Guess the next scotus justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sri srinivasan

I think he would be a good choice. He has a decent chance of getting confirmed without too much circus and poop flinging.
I'm sure in some ways he's too liberal for my preference, but all in all, he seems to be a sane and rational person that would be representative of our country which (IMO) is relatively moderate.

scotusblog (probably the best scotus-watcher site on the net) thinks it'll be Loretta Lynch or Paul Watford as the initial nomination.

I go with Judge Sri because he was confirmed unanimously so the GOP looks foolish in opposing him. Lynch is respected but had a fair amount of votes in opposition when she was confirmed as AG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pam Karlan.

Bwahahahahaha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama should start with Pam Karlan to really piss off R's.

And they will then happily piss on her as her confirmation twists slowly in the wind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, nominating an asian or indian-american doesn't really have the same political impact as nominating a black or latino.

Ideally you would nominate a latina for maximum political backlash when the R's bork it.

Borking an asian-american just doesn't have the same impact for ginning up voters.

The court already has a Latino (whose been somewhat disappointing) and a black (who is an idiot). Isn't it time we stopped playing racial constituency politics with the court?

I wish we could but politics is everything these days. Since the R's WILL bork whoever O puts up, the paramount consideration must be: what nomination, when borked, would exact the highest political pain on R's.

The answer is simple: Latina, Black Woman, Latino, Black male in that order.

borking an Asian/Indian man would have the smallest political price.

[Anonymous]

Biden, an ex-chair of the Judiciary Committee, might take it and the Senate would confirm him. But then obama is unlikely to get a new VP confirmed by both houses of Congress, so the Dems would have to chance Ryan being next in line to the presidency through next Jan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sri srinivasan

I think he would be a good choice. He has a decent chance of getting confirmed without too much circus and poop flinging.
I'm sure in some ways he's too liberal for my preference, but all in all, he seems to be a sane and rational person that would be representative of our country which (IMO) is relatively moderate.

scotusblog (probably the best scotus-watcher site on the net) thinks it'll be Loretta Lynch or Paul Watford as the initial nomination.

I go with Judge Sri because he was confirmed unanimously so the GOP looks foolish in opposing him. Lynch is respected but had a fair amount of votes in opposition when she was confirmed as AG.

Optics my friend - while we inside the beltway or otherwise engaged in politics logically think that GOP would look stupid blocking Srinivasan, the rest of the country have no clue who the fuck that is and indian-americans for the most part don't have a great image so there won't be an emotional revolt.

r's Borking a black woman gives us the benefit of ginning up black voters come election time.

The #1 goal must be to make the R's look like assholes to independents since it is a given they will be obstructionist. Use their power against them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, nominating an asian or indian-american doesn't really have the same political impact as nominating a black or latino.

Ideally you would nominate a latina for maximum political backlash when the R's bork it.

Borking an asian-american just doesn't have the same impact for ginning up voters.

The court already has a Latino (whose been somewhat disappointing) and a black (who is an idiot). Isn't it time we stopped playing racial constituency politics with the court?

I wish we could but politics is everything these days. Since the R's WILL bork whoever O puts up, the paramount consideration must be: what nomination, when borked, would exact the highest political pain on R's.

The answer is simple: Latina, Black Woman, Latino, Black male in that order.


borking an Asian/Indian man would have the smallest political price.

How's that "wise Latina" on the court workin' out fer ya'?

[Anonymous]

Biden is like a million years ago, in SCOTUs nomination years (it's like dog years, I think).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sri srinivasan

I think he would be a good choice. He has a decent chance of getting confirmed without too much circus and poop flinging.
I'm sure in some ways he's too liberal for my preference, but all in all, he seems to be a sane and rational person that would be representative of our country which (IMO) is relatively moderate.

scotusblog (probably the best scotus-watcher site on the net) thinks it'll be Loretta Lynch or Paul Watford as the initial nomination.

I go with Judge Sri because he was confirmed unanimously so the GOP looks foolish in opposing him. Lynch is respected but had a fair amount of votes in opposition when she was confirmed as AG.

Optics my friend - while we inside the beltway or otherwise engaged in politics logically think that GOP would look stupid blocking Srinivasan, the rest of the country have no clue who the fuck that is and indian-americans for the most part don't have a great image so there won't be an emotional revolt.

r's Borking a black woman gives us the benefit of ginning up black voters come election time.

The #1 goal must be to make the R's look like assholes to independents since it is a given they will be obstructionist. Use their power against them.

Most black voters are going to vote for the Dems anyway and the rest of the country is basically frustrated up to here with what they perceive as black whining. That's one of the reasons why Trump is so popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sri srinivasan

I think he would be a good choice. He has a decent chance of getting confirmed without too much circus and poop flinging.
I'm sure in some ways he's too liberal for my preference, but all in all, he seems to be a sane and rational person that would be representative of our country which (IMO) is relatively moderate.

scotusblog (probably the best scotus-watcher site on the net) thinks it'll be Loretta Lynch or Paul Watford as the initial nomination.

I go with Judge Sri because he was confirmed unanimously so the GOP looks foolish in opposing him. Lynch is respected but had a fair amount of votes in opposition when she was confirmed as AG.

Optics my friend - while we inside the beltway or otherwise engaged in politics logically think that GOP would look stupid blocking Srinivasan, the rest of the country have no clue who the fuck that is and indian-americans for the most part don't have a great image so there won't be an emotional revolt.

r's Borking a black woman gives us the benefit of ginning up black voters come election time.

