Hacker News Reader

Comment by aioprisan | Hacker News Reader

That's not possible, since a senate confirmation this close to elections is likely to just be punted on for a year.

Well, consider: You're a Senate Republican. Obama nominates a guy who is certainly no Scalia but legitimately isn't the worst. You can hold out and hope that a Republican gets elected, but there's a good chance that'll be Donald Trump, and what kind of a judge is that weirdo going to nominate? You hate that guy and think he's a blemish to the name of the Republican party. Also, there's still a real risk Hilary/Sanders will win instead. AND you can expect to face more than half the media harassing you over any delay. In fact, the harassment has already begun today, Feb 13.

So a real compromise candidate might be possible. It'd likely depend on Obama and the senate Democrats as well, though.

> "there's a good chance that'll be Donald Trump"

it's actually pretty unlikely. Fivethirtyeight has a bunch of good articles about this, but the simplest piece of information pointing to it: Trump is intensely disliked by about 60% of the voting public. He's got a vocal and enthusiastic following, but once you go outside that bubble, he simply doesn't have room to grow.

I voted for Bush twice, McCain, and Romney, and I'll vote for either Hillary or Bernie (two candidates I can't stand) over Trump, and I'm far from alone.

Which Republican candidate would you vote for rather than Hillary/Bernie?

Kasich and Rubio are in my "preferred" tier.

Bush and Cruz are in my "hold my nose and vote" tier.

Carson isn't presidential material IMO.

Trump said he'd nominate his sister. I doubt he'll get the nod, and I doubt we'll see anything until after the election since it will energize both sides. It's too good a fund raising tool for red and blue to pass up.

I hope you're right. And really, a "compromise candidate" is more or less what representative democracy ought to look like in practice anyway.

Obama barely got the ACA through the Court, and that was by a breath. He would not give up the opportunity to make sure it's never that hard again.

I don't follow. It doesn't matter how much Obama wants to replace Scalia (I'm sure: a lot). He can't. The Senate must consent to his nomination, and is entitled to advise it. And advise it they have: they've decided it should be an issue for the election this year, and the voters should decide.

Which is really a shame. With the entire lot of candidates on both sides ranging from bad to awful, it seems likely to me that this will be one of, if not the, deciding issue in the election.

That's bad, because it will perpetuate party politics. No matter how much people dislike the candidate nominated by their party, they'll think they've got no recourse but to vote for him/her lest they lose the Court.

All the Republicans I know who say they'll vote for Clinton before they'd vote for Trump - and there are plenty of those - won't follow through. The chance we might have had for an olive branch, reaching out of the viper pit of party politics, is now gone.

It was always going to be, now it's just become apparent to those who don't pay attention. Next POTUS will nominate a replacement for Notorious RBG as well. This is probably the most important Presidential election in a long time.

Maybe, because Kennedy is getting old (and Kennedy is probably the most important justice on the current court), and so the next President might get 3 seats to fill. But if it's just RBG and Scalia, that'll be the same number Obama, Bush 2, and Clinton got.

McConnell already said that Obama should wait for the next POTUS: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/269389-mcconnell-dont-rep...

Which, I'm sure, McConnell himself would do if he were a sitting President.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com