Washingtonpost.com:

The White House is considering picking the Republican governor from Nevada to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court, scrambling political calculations in what is expected to be a contentious confirmation battle in which Senate Republicans have pledged to play the role of roadblock.

President Obama is weighing the selection of Brian Sandoval, a centrist former federal judge who has served as governor since 2011, according to two people familiar with the process. Though the review process is in its initial phases and it is unclear whether the governor could ultimately emerge as the president’s pick, even the prospect of his nomination poses a difficult dilemma for Senate Republicans who have promised not to consider any nomination before November’s elections.

After The Washington Post published news of Sandoval’s consideration Wednesday, GOP leaders insisted that Obama nominating a Republican would make no difference.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who on Tuesday pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before the election, said in a statement that the nominee “will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall.”

The No. 2 Senate Republican leader, Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, said likewise: “This is not about the personality.”

Yes, it’s about not confirming anyone nominated by the current, duly elected president of the United States.  Between this action and allowing Donald Trump to represent the party,  this political party is simply becoming repugnant.

It seems that the current national party will even reject one of their own, simply because Obama has nominated them.  How childish.

At this point, I think there is nothing that could cause me to cast another vote for a Republican.  Every time I have done so locally, I am always sorry.  I haven’t voted for one nationally since Daddy Bush.

Too bad for me.  It’s where I started off.  Things have just gone downhill ever since.

 

30 thoughts on “Obama to consider Republican governor for Supreme Court

  1. Pat.Herve

    Why is Mitch McConnell and many others fearful of Obama nominating a potential Justice? The Senate has the duty and power to consider and vote. I find it childish.

  2. I find it unethical and immoral. It fits right in with Trumpism.

  3. Wolve

    Oh, boo hoo. Battles are tough. Suck it up. Situation reversed? Dems would do the exact same thing.

    1. I suppose I see governing the country a little different than a battle.

      How very typical..”well the gems would do it” as though that makes it right. No, it doesn’t make it right. It’s just a really shitty thing to do. Obama is the president. He was elected in a fair election. It is his job to nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court.

      Let’s say he had two years to go instead of one. What excuse would those pricks use then?

  4. Kelly_3406

    Sandoval is a “centrist”, pro-abortion Justice who would change the balance of the court, regardless of his party affiliation. It was always clear that Obama would nominate someone that would inspire blog entries like this. Unless Obama names someone who believes the Constitution is a dead document and strives to follow original intent, the Senate should deny confirmation.

    Obama has hollowed out the military and used executive actions to defy Congress. Some of these things can be reversed, but a Supreme Court justice could provide the 5th vote for the liberal wing of SCOTUS for the next 30 years. It is time to treat Obama like the lame duck that he is to prevent that from happening.

    1. Kelly, no one is PRO-abortion. I find that term highly insulting.

      Perhaps you should read how Sandoval does feel about abortion.

      Interesting that this is really all about abortion–more evidence that many conservatives believe that women cannot make up their own minds about their own reproduction.

      The bottom line is that Obama is the duly elected president who’s job it is to appoint a Supreme Court justice. To block him certainly is not what the founders had in mind. Current conservatives who support blocking any appointment really should go by the Constitution they squawk about so much.

  5. I love basking in the warm glow of the faux outrage on this issue especially when everyone from the president to Vice President on down the line held the same view just a few years ago.
    This is hypocracy personified.

    1. Its wrong, regardless of who proposes it,

    2. How is that basking in the afterglow working out for you this afternoon? I thought I would stop back by to check.

      Most of us enjoy a different kind of afterglow. Mine has nothing to do with politics.

  6. Kelly_3406

    @MoonHowler

    I am much harder on so-called Republicans–he is in favor of allowing abortions to take place …. ergo he is pro-abortion. He is squishy on all the major issues including taxes and illegal aliens. Except for gun rights, I am not sure what distinguishes him as a Republican.

    The Constitution allows the duly elected Senate to withold consent on SCOTUS nominees from the duly elected president.

    What are you so afraid of? Why not allow the nomination of the next SCOTUS Justice to be debated in the presidential campaign? Citizens will understand the long-term implications of their vote for president. If Hillary wins, you will get somebody even better (from your perspective) than Sandoval.

    1. No one is pro-abortion. Sandoval certainly is not in favor of all abortion. He is actually very moderate.

      Let me just ask you, what gives you the right to make personal reproductive choices for all women? Just curious.

