Brian Sandoval, Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted for Supreme Court vacancy
Source: Washington Post
Sandoval is increasingly viewed by some key Democrats as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday pledged no action on any Supreme Court nomination before Novembers election, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president.
The White House declined to comment Wednesday for this story. White House press secretary Josh Earnest has emphasized in recent days that the president has not arrived at a short list of potential nominees.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?tid=sm_tw
6chars
(3,967 posts)when Thurgood Marshall passed, Bush 1 appointed Clarence Thomas.
brooklynite
(94,911 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)See 101st and 102nd Congresses, 1989-1993:
http://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Mark this date.
The country cannot afford his type of thinking.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 24, 2016, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)
But Sandoval is not seen as labor-friendly potentially alienating a swath of the Democratic base. His legal credentials are also lacking compared to some of the other names under consideration who are mainly sitting federal judges.
Any idea about his positions on global trade and investment?
Any idea about his positions on corporate power/person-hood?
Any idea about his positions on government surveillance?
getagrip_already
(14,934 posts)between viewing something as a settled case and supporting the outcome. It's kind of a passive aggressive way of saying he can't change it so why fight it.
It would be a very risky thing to have a new challenge brought up. He could conceivably view that as fresh and vote how he feels, not say what he thinks he has to.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)just pointing out that the article was pretty thin on his views
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Sandoval is so beholding to Corporate Interests,and we just seen our Solar Power gutted by this Guy. Our State is bonded to hell and back as a result of his Tea Party Friends and Supporters. What you read about his caring for the average Nevadian is pure poppy-cock. Yes we did get a watered down ACA,and that was so Adelson and Wynn did not have to supply benefits for their workers. Harry Reid was the main reason we have ACA through his jaw boning key Legislature People.
Sandoval is a empty suit and owes his butt to NV Energy and the Gaming Commission that is controlled by Sheldon Adelson.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Harry Reid,the guy has always back Sandoval. Harry is a Dino,watched him take out a Person running for Congress because he did not like him. Made sure he did not get funding for his campaign. But hey,another Mormon Tea Bagger captured the seat.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)This is a terrible nominee at a time when we need someone who's incorruptible.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)and I am sure there are others maybe millions,who are insulted by Sandoval even being suggested as a nominee. And as a secondary item,noticed Reid officially announced his support of Clinton. Enough of this third way garbage.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)sorry but I just don't go for anyone representing the party of the uber-rich.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn as well as a fellow by the name of Katz,these are the money Guys. Harry Reid through his so called operatives,have pretty much determined the direction of State Politics. This is a Tourism Based Economy State,and with all the money floating around via the Casino's,in there lies the problems. State Gambling Commission is the most powerful state institution,and that is Harry Reids spring board as past Commission Head,and this Commission today is controlled by Adelson via appointments of his Cronies. And Sandoval appointed these people. In the 2014 cycle of Elections,we had Sandoval backing Tea Party People over rank and file GOP candidates. Harry Reid would not endorse several Progressive Democratic candidates,and has been accused of taking out certain ones thus leaving races unopposed . BTW,Reid considers Sandoval his close personal friend,the more one looks at Democratic Party players in Nevada,you just shake your head. Unbelievable,third way all the way.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)The Democratic Party, at the Presidential Level, cares about social issues, not so much about economic ones. TPP, anyone? Why would he nominate a pro-labor Justice when he hasn't done much else pro-labor?
So they'll nominate a pro-choice person and pretend it is a victory for "ordinary Americans."
It's "What's the Matter with Kansas" times a billion these days (Bernie excepted). And, no this doesn't apply to the large majority of House Dems who care and the small minority of Senate Dems who care.
