Obama to nominate Catholic to Supreme Court? Open Thread

Sandoval

Washington Post:

Brian Sandoval, the centrist Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination to the Supreme Court, according to two people familiar with the process.

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 November’s election, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president.

The White House declined to comment Wednesday for this story.

I love how they say he’s a centrist… I say he has serious baggage, particularly for a Catholic:

Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada supports abortion rights and, after the court’s same-sex marriage decision last year, said his state’s arguments “against marriage equality are no longer defensible.” He is also from a fast-growing and increasingly diverse swing state, is Hispanic and was state attorney general and a federal judge before becoming governor.

Not good enough for me (for what that’s worth).  Hopefully the Senate will reject him (and frankly anyone nominated by Obama) as promised.

Your thoughts?

Crossposted at Brutally Honest.

The indecency of Catholic support for Donald Trump
Can the Trump Train be Stopped?
  • Scalia

    The nomination should be DOA. No more Obama nominees.

    • So let it be written, so let it be done.

      • Retired military

        As I recall that didnt help Pharoah out much.

    • Retired military

      McCuckold McConnell and the rest of the RINOs will cave.

      • You’ve been wrong before, I hope you’re wrong again here.

        • Retired military

          Would you like to make a gentleman wager?

          • Only if charities are involved…

          • Retired military

            $20 to the winner’s favorite charity?

            I win if they bring up a nominee for a vote and he gets through.

            You win if they dont bring up a nominee for a vote or they do and he doesnt get through.

            If more than one nominee is named (First is rejected) than we go with the last one that is named by Obama to determine winner (as a 2nd one will be named I am sure)..

          • I’m in… OK with $20, if you’d rather make it $50, we could do that as well…

          • Retired military

            $20 is fine.

          • The only caveat is that I’d be hard-pressed to give if I lose to a morally objectionable charity but I suspect/hope that won’t be a problem.

            My charity of choice might be someone like Cross Catholic Outreach

          • Retired military

            Morally ojbectionable never crossed my mind.

            Mine would be any unwed mother pregnancy center. Whichever one is easist for you to donate to. If you have any troubles finding one then drop an extra $20 in the poor basket at church.

      • ohio granny

        The republicans will see a blood bath if they cave.

    • Jwb10001

      I can hear the rationalizing now, if we don’t accept this guy, our guy, a GOP guy and Hillary wins, we’ll get something way worse. So for these reasons we again find our only option is to cave on our principles. Sadly, if it comes down to Hillary and Trump they may actually be right, Sandoval may be the high water mark.

      • Scalia

        Yes, it’s a pretty sad state of affairs when we’re almost placing bets on how the GOP will cave this time.

        • Jwb10001

          If Sandoval is indeed the nominee it is (I’m sorry to say) a pretty brilliant move. If I were in the Senate and looking at Sandoval or the alternatives I’d be very temped to say let’s get this guy in before the Trump/Clinton election makes our choices even worse.

        • Retired military

          I notice you said how and not IF. It is a certainty that they will

    • Paul Hooson

      You argued with me before, over and over again that being a Supreme Court judge is not a political thing. What changed with you between last week and this week? Odds makers make Hillary Clinton a huge favorite to win both the Democratic nomination as well as the White House in a few months, so it should be up to her to have a free hand to nominate someone to have confirmation hearings within the next four years?

      • Jwb10001

        Paul, Scalia is basically agreeing with you, he’s saying the nominee should be the next president’s to make. Are you missing something (or am I?)

        • Paul Hooson

          Obama at least is looking for a compromise moderate with this choice. Hillary will feel less pressure to compromise and can look farther left for an appointee. Donald Trump’s November defeat might pull down a few Republican senate and congressional candidates as well. Hillary’s environment in the Senate could improve quite a bit.

          • Jwb10001

            Paul, the nomination and confirmation process is clearly political. Each side takes it’s position based on the politics. The justices once nominated are given a life time appointment to shield them from electoral politics, even though we may disagree about how that works in reality. What we’re seeing here is both sides trying to leverage the politics of the situation. The republicans are using democrats words against them and the president (assuming Sandoval is the guy) is trying to corner the republicans. That’s ok it’s the way it was set up.

          • Paul Hooson

            Given the current political landscape where Republicans seem to have their heart set on nominating Donald Trump only to lose to Hillary in November, they need to take their best deal pretty soon before it’s Hillary’s turn to call the shots.

