Re: You (all) lie!
 

Right. Electorally, there is no difference between a center-left moderate and full-on commie pinko, so Obama should pick whoever he wants.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I predict that he picks Kagan now, then a male to replace Ginsberg when she steps down before the end of his term. He wants his legacy to be post-racial -- that he broke the back of the tradition that SCOTUS seats have color and gender. Picking a woman now is necessary to avoid that pincer movement from the left and the backlash from the right when Ginsberg retires.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

can you read what burger wrote, or is your screen dirty?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Hello Justice Blagojevich!

Or maybe Justice Burris, with an agreement that he step down after less than a full term. The tombstone still has space!

Re: You (all) lie!
 

The Republicans will go nuts trying to block whomever. It's what they do, and it's what their base will want. Swing voters don't care about the Court. So the political calculus would seem to be for Obama to fire up the lefty base by picking someone who gets them excited. It is an election year, after all.

That said, I think Obama is something of a jurisprude and probably will be inclined to go neither with his gut nor the political calculus. Not sure what this will mean, though.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Wasn't there a span of about ten years in which Newt Gingrich actually appeared to be a thoughtful and functioning human being? If so, the crazy was merely in remission.

ETA although I give him credit for implicitly rehabilitating FDR.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

RT @raypride Will Obama trample the Constitution by picking Justice Stevens' replacement?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Is the lefty base going to help the various incumbent-D senators in close races who might have to vote for a full-on liberal?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Wood over Kagan for that reason. It gives him the male option when Ginsberg retires.

That said, none of this really matters until Kennedy or Scalia retires.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I'm pretty sure the framers didn't envision women serving on the court.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I don't think there is much upside to an appointment regardless, but yes, the left base matters in close races too.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Yes. If they don't turn out, Democrats in tight races will have a hard time.

The trick, as ever, is to motivate your base without losing the center.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Pretty sure they felt it was safe from Catholics and Negroes, too. These days, no one cares about the intent of the framers of the body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights -- how much do we know about the guy that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment? 'Cause that guy's stock has been rising like crazy since 1954.

ETA Framer's intent is unlike Legislative intent in the following respect: We have lots of case law saying that the views of a bill's author or a statement by a single legislator is immaterial to discerning the Legislature's intent. And yet, we cite the individual views of the Federalist Papers alongside the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. Weird, that.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

why do you think the swing center doesn't care about the court? do you think we're ignorant of the detail? the fact that only our votes come with the condition precedant of thinking would seem to point in the opposite direction.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Who might he appoint that would change how you vote for in a congressional election?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time....pak-to-retire/ Stupak might have some input. He has time on his hands now to respond to you.

the Dems did not win a mandate, the Rs lost on all front. big difference. and the Dems have behaved like they had a mandate.

H.C. is already going to hit the Dems* hard- a super liberal Judge could prove to be great cannon fodder for attack ads- although more so for the Senate than the House.

most current Rs are pretty safe. all the close races have gone to the Dems. so HC ain't helping you gain anything.

* today RealClear Politics lists 2010 Senate as:
3 safe Dem 5 safe R
4 Dem 2 R up for grabs
4 likely lost Dem

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Who are these "we"? And does this "we" ever note anything contrary to their point that might exist in any of the Federalist Papers? Doesn't seem weird to me.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Hank's vote?

That's not what matters. What matters is the voter in a state with a close Senate race who hears the ads about how Obama appointed a Harvard liberal and [insert code word for lesbian and/or unmarried] to the Court.

Ty figures that the Dem will run the reverse ads and get lots of liberals out to vote. I figure that the R will have more success with his ads flipping the centrists to his side to prevent crazy Mass. ideas like gay marriage from getting spread nationwide by a supreme court decision.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Okay, and who (or what type) might minimize this?

And, do you think there's any chance of the repubs "delay[ing] the coming confirmation process until after a new election" as suggested here. Seems like that's a strategy w/ too much chance of unintended negative consequences.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I will take that as "no one." Honestly, I have a hard time picturing many "thinking" swing voters changing their vote for congressman based on a supreme court nominee.

This distinction is meaningless, and you know it.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the Rs will do their best to make hay with the nominee. The difference of opinions are (1) whether it matters who the nominee is, given that anyone will get the same criticisms, and (2) whether those attacks make any difference. As to (2) they might help fire up the R base, but personally, I don't see them changing many votes.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

but since I'm the only one on the board who understands the internal thoguht processes that go to how a vote changes, might my opinion matter a bit more than yours? I mean, I can tell who you'll vote for for President in 2040, right now.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Hank was the one arguing that the nominee will make a difference with voters like him. I, like you, disagree.

