Two of the current justices on the Supreme Court — Kennedy and Thomas, as the Times reminds us — “were nominated by Republican presidents and confirmed when Democrats held the majority in the Senate.”
This time, however, it didn’t take more than a couple of hours after the news about Justice Scalia surfaced for Senate Majority Leader McConnell to announce a great girding of loins on the Republican side of the Senate. McConnell proposes to block (I know… it’s a new concept…) to nullify the President’s nomination of replacement on purely partisan political grounds.
The right is in trouble with wobbly voters over the issue of extremism, and with their eight-year-long battle against a respected president — and the GOP’s long fit of rage against democracy, government, and (of course) the American voter. It’s no surprise that the Republican party has earned a reputation — among seasoned voters as well as newcomers to the ballot box — for its inability to to govern in offices higher than local level. McConnell, effectively the leader of his party at national level, is faced with a tactical nightmare orchestrated by his own party.
Senator Mitch McConnell’s strategy to maintain the Republican majority has been clear: trying to prove that his party can govern. But by saying he will block a Supreme Court nominee who has not even been named, Mr. McConnell is headed toward partisan warfare instead.
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has energized a right flank that has been long suspicious of Mr. McConnell and forced him into a fight that is likely to derail his smooth-functioning Senate. The tactic could alienate moderate voters and imperil incumbent Republicans in swing states, but in the supercharged partisanship of a Supreme Court fight, he probably had no choice. …NYT
The Republican party is busy losing its bona fides once again as clown-candidates continue to drop their pants in the bright light of the primaries.
The escalating quarreling may increase the likelihood of a long, expensive and potentially futile effort to unite Republicans around the eventual nominee. The barbs at Saturday’s debate were ferocious and personal: Trump made fun of Bush’s mother and bickered with him over whether Bush had suggested that he would drop his pants and moon people (which he had); Rubio jabbed Cruz for not being fluent in Spanish; and they all seemed to call one another liars.
Pollster Frank Luntz, who for years has helped Republicans carefully calibrate their language to appeal to a broad range of voters, was aghast.
“If 10-year-old kids spoke to their teachers the way those candidates spoke to each other, those kids would be suspended,” he said. “There is no way that any independent observer can say the Republicans gained a single vote against the Democrats because of last night. If you’re honest and unbiased, the GOP lost votes last night.”
Kasich, who largely avoided the vitriol, warned during the debate and again Sunday morning that the nominee could emerge so bloodied that he might lose in the general election.
“It was like a demolition derby. .?.?. I think these debates are ridiculous. This is not a way to pick a president,” Kasich said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” ...WaPo
Kevin Drum has found a way out that’s pretty appealing. I don’t believe in trapping animals in general, but trapping the animals who inhabit Capitol Hill seems like an excellent way of dealing with their behaviors.
John Holbo has an interesting notion: President Obama should take seriously the advise part of advise and consent and give the Senate an informal list of nominees to choose from to replace Antonin Scalia. Maybe they’ll pick two or three off the list, maybe just one. Then Obama transmits his final choice for confirmation hearings.
The basic idea is that this puts Republicans in a pickle. If they flatly reject the entire list, it makes their obstructionism a little too barefaced for an election year where they need votes from more than just their base. But if they give tentative approval beforehand, then it’s harder to pretend afterward that Obama has sent them an obviously radical and unacceptable choice.I suspect this is the kind of idea that sounds better on a blog than it does in the Oval Office, but it’s still interesting. Partly this is because the best Republican response isn’t quite as obvious as it seems. If someone on the list is genuinely moderate, what do they do? …Drum,MoJo