The #1 goal must be to make the R's look like assholes to independents since it is a given they will be obstructionist. Use their power against them.

Most black voters are going to vote for the Dems anyway and the rest of the country is basically frustrated up to here with what they perceive as black whining. That's one of the reasons why Trump is so popular.

Black voting % isn't the issue, black turnout is. Without Obama, we'll need to make sure blacks still show up in the same (or hopefully greater) number.

[Anonymous]

Obama does not need to have his nominee confirmed to enhance his legacy. He just needs to make sure a democrat is elected in the fall, so his policies remain for another 4 years. Also as others have pointed it out, may not really be that bad for democrats to have a 4 to 4 court.

and republicans in senate will prevent any nomination that is not a religious conservative like Scalia.

So it is not question of who to nominate to actually make it to the court, no one good will make it.

So this nomination will be about making democrats look good and republicans look bad. He will nominate AA woman to watch republicans piss off both AA and females when Mitch refuses to vote on the nomination.

I hope Loretta is up for the fight. Obama does not have to not rush this nomination. She will be confirmed after the election when the senate is back in democratic control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama does not need to have his nominee confirmed to enhance his legacy. He just needs to make sure a democrat is elected in the fall, so his policies remain for another 4 years. Also as others have pointed it out, may not really be that bad for democrats to have a 4 to 4 court.

and republicans in senate will prevent any nomination that is not a religious conservative like Scalia.

So it is not question of who to nominate to actually make it to the court, no one good will make it.

So this nomination will be about making democrats look good and republicans look bad. He will nominate AA woman to watch republicans piss off both AA and females when Mitch refuses to vote on the nomination.

I hope Loretta is up for the fight. Obama does not have to not rush this nomination. She will be confirmed after the election when the senate is back in democratic control.

LL for SCOTUS, Preet Bharara or Neal Katyal for AG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sri srinivasan

I think he would be a good choice. He has a decent chance of getting confirmed without too much circus and poop flinging.
I'm sure in some ways he's too liberal for my preference, but all in all, he seems to be a sane and rational person that would be representative of our country which (IMO) is relatively moderate.

scotusblog (probably the best scotus-watcher site on the net) thinks it'll be Loretta Lynch or Paul Watford as the initial nomination.

I go with Judge Sri because he was confirmed unanimously so the GOP looks foolish in opposing him. Lynch is respected but had a fair amount of votes in opposition when she was confirmed as AG.

Optics my friend - while we inside the beltway or otherwise engaged in politics logically think that GOP would look stupid blocking Srinivasan, the rest of the country have no clue who the fuck that is and indian-americans for the most part don't have a great image so there won't be an emotional revolt.

r's Borking a black woman gives us the benefit of ginning up black voters come election time.

The #1 goal must be to make the R's look like assholes to independents since it is a given they will be obstructionist. Use their power against them.

Most black voters are going to vote for the Dems anyway and the rest of the country is basically frustrated up to here with what they perceive as black whining. That's one of the reasons why Trump is so popular.

Black voting % isn't the issue, black turnout is. Without Obama, we'll need to make sure blacks still show up in the same (or hopefully greater) number.

The issue won't have that much resonance with black voters, because there's already a black justice on the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, nominating an asian or indian-american doesn't really have the same political impact as nominating a black or latino.

Ideally you would nominate a latina for maximum political backlash when the R's bork it.

Borking an asian-american just doesn't have the same impact for ginning up voters.

The court already has a Latino (whose been somewhat disappointing) and a black (who is an idiot). Isn't it time we stopped playing racial constituency politics with the court?

I wish we could but politics is everything these days. Since the R's WILL bork whoever O puts up, the paramount consideration must be: what nomination, when borked, would exact the highest political pain on R's.

The answer is simple: Latina, Black Woman, Latino, Black male in that order.


borking an Asian/Indian man would have the smallest political price.

How's that "wise Latina" on the court workin' out fer ya'?

Great, thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sri srinivasan

I think he would be a good choice. He has a decent chance of getting confirmed without too much circus and poop flinging.
I'm sure in some ways he's too liberal for my preference, but all in all, he seems to be a sane and rational person that would be representative of our country which (IMO) is relatively moderate.

scotusblog (probably the best scotus-watcher site on the net) thinks it'll be Loretta Lynch or Paul Watford as the initial nomination.

I go with Judge Sri because he was confirmed unanimously so the GOP looks foolish in opposing him. Lynch is respected but had a fair amount of votes in opposition when she was confirmed as AG.

Optics my friend - while we inside the beltway or otherwise engaged in politics logically think that GOP would look stupid blocking Srinivasan, the rest of the country have no clue who the fuck that is and indian-americans for the most part don't have a great image so there won't be an emotional revolt.

r's Borking a black woman gives us the benefit of ginning up black voters come election time.

The #1 goal must be to make the R's look like assholes to independents since it is a given they will be obstructionist. Use their power against them.

Most black voters are going to vote for the Dems anyway and the rest of the country is basically frustrated up to here with what they perceive as black whining. That's one of the reasons why Trump is so popular.

Black voting % isn't the issue, black turnout is. Without Obama, we'll need to make sure blacks still show up in the same (or hopefully greater) number.

The issue won't have that much resonance with black voters, because there's already a black justice on the court.

You can't possibly be serious. That's really pretty insulting.