No, I think Ty thinks that those who see the ads and hear "dirty lesbian hippy liberal" are already voting R. Especially this time around. And especially those who think their vote for congressman will have some influence on the makeup of the court.

Ty also seems to think that many on the left will get excited about hte dirty lesbian hippy liberal and make sure they vote, a proposition about which I have already expressed my skepticism.

ETA: Btw... I think the difference here is that you are arguing that the Republican party and the outraged voters can be mollified with a sufficiently moderate nominee. I do not.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I might ask you to explain the thought process that gets you from "he appointed judge X" to "I definitely have to vote for the R congressional candidate" but as you have already declined once, it seems a bit futile.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

No, I think that whatever the number of outraged voters, that number can be increased by the "wrong" nominee or decreased by one that mildly allays their concerns about health care reform (or at least doesn't remind them).

As to cletus's question: That's the threat used to push for a more moderate nominee. they'll poll the hell out of it, but someone like Kagan (or at least the rep. she has) might lead them to threaten to hold out. Of course the only reason that's a good strategy is that they think they will pick up seats, and will still do so while holding out.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

What attributes would a nominee have to mildly allays concerns about health care reform or not remind people? Personally, I think he could appoint Posner and still have those issues.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

let's take Michigan as an example- although we have no senate race this year.

Michigan is won or lost in Macomb county. It's where I grew up. It was the home of Reagan Democrats. the rest of the state is pretty static and predictable. Rs win Michigan when they turn Macomb county.

A few years back we voted to outlaw affirmative action. macomb county voted in very large numbers for the ban. that seems like something that can't be reconciled with the fact that it also voted for Obama in large percents, but it did happen.

Still, an ad that focused on how Senator Stabenow put someone on the bench that has said something that can be highlighted (e.g. the wise latina meme) could go a long way is moving those people to the R candidate.

I can't tell you any clearer because you have never thought through who to vote for so you won't ever get it.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I don't think either candidate in close Senate races will be running ads about the vote on a Supreme Court nominee. It's just not an issue that moves moderates. But the whole fight will motivate the conservative base, who are pretty motivated already, and it might motivate lefties, too.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

So, the repubs really do think BOs a pussy? Because I think he decides on a nominee (who's fully prepared to be Borked) and lets the repubs hang themselves with stupid irrelevancies. That's been his basic strategy (whether it's effective--or even effectively implemented--is a separate question).

He just needs someone that the last 6 (or 10) dems aren't afraid of campaigning having voted for. Which does likely knock out Kagan, but also makes it nearly certain to be a woman.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Care to answer the question that was actually asked?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

didn't you ask "I might ask you to explain the thought process that gets you from "he appointed judge X" to "I definitely have to vote for the R congressional candidate""?

Condensed version of my response:

there are lots of voters that move pretty far from election to election. if they are on the fence a Judge that can be quoted could be enough to move them. they don't have to moved to "definitely am voting for the R because of the Judge". they just need to be biased a bit by it.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Yes. That is what I asked. You answered (1) as to a senate, not a congressional, race, and (2) not how "you" would conclude that you should vote for an R, but how the nominee might influence a senate race.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

oh, you mean limited to a house race. did my "not so much the house but the senate could" not respond?

but the new super lib judge could be mentioned in a laundry list of "evils" that have happened since the Dems control both houses, and could help create an aura of things being out of control

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I agree with this.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Well, it shores up SCOTUS' liberal wing with relative youngsters now, so that the Palin Administration's options will then be limited.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

It's right in theory. It's just undermined by two facts (1) there is unlikely to be much marginal outrage (of course, I'm assuming he isn't going to nominate someone like Pamela Karlan) because we are close to max outrage anyway, and the court isn't a major motivator, and (2) any and every Dems will be portrayed as to the left of (and gayer than) Marx anyway.

To put it differently, things will not look much difference if the nominee is Garland, Wood or Koh. All will be cast as pro-baby killing and pro-terrorist.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

This blows on a few different levels.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

And if it's a minority, racist.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

again, showing your ignorance of the process. there is max outrage in the 30% that will vote right every time. there is max smugness in the 30% that will vote left every time.

us guys here in the middle, we ain't got the outrage yet.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

In Koh's case, it would be because international law compels it.

He'd have a lot rougher fight than the other two. He barely got confirmed as counselor to the sec'y of state.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

2. we live in a country where the most lib state there is banned gay marriage. my very blue state banned AA.

quote like those floated from Sottomayer could sink a Dem senate candidate. this isn't even debatable.