          • Jwb10001

            That may well be and I posted here earlier here that Sandoval if he’s the guy may indeed be the best conservatives can hope for regardless if it’s Clinton or Trump. My original post was only intended to say Scalia is being consistent in his view that the next president (Clinton/Trump/other) should make that selection. Even if that works against his interest.

          • fustian24

            I think your reasoning is rock solid here.

            And even if Trump (by some miracle) were to win, God knows what he would nominate.

          • Paul Hooson

            My educational background is in psychology where this is my best evaluation of the known facts at hand.

          • Retired military

            “Obama at least is looking for a compromise moderate with this choice. ”

            Took me 10 minutes to stop laughing at that statement.

          • Indeed.

          • Jwb10001

            I agree he’s not looking for a compromise he’s looking to gain a political edge by floating this pick and letting the republicans reject him without Obama even having to actually nominate him. He’s testing their resolve, wonder how that’s going to work out.

      • Scalia

        Arguing with you is almost worse than useless. You don’t have a sweet clue what I was arguing, do you?

        Politics should have nothing to do with how one interprets the Constitution, but politics play a role in the nomination of a replacement because the president is entrusted to bring a nominee before the Senate for its advice and consent.

        • Jwb10001

          Both President and Senate being political bodies. I tried to have that discussion with Paul as well as it seems his complaint was off, to say the least. You are clearly more principled than I am, frankly I would accept Sandoval because sadly if Obama nominates him he will have effectively out flanked them, the arguments will go as follows:

          The republicans are so racist that they won’t even approve a republican nominee so long as the African American President nominates him. This will be followed by an endless media storm of video of republicans talking about how great Sandoval is. I’m afraid it would be a disaster for the republicans.

          Of course the republicans seem hell bent on self destruction so sooner may be better than later.

          • Scalia

            Well, Sandoval appears to be very pro-gun, so he wouldn’t be a total disaster if he got in, but I’d still have to oppose him on principle.

            I don’t see the doomsday scenario at this point. The GOP can resist any nominee on a principled basis and can rerun clips of Biden and Schumer if the press bellyaches. That said, I see nothing principled in The Establishment, so they could easily get spooked into caving. Moreover, I don’t see Hillary as a shoo-in even with Trump as the nominee.

          • Jwb10001

            I doubt very much that he will actually be nominated by Obama, I think he’s playing the GOP on this one. I suspect the nomination process will stay alive for some time so Clinton can try to use it during the campaign. Given her “skills” it will likely/hopefully be ineffective.

          • Commander_Chico

            Plus he’s Hispanic and a westerner. Great political pick.

            I predict he’ll be confirmed, because the political beating the GOP will take will be too severe.

  • Saw a comment by a fellow Catholic on this story elsewhere…

    So Sandoval is a pro-abort, pro-gay marriage nominee… just like the GOP Presidential front-runner…

    • Retired military

      Typical dem Catholic. Like Pelosi and Biden.

      • Well… our GOP front-runner is no better…

        • Retired military

          He never claimed he was Catholic. Unlike, Pelosi, Biden Kerry, Kennedy, etc

          • No, he claimed he’s Presbyterian… about as accurate…

          • Retired military

            The timer in your eye the timber in your eye.

          • ?

  • Retired military

    Loretta Lynch will be the next nominee after this guy.

  • Vagabond661

    So here’s a wild thought. BHO nominates Hillary to SC and inserts Biden to run for President to keep his policies going.

    • Retired military

      Wont happen. Biden has to get in on state’s ballots many of which are too late. He could go as a write in or as the VP candidate for Hillary. If Hillary is elected and get approved for SCOTUS then her VP takes over via 25th admendment.

  • JWH

    I think he has potential. Glad to see somebody from a political background nominated.

    • Brucehenry

      Could be the next Earl Warren!

      • Paul Hooson

        John Paul Stevens also surprised me. A conservative Republican who’s rulings were very similar to the very liberal William O. Douglas he replaced.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Im just glad that we have a GOP controlled senate to protect us.

    • He said with tongue firmly planted in cheek…

  • Suppose that the appointment of a new SCOTUS justice were to be postponed until next year, and suppose that a Republican were elected President this year. In such a scenario, just what would disqualify Gov. Sandoval for a spot on the Supreme Court?