  7. Kelly_3406

    I want a Supreme Court Justice who interprets what is actually in the Constitution, not what (s)he thinks OUGHT to be in it. The Constitution is like a contract that defines what the federal government, state governments and citizens can and cannot do. There is a mechanism for changing the Constitution. When the SCOTUS reinterprets the Constitution, it is like a unilateral revision of a contract without agreement from both parties. Contract law does not allow for that, and neither should the SCOTUS be able to do it.

    There is absolutely no language in the Constitution that makes abortion a right. I find the practice of abortion objectionable– the taking of innocent human life is exactly what society is supposed to prevent. However, if an amendment was legally added to the Constitution, then that would be a different story. I would not like it, but I would accept it as a legal right and move on.

  8. blue

    @Kelly_3406

    Well said.

    @MoonHowler

    Lets clarify that on another thread you have, I believe, advocated the right to abortion without restriction or even parental notification for underage girls. That is in my mind and I think for most folks pro-abortion.

    With regard to your question to Kelly, what is it that restricts anyone from making the choice to kill, societal mores or standards, the law, and a sense of right and wrong? Abortion is about life and death and it is about who we are as a society. If the Constitution is ever interpreted to allow individuals alone to make up the rules – the unrestricted choice re life and death, it needs to be burned and we need to start all over. That is why the SCOTUS choice is so important.

    1. Perhaps you might want to refer me to that thread where you think I advocated for unrestricted abortion. I believe that the restrictions provided in Roe v Wade are adequate. You have no idea how I feel personally. I have stated what I think should be policy.

      You are obviously one of those people who thinks that fertilized ovum in a petrie dish should be given the same rights as grown women. I do not. It is a very complicated issue. Do you think that 9 month old babies 2 weeks from delivery should have the same rights as fertilized ovum. I am one of those who feel that there is no comparison.

      Meanwhile, before I respond, you will have to send me that link. That sure doesn’t sound like me.

  9. Elena

    My body is not owned by the government simply because I have a vagina. No one WANTS an abortion for fun. It is a very very difficult choice, not one taken lightly. The majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, why? Because when you know you are not going to carry a pregnancy to term, you want to deal with it as soon as possible.

    Here is the reality, pregnancy is life altering to your body, and giving birth has life long ramifications. There are real risk associated with pregnancy and birth. Furthermore, in this country, where the maternal mortality rate ranks 50th in the world, it can also be life ending.

    There seems to be this complete lack of consideration for what happens to a woman when she is pregnant, as if this singular focus on the fetus is all that matters.

    Just to name a few that complicate unplanned pregnancies:

    http://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/you-are-pregnant/pregnancy-complications.html

    Or what can happen DURING birth:

    Here is a “favorite”, this is pure sarcasm by the way:

    while the efficacy of the “unkindest cut” is now being medically debated, why don’t one of you men sign up to have your perineum cut?

    http://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/episiotomy-complications

    “Third and fourth degree episiotomies may result in dysfunction of the anal sphincter, resulting in leakage of stool or gas. When this occurs, an additional operation may be required to repair the sphincter and restore normal function. Another problem may be the formation of a recto-vaginal fistula (a passage that connects the rectum to the vagina). When a fistula is present, the patient may experience symptoms such as leakage of stool or gas from the vagina. A fistula requires surgical repair.”

    or what about our cesearan section epidemic in this country:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/24birth.html?_r=0

    “Risks to the mother increase with each subsequent Caesarean, because the surgery raises the odds that the uterus will rupture in the next pregnancy, an event that can be life-threatening for both the mother and the baby. Caesareans also increase the risk of dangerous abnormalities in the placenta during later pregnancies, which can cause hemorrhaging and lead to a hysterectomy. Repeated Caesareans can make it risky or even impossible to have a large family.”

  10. Elena

    how about the emotional impacts:

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/postpartum-depression/basics/definition/con-20029130

    The birth of a baby can trigger a jumble of powerful emotions, from excitement and joy to fear and anxiety. But it can also result in something you might not expect — depression.

    Many new moms experience the “postpartum baby blues” after childbirth, which commonly include mood swings, crying spells, anxiety and difficulty sleeping. Baby blues typically begin within the first two to three days after delivery, and may last for up to two weeks.

    But some new moms experience a more severe, long-lasting form of depression known as postpartum depression. Rarely, an extreme mood disorder called postpartum psychosis also may develop after childbirth.

    Postpartum depression isn’t a character flaw or a weakness. Sometimes it’s simply a complication of giving birth. If you have postpartum depression, prompt treatment can help you manