes

Eventually a centrist will be put forward, and pass. Obama gets props from his base for nominating a lib, McConnell gets props from his for blocking the nominee, and everybody who is already in power goes home happy.

[oberliner]

54. Why would a progressive want to go through that?

Volunteering to be sent off to slaughter as a sacrificial lamb, so to speak.

[demwing]

56. Go through what? Being the center of press attention for a news cycle?

The first nominee will never actually come under Senate review. Immediate "nope." Cruz has already promised to read Dr Seuss again.

[oberliner]

58. Exactly

I wouldn't want that kind of attention in this climate.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. He should nominate John Perry Barlow. That'll get the GOP libertarian wing.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. I remember it very well.

What on Earth does it have to do with what's happening right now? The republicans are not rejecting a particular, extremist ideologue that Obama is trying to nominate. They are stating up front that they will refuse to even consider approving anyone that Obama could conceivably nominate, no matter who they are.

Reagan wasn't prevented from appointing someone. He just didn't get that one particular extremist that he wanted.

I would have thought that even you would have been able to tell the difference between the two situations. I guess I overestimate people sometimes.

[oberliner]

62. What a strange response

I am citing the Bork incident to encourage people to think about who Obama ought to nominate.

Bork was rejected by a Senate with a Democratic majority.

Kennedy ended up winning confirmation from the same Senate.

We are facing a Senate with a Republican majority - many of whom are saying that Obama shouldn't even be allowed to nominate anyone.

Obviously, he is and he will. And he will need at least some Republican votes to win confirmation.

I would encourage him to choose someone who could potentially win those votes.

[Crunchy Frog]

68. I don't know where people are getting the idea that Obama is likely to

Nominate some flaming leftist. Unless you think left of Orrin Hatch is "far left".

[oberliner]

75. One thread suggested Elizabeth Warren

People on this very thread are suggesting that he nominate someone far left.

I have no idea why you keep mentioning Orrin Hatch?

[Crunchy Frog]

86. And you think he's likely to make his choices based on random postings

On a liberal discussion board? I'm pretty sure that Obama's selection process isn't going to involve consulting DU posts.

Orrin Hatch was mentioned in a post upthread, as someone the Repukes were mentioning as a potential "compromise" candidate, and you responded to the thread.

My guess is that Obama has far more political savvy about this whole process than you do, or than you give him credit for having. I really don't think he's likely to nominate a left wing equivalent to Bork.

[oberliner]

89. No, I don't

I am just trying to have a discussion with fellow DUers about what Obama should do. I realize that he will not be influenced in any way by this discussion, I just find it interesting to share opinions and perspectives with folks here. It's kind of what I thought the point of a discussion forum was.

I wrote that the idea of Orrin Hatch being a moderate was hilarious. That was my response to that idea.

I am quite certain that Obama has much more political savvy about this process than I do. I give him all the credit in the world and do not think he will nominate a left wing equivalent to Bork.

I think he will nominate a moderate, and I am trying to persuade my friends here at DU why that would be the best course of action (not everyone agrees).

[TDale313]

69. And again, many of us are stating

That it doesn't matter who he nominates- they don't plan to confirm simply because he nominated them. They've said so. I think you're wrong if you think pandering to them is gonna accomplish anything positive. NO ONE HE NOMINATES WILL BE ACCEPTABLE. How far right are you willing to go to try (and probably fail) to pick off some Repubs? Do you *really* think Republicans will actually let the nominee out of committee?

[oberliner]

76. That's a reasonable argument

I would assert, however, that a moderate might have a chance.

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

72. Doesn't justify confirming Scalia (and that includes Biden and Gore)

[SoLeftIAmRight]

81. No No No LOOK UP BORK WATERGATE

his history made him unfit

[oberliner]

83. Pretty much every Republican voted for him anyway

As well as two Democrats.

If there had been a Republican majority in the Senate he might've had a shot.

[UTUSN]

87. Everybody is too young, but is that A-hole still alive?!1 n/t

[oberliner]

90. Wow, that makes me feel old

Someone on this thread commented about how the Ruth Bader Ginsburg confirmation was not recent either - and pointed out that it was 23 years ago.

Time really does fly.