    • Scalia

      He has very limited judicial experience (four years), and he has governed as a moderate liberal. Given the disastrous appointments in the past, a Republican president would do well to nominate a judge with a proven originalist record.

    • Jwb10001

      Nothing would “disqualify” him, I think conservatives would find him objectionable, that’s different than unqualified.

    • Having once been nominated by BHO.

  • Commander_Chico

    Smart politics by Obama. Stonewalling a Republican Hispanic Western governor will work against the Republicans in the election in several ways.

  • JWH

    Hopefully the Senate will reject him (and frankly anyone nominated by Obama) as promised.

    I wish the Senate would reject him, rather than just sit on the nomination.

    • Jwb10001

      I disagree, if they reject him they will look more partisan, if they disallow the process they will be sticking to their guns. They haven’t said they would “reject” any Obama nominee they said they would not consider any Obama nominee. They should just ignore it rather than hold hearings and votes etc. If they intend to hold hearings and votes then they should honor the process and do that properly, not just let the process happen with every intent to reject the candidate before hand.

      • JWH

        I don’t care whether they look partisan or not. I just don’t think nominees should be held up, without a vote, for partisan maneuvering.

        • Jwb10001

          But you think they should go ahead with the process just for show? How’s that any better? If the idea is that this nominee is DOA why dress it up with some fake hearings and votes that seems far more partisan and dishonest to me.

          • JWH

            Well, the nominee shouldn’t be DOA in the first place. If the GOP senators want to reject a nominee for being unqualified, or even because they disagree with him ideologically, I say go ahead. But if the Senate GOP is going to say “no nominees because we don’t like Obama, neener-neener-neener,” then they’re just being churlish.

          • Jwb10001

            No they are saying no lame duck nominees just like the democrats have said,

          • JWH

            If you believe that either GOP senators in 2016 or Democratic senators in the past are troubled, TROUBLED, and concerned, CONCERNED that democracy is in peril voters might not get to vote before a new justice is appointed, then I have some tropical beachfront property in Alaska to sell you.

          • Jwb10001

            What are you talking about? I don’t believe anyone is TROUBLED or CONCERNED what ever that is supposed to mean. Both sides have indicated they don’t believe a lame duck president should nominate new supreme court justice during the presidential election cycle. I have no idea where all that other shouting you’re doing is coming from.

          • JWH

            I think your sarcasm detector is broken. Democrats in the past said they didn’t want a judge appointed during an election year. The rationale, I recall, was something about the voters getting a say. Mitch McConnell this year said Obama shouldn’t appoint a new justice because the American voters should get a say through the election.

            In both cases, they’re spouting sanctimonious bullshit. It’s just about electoral advantage and playing to the partisans in the cheap seats.

          • Jwb10001

            Ok then.

          • Nope. The democrats started this precedent, let them choke on it.

          • JWH

            You know, Rodney, there are things more important than political tribal identification or trying to stick it to the other guy.

          • The demorats have demonstrated time and time again that they will flaunt the rules (or the proceedure, or the gentleman’s agreement) until such time as it actually is forced down their throats. That is the ONLY remedy to the cheaters gambit.

          • JWH

            Did you know that in an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma, a successful strategy incorporates forgiveness and leads to a better outcome than a simple hostile strategy, or even the famous “tit for tat” strategy?

          • Indeed. But this is not the Prisoner’s Dlemma, it’s the Cheater’s Gambit.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Hmmm…”Cheater’s Gambit” or Prisoner’s Dilemma”. Well, I have heard of one of those.

      • Retired military

        McCuckold McConnells and the RINOs in the Senate have never stuck to their guns.

    • You miss the better method. Ignore b. Hussein’s nomination. Don’t schedule hearings, don’t talk about it to the press. Ignore it.

  • ohio granny

    Unless Obama nominates someone like Ted Cruz the Senate should NOT act on it. Chances of Obama nominating a true conservative? Slim to none.

  • That didn’t take long:

    NV Gov. Brian Sandoval has taken himself out of consideration for a SCOTUS seat pic.twitter.com/SCxa7fNGFQ— Reid Wilson (@ConsultReid) February 25, 2016

    • Close to a Full Sherman…

    • Jwb10001

      That’s a smart move on his part. I wouldn’t want to be this political football either.

    • Retired military

      Next up Loretta Lynch.

  • 914

    No more Obamas! So let it be written in Sanskrit, so let it be done!!