SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch 'Most Likely Candidate' to Replace Scalia

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by sualpine, Feb 15, 2016.

  1. sualpine macrumors 6502

    sualpine

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    #1
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...a-lynch-most-likely-candidate-replace-n518916

    Well, that makes this one easy. Now we can reject on principle, not just politics.
     
  2. ericgtr12 macrumors 6502a

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #2
    She better watch that Clarence Thomas keeps it in his robe.
     
  3. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #3
    She better hope journalists don't dig through her trash.
     
  4. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #4
    Excerpt from Tom Goldstein’s blogpost cited in the OP:

    The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order. There is some imperative to move quickly, because each passing week strengthens the intuitive appeal of the Republican argument that it is too close to the election to confirm the nominee. Conversely, a nomination that is announced quickly allows Democrats to press the bumper sticker point that Republicans would leave the Supreme Court unable to resolve many close cases for essentially “a year.”

    I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process. Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters.

    And another:

    The favorite candidate in Democratic legal circles is generally Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit, followed by Patricia Millett of the same Court. Both are recent Obama appointees. Srinivasan is a Indian American. Millett is a woman. Both would fit the ideological profile that the administration would want. But neither provides the same political benefit.
    But neither provides the same political benefit...” as Loretta Lynch (who as Goldstein correctly surmises, would definitely not be confirmed).

    Well or hey we could just order chopped chicken liver, since we’re apparently at the deli. Why on earth would Loretta Lynch allow herself to be used in such a way??
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    I'd have thought the best play was to nominate a moderate - if they pass fine, if they don't - then you can really stick it to the Republicans.

    I mean Schumer wouldn't have accepted a partisan under Bush so...
     
  6. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #6
    Lol never going to happen, Obama should stop while he is ahead, Republicans have already said they aren't going to take his nominee.
     
  7. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #7
    She's lacking the intelligence to properly serve in that capacity, yet that minor detail makes her the best choice as a puppet of the DEMS and liberal progressives. It would seriously harm SCOTUS but she would mesh nicely with Hussein and Hillary's accomplishments.

    Speaking of which if Hillary isn't voted in and Bernie ends up the next president Lynch would be a natural at serving a Socialist Society. By the time the progressives woke up, they'd likely be the first to realize what a huge irreversible mistake they've made.
     
  8. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #8
    No chance of the GOP accepting Lynch. Would be a waste of the nations time and resources.

    A moderate on the federal bench with a history of strict constructionism is what should be sought.
     
  9. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9
    Who said that his appointment was the endgame?

    BL.
     
  10. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #10
    Yay, another corporatist. Who saw that coming?:rolleyes: She's just as bad as Holder was, corporate/wall street lawyer placed into a role that allows them to shield the industry.

    Obama has the Constitutional duty to appoint (not nominate) a justice. But if the GOP is going to obstruct I hope to hell it's long enough for Bernie to appoint a progressive judge.
     
  11. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    To be honest, Sri Srinivasan is also supposedly on that short list, as well as Jeh Johnson, and a Black guy and a Vietnamese lady who came here as a refugee.

    So how about we wait and see what happens instead of taking what an 'analyst' says as truth?

    BL.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    I honestly don't think anyone Obama appoints is not going to turn out to be connected to industry or finance. I'm posting on the hypothetical that Lynch is seriously being considered, I know there's been a list of at lear 5 people that he's had in mind for years.

    My point comes down to not trusting Obama to not stand by his donors. He's done it for the last 7 years with "reforms" that made sure that no power structure is toppled.

    The corporatist circle keeps spinning unless we elect Sanders, end of story. Viva la Revolution.
     
  13. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #13
    Fair enough.

    On the other side of that coin, Obama does have a track record of favouring a "rags-to-riches" story, in which he would have one with the Vietnamese lady (her name escapes me at the moment). Coming from where they came to this country as a refugee with nothing and making her way up to an Appellate Court (IIRC, she's on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), that definitely fits his track record.

    BL.
     
  14. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #14

    How so? Ignoring all of Obama's compromising, and how both of them have been far closer to centrists when it comes to their voting records you've not exactly kept up with. I mean, Hillary on Iraq alone shows how liberal she isn't to the eyes of the liberals... and, yes, she admitted a mistake. It's nice when people admit they're wrong.

    And how is Lynch a "puppet" regarding these:

    Source: Wikipedia, but the references were cited so it's not blowing smoke out the keyster or anything...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynch
     
  15. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #15
    The same "Hussein" who is muslim despite neither acting like a muslim nor claiming to be one?
     
  16. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #16
    They'd fear a reverse David Souter outcome: moderate pick becomes conservative justice.

    Electing Sanders in the primary could possibly mean electing Trump in the general election. The few remarks Trump has made about the Court don't sound like his judicial ideas are conservative, so the alleged conservatives rallying for Trump don't seem to have court picks in mind. So weird. Anyway his picks might not be revolutionary but they'd probably bother mainstream Dems way less than they bother the religious right. The guy is or has been pro choice. His sister's an activist pro-choice federal judge. Just another bunch of reasons the RNC is going nuts trying to end their nightmare some other way than having Trump be their nominee.
     
  17. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    Seems unlikely to be honest. Justices usually become more liberal.
     
  19. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #20
    "As for how Obama should spend his remaining time in office, McConnell said, “If the President has trouble doing nothing, we will be more than happy to show him how it is done.”

    Hey ********, the President was elected just like you were. Telling him to do nothing is not just a middle finger to the president; it's a middle finger to more than half of the entire electorate.
     
  20. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #21
    I hope the Dems win the Presidency, take back the Senate and replace Scalia with an extremely liberal justice just to be spiteful.
     
  21. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #22
    So if Congress doesn't intend to fulfill its duty, Obama shouldn't either?

    Sounds like an interesting plot. What cartoon show was this you were watching?
     
  22. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #23
    I hear Judge Judy is at the top of Obama's "short list." Along with Ann Coulter and that guy from Night Court.
     
  23. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #24
    Well yeah but Borowitz was riffing because satire's his job. But there's some fire behind that bit of smoke, isn't there. McC pretty much did indicate that doing nothing (obstructing, anyway) would be the intention even before the Prez was sworn in.

    True but that might not be the case with Sri Srinivasan, and that uncertainty would be about the only reason for President Obama to hesitate on nominating him. Srinivasan is possibly one of the few that the GOP might actually decide to roll dice on confirming. After all, if they lose the WH again but Srinivasan ends up leaning right, they're no worse off than they were last week before Justice Scalia passed away.
     
  24. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #25
    There's part of me that thinks the smart thing would be for Obama to fail to get his nominee confirmed. And the uglier the Republicans behave, the better.

    The smart play is to take the longer view. And ask yourself a couple of questions, like this:

    What is one issue that is bound to get Republican voters all fired up to go and vote come November?

    Answer: A newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice, one who seems all but certain to change the court's balance, and end Conservative hopes of repealing Roe v. Wade; smashing whats left of organized labor; turning back gay marriage; and undoing the ACA and civil rights.

    Takeaway: A Supreme Court nomination stymied by Republican obstructionism is a huge boost to the chances (albeit already strong) of the next President being a Democrat. A nominee confirmed, however moderate and centrist, is going to boost Republican turnout - while simultaneously giving Democratic/Liberal/independent voters less incentive.

    Question #2: Whats going to happen in the next 5 years?

    Answer: In addition to filling the seat held by Scalia, it seems highly possible that at least one other Justice will retire. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for instance, is 82 and has had a number of health issues.

    Question #3: Whats the downside? Limited. There aren't going to be that many cases of major import that are going to be affected with the Court being short a Justice in the next 9 months. The big risk - of course- is that somehow Hillary Clinton blows the election anyway and we sink into the abyss of a New Dark Age, made more sinister, and undoubtedly more protracted, by the studio lights of Fox News.

    Thats not particularly deep poker. But the more I think about it, the more I think that the best thing for liberal/progressive/moderate Americans will be for the Republicans to fall into the trap they are busy building for themselves.
     

Share This Page