DarthDem
(5,257 posts)NO chance of this happening.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)But the courting of Sandoval, if you can call it that, has been a far more subtle affair for the GOP presidential candidates. He is in the unenviable position of being seen as an ideological apostate who simultaneously boasts approval ratings in the high-to-mid 60s. When the general election comes, Sandovals endorsement will be desperately needed; Democrats privately fear he could be a potent weapon to drive Latino and Hispanic turnout. But in an unpredictable and highly partisan GOP caucus, with many conservative Republicans alleging betrayal by Sandoval over his historic tax hike and threatening revolt, the endorsement of the Nevada governor is seen as more of a headache than a helpmate. And no one is quite sure what to do about him.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/nevada-primary-brian-sandoval-213668#ixzz416wfR4IT
vinny9698
(1,016 posts)The GOP will only approve another Scalia clone.
Why bother to push trough a Scalia light?
Go for a liberal judge and then have him approved when the Senate turns Democratic.
The odds are good for a Democratic senate majority.
If you appoint a young person, they will have profound power, just like Scalia did.,
DarthDem
(5,257 posts)AllyCat
(16,256 posts)is a new POTUS able to withdraw a nominee made by a predecessor? Really hope we flip the Senate. Doing our part here in Wisco.
getagrip_already
(14,934 posts)nominations only last to the end of the congress they were submitted in. New congress, new nomination. Either way, a new president wouldn't be bound to the appointment of a predecessor. All the senate has to do is move one ahead of the other.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)to figure out how long this has been going on.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)And Republicans look obstructionist.
William Seger
(10,790 posts)RobinA
(9,903 posts)If they don't, we just three dimensional chessed ourselves right off the game board.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)for him for real change.
Vinca
(50,323 posts)you'd have to look far and wide for find a candidate more odious than Scalia was.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Let's recall though that Earl Warren, William Brennan and Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens were all Republican appointees.
Vinca
(50,323 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)Let's see President Obama force these obstructionist bums on the right into a corner.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...and get Democrats fired up to vote out Republicans if they don't confirm.
Republicans are already fired up from 8 years of a Democratic president, and so I'm not worried about a liberal nominee firing them up.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)For example, suppose he has unofficially heard that Ginsburg or Kennedy wants to retire?
In that case, if he sends them one they do confirm for this opening, then they are very badly positioned to stymie the next nominee. They've already broken their own strike!
Kennedy and Scalia were almost the same age - pushing 80. Ginsburg is 82.
If no appointment is made this year, then the next president will almost certainly have three appointments. If you KNEW the next president would be Clinton or Sanders, then maybe it would be best to let it ride (from a liberal POV).
But I doubt anyone knows that. Elections are a crapshoot, and this one is clearly quite different from the average.
Think about it as a grid of possibilities. Consider 50-50 odds for Dem/Rep president, and 50-50 odds for Senate controlled Dem or Rep:
The we get the following possibilities President/Senate:
Current Dem/Rep 1 or 2 openings. (Status Quo)
Future Dem/Dem: 2 or 3 openings.(Better for liberals)
Future Dem/Rep: 2 or 3 openings. (Same for liberals)
Future Rep/Dem: 2 or 3 openings. (Worse for Liberals)
Future Rep/Rep: 2 or 3 openings. (Disaster for Liberals)
As a poker hand, the president would be wise to try to get a moderate candidate through the process. Kennedy is a swing and Ginsburg is a liberal. If he gets a moderate through, if things go Dem then two liberal-leanings will be next appointed. If things are the same, the odds don't change. If a Republican president is chosen, then he's much better off getting a moderate candidate on now.
If he breaks the blockade and Ginsburg decides to resign now, then obviously it would tend to create a liberal-leaning court.
There is only a 1 in 4 chance of having a better shot at it next year. That may be hard to accept, but it is true. It is likely that the Republicans will lose seats in the Senate, but even if they take it, the Dems aren't going to have much of a majority. 50 or 51, at best. If Sanders gets the nomination that takes him out of the Senate along with Reid. I assume he will be succeeded by a Democrat, but power balances in the Senate will be close at best.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Like 70 million people voted for him, but he would like a Bushie/Romney supporter on the court. I wonder why that is.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)issues, but will break on other issues. If this is a strategic move, I think it's brilliant. It gets Hispanics motivated because Sandoval is incredibly popular. And it makes Republicans look bad to reject a Republican and a Latino. We get someone who supports reproductive rights and who is pro-LGBT. We get someone who won't gut the ACA and is fairly good on environmental issues.
I would prefer that he choose a qualified black woman, but this is a good pick.
aggiesal
(8,943 posts)I say that the Senate is suppose to "Advice and Consent".
If they refuse to do their duty, then they've waived their right
to "Advice and Consent", and Obama should just sit whatever
justice he nominates.
The more liberal the better.
onenote
(42,821 posts)Seriously. No one.
As a matter of statutory law, a SCOTUS justice does not begin to serve until he or she has received a signed "commission" from the President, to which the Secretary of State affixes the seal of the United States. For the president to sign a commission for someone whose position requires Senate confirmation without that person having received confirmation, would be an illegal act by the President.
Not going to happen.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)onenote
(42,821 posts)But there is not, nor has there been, a recess during which a successor to Scalia can be commissioned. Nor will there be such a recess in the future, based on the current practice of the Senate not to recess if the President is of a different party than the majority in the Senate.
So, not really on point.
getagrip_already
(14,934 posts)because if a federal court rules that the current practice of "pro forma" hearings which serve no purpose other than to deny a recess is unconstitutional, the SC would have to overturn it. But wait, in a 4-4 deadlock they couldn't.
Either the senate would have to do real work during breaks, with a quorum of senators on hand, or it would be a recess.
Still not going to happen, but if the tables were reversed you know the heritage foundation or judicial watch would be moving a case forward in a friendly court to test it.
onenote
(42,821 posts)I don't think there's any chance whatsoever that four of those justices are going to suddenly reach a different conclusion, to say nothing of the fact that there is little chance that a lower court would ignore a recent 9-0 decision and further to say nothing of the fact that there is no case in the pipeline and thus no chance for a lower court, let alone the Supreme Court, to be presented with the question between now and the end of the Obama presidency.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Supreme Court decisions have consequences.
Since 8 of the 9 are still on the SC, this approach is DOA.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-1281
AllyCat
(16,256 posts)I have been roundly criticized by other posters on this board that I just don't understand what that means and "didn't learn anything in school".
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)It does not mean that the Senate has to agree to whatever candidate the president chooses. Please, don't blame the President for the Constitution.
He should send them a nomination. Then the pressure switches to the Senate, because the members of the public that are paying attention probably won't like the Senate refusing to act.
But they could do their thing, slowly, solemnly go through the motions, and then reject the nomination. Then it would start all over. Either way, the Senate does have the constitutional power to run out the clock.
This is, constitutionally speaking, a split power. There are quite a few, and the Supreme Court has generally ruled for Congress when split powers cases have been heard.
Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown is classically cited:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/case.html#634
1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. [Footnote 4/2] In these circumstances and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, as an undivided whole, lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.
2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law. [Footnote 4/3]
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. [Footnote 4/4] Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.
In this case, the Constitution is very explicit. The President may only appoint an SC justice with the consent of Congress, barring a recess appointment, which would only last until January in any case. And in 2014, in deciding NLRB v Canning, by 9-0 the sitting justices said that if Congress wants to stay in session it can, and the President may not decide they are in recess if they say they are not.
Quiet_Dem_Mom
(599 posts)I seriously doubt he'd get many confirms. And he's already stated he's not interested in the SC.
The tea-party no-tax types aren't a fan of Sandoval. Here's a Politico article, "Meet Brian Sandoval, Nevadas Party Pooper"
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/nevada-primary-brian-sandoval-213668
elljay
(1,178 posts)I am so TIRED of Democrats bending to the will of the Republicans! We get 30 years of a Republican on the court because Obama will not fight back with every tool he has.
Here is a sampling of Sandoval's "centrist" positions:
Civil unions but no gay marriage
Supports charter schools
Supports Keystone Pipeline
Opposes restrictions on right to bear arms
EPA regulations are too restrictive
http://www.ontheissues.org/Brian_Sandoval.htm
Clive Bundy supporter
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/nevada-officials-blast-feds-over-treatment-cattle-rancher-cliven-bundy.html
50% rating from NARAL
https://votesmart.org/interest-group/1016/rating/6839#.Vs33feZOLjU
Supports "reform" of collective bargaining
[link:http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/03/05/nevada-gops-union-reforms-designed-weaken-workers-rights/|
This is NOT the kind of justice we need or want. We voted for Obama to be a Democrat (whatever that means nowadays). To appoint a Republican to the position is unacceptable.
elljay
(1,178 posts)regarding his collective bargaining position:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/03/05/nevada-gops-union-reforms-designed-weaken-workers-rights/
AllyCat
(16,256 posts)I agree with you. This is not a good choice for us and I'm tired of the multi-dimensional chess game.
getagrip_already
(14,934 posts)obama. He spent 6 years doing just that. He hasn't quite made up for it, and won't by appointing a conservative.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)in the Senate. Well, it wouldn't be the first time Obama caved to the Pubs.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)The right can lose the whitehouse and still dictate to everyone. Amazing.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)She would be a Thurgood Marshall for the 21st Century. Highly qualified, a law professor and author of 'The New Jim Crow.'
Scalia was approved 98-0. Damn it all, Democrats should FIGHT for the same treatment of our preferred nominee. Not capitulate without a vote.
houston16revival
(953 posts)If McConnell stalls, and he will, the nominee will sit, then
If Democrats take the Presidency and the Senate, McConnell will move the nomination
because he knows he will get worse in January
So Obama will have confirmed a dud while we could have had a liberal
wordpix
(18,652 posts)and get a Dem pres again
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)They'll "cave" and approve. So reasonable! Hooray!
Bullshit!
Let them hold up an appointment until November, if they dare. Make that a prime issue in this election. It will be 100% on them. Total nonsense to do anything else. He's the president, he picks the one he wants, and the Senate decides what to do with it. That's how it works.
Yavin4
(35,453 posts)If Obama nominates Sandoval, then one of three outcomes is possible:
1. The Republicans follow through with their threat to deny him a hearing which then alienates the Latino vote, alienates the people of Nevada, a swing state, and causes more dissention within the Republican party.
2. The Republicans allow a hearing, but vote him down, which then alienates the Latino vote, alienates the people of Nevada, a swing state, and causes more dissention within the Republican party.
3. The Republicans allow a hearing and approve him, which then pisses off Trump, and his red-meat base supporters.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)It is a very, very clever move.
Yavin4
(35,453 posts)Similar to making Jon Huntsman an ambassador to China.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)Obama (R, 1980's) will offer up a Kennedy/Roberts clone that the Dems will be okay with, and R's would be happy with privately, but will gnash their teeth about publicly, then ultimately vote in. In turn he will get promises from them to pass his TPP during the lame duck session. This will insure Obama (R, 1980's) will have his name carved in the Hall of Heroes of der Fatherland. A real win-win, except for the 99% (i.e. all of us).
There's not much more he would do. He could nominate someone more liberal and shove it down their throats, make them look like the obstructionists assholes they are all the way to the elections, and take out a few. But that's not in "Mr. Bipartisan's" playbook and doesn't serve him, personally to cement his legacy and ticket to the club.
brooklynite
(94,911 posts)FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)Still, it is tiring voting for Republicans from the 80's and 90's. It would be better if we had Democrats from that time, or before. As Republicans go even more crazy rightward, the Democrats have even more room to shift rightward and still appear reasonable, if you ignore the past. All part of the plan.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)That is what I thought when I heard about this. That Obama wants the TPP passed so badly (doesn't matter what his voters want) that he would appoint this guy to the SC.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)as a United States District Court judge.
It would be hard to find a better consensus candidate.
But was he a good judge?
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Why have a moderate right Democratic President if we get GOP judges?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Retrograde
(10,175 posts)He's from west of the Mississippi and not from Harvard. OTOH, he is a Republican (and I'm old enough to remember when they were reasonable). I'd rather he get the appointment now than wait for Trump or Rubio to name someone.