Thursday Open Thread [2.18.16]

Thursday Open Thread [2.18.16]

Kevin Drum on how he thinks the Supreme Court fight will play out: it will be a battle over Reasonableness.
So now Republicans are backing off a bit. President Obama announced in mild tones that of course he'd nominate someone—that's what the Constitution tells him to do—and Republicans are kinda sorta saying that they'll hold hearings after all. If they do, they've probably dodged a bullet since most of America isn't really paying attention yet. The next stage in this PR battle is up to Obama: will he nominate someone who's scrupulously centrist and well qualified? That would rack up some points for Team Liberal in the battle to seem most reasonable. Will Republicans then run hearings that are at least tolerably efficient and fair-minded? That would rack up some points on their side. Roughly speaking, every statement or action by anyone in the Supreme Court fight should be interpreted as a shot being fired in the underlying PR war. Most people won't care about this—they're already firmly on a team—but there's a small sliver of voters in the middle who do care, and they could make the difference in November. For that reason, it's worth it for each side to try to rein in its extremists and put up a show of being the most reasonable. Democrats have the early lead right now, but they won't necessarily keep it. After all, they have a base to keep happy too.
It depends on who the centrist is. Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) suggested the so called "centrist" Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (R). LOLz. Meanwhile, Sri Srinivasan is also considered a respectable moderate choice, given his 97-0 Senate vote of confirmation in 2013 to the DC Circuit, the supposed minor league to the Supreme Court's big league, but he would be much more decidedly liberal in his opinions.
Wednesday Open Thread [2.17.16]

Wednesday Open Thread [2.17.16]

Dana Milbank has some very thick rose colored glasses: “I had a twinge of nostalgia watching George W. Bush campaign for his little brother in South Carolina Monday night… He was earthy… Bush was corny… He was also self-deprecating.” “But mostly, W’s cameo in the 2016 campaign served as a reminder that, not too long ago, conservative politics wasn’t so beastly. Bush, wading into the manure pile that is the 2016 Republican primary fight, was pleasant, civil and decent.”
Can We Learn From This?

Can We Learn From This?

There’s been an interesting evolution in the DL comment section. I wanted to give my take on it. Whenever the subjects of race, women’s issues, religion (mostly concerning Muslims), LGBT, etc. come up and white privilege is pointed out we hear white people quickly saying “not all white people” and then sharing their reasons as to why they are the exceptions to whatever is being discussed. This derails the conversation, moving it away from whatever social issue is being discussed and putting the focus on white people's concerns. I have lost count on the number of posts on DL where this has happened, and I'd like to figure out how we can stop doing this.
Tuesday Open Thread [2.16.16]

Tuesday Open Thread [2.16.16]

Spandan Chakrabarti on why Obama wants a Supreme Court Fight and how Republicans blew it before it starts:
The bigger part of the advantage that the President and Democrats have is the actual fight over the nomination and confirmation process. Say the President nominates someone like Sri Srinivasan, who was confirmed to the DC Circuit by a 97-0 vote of the Senate in 2013. Among those 97 Yea votes were those of Sens. Cruz and Rubio, as well as GOP Leader McConnell, all calling for the current President to abdicate his Constitutional responsibility. What will people who have already voted for a judge to be on the federal bench say as a reason to oppose the same judge that won't sound political and hollow? The funny part is that the President doesn't even have to nominate a consensus candidate like Srinivasan to paint the Republicans into a corner. Republicans have already helpfully handed the President all he needs to paint their opposition to his eventual nominee as political and not substantive with their incredibly shortsighted to demand right away that President Obama stay away from nominating a new Justice. There is no way they can stop the president from exercising his Constitutional power, and because they have shown their hands early, the President and Harry Reid can easily frame any Republican attack against his inevitable nominee as spite rather than any serious concern on jurisprudence. Once painted into a political corner, Republicans may well have to back down from their initial stand just to get out of that corner. Harry Reid, I am certain, has other tricks up his sleeve to frustrate the Republican leadership by essentially ending the Senate's business until the President's nominee gets a vote. He could use executive sessions (the motion is non-debatable) to halt business, block unanimous consent requests for short breaks or recesses, and pull every parliamentary maneuver to make Republicans go on record. Even worse for the GOP, by constantly asking for procedural votes on the nomination, he can force Republicans to show up and be on the Senate floor. And no Democratic Senator will pay a political price for standing with Reid and President Obama on this. It will be like the GOP's government shutdown, part deux. Democrats will coalesce around the Constitutional principle of giving the president's nominee a vote, and Republicans will be seen as the party of destruction, endangering the very operation of government itself. And this time, there won't be a malfunctioning website to go after when it's done. The political cornering of Republicans will be especially important because this is an election year. The longer Republicans drag out this fight, the more it will galvanize an electorate favorable to the Democratic party.
WaPo floats Chris Coon as potential Scalia replacement

WaPo floats Chris Coon as potential Scalia replacement

New Castle County Council to the Supreme Court...? Pundits gotta pund.
THE BUZZ AT THE CAPITOL: “Some hopeful Democrats now see the nomination of a sitting senator as the best chance Obama has to seat another justice on the Supreme Court before leaving office,” Juliet Eilperin and Paul Kane report. “There are several Senate Democrats who fit that description, including Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Christopher A. Coons (Del.) and Richard J. Durbin (Ill.). But individuals who have spoken with the White House about the nomination process … said the president is interested in a candidate who is young enough to serve an extended period of time. Only two of those senators — Klobuchar, at 55, and Coons, at 52 — are younger than 60, the age Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was when she was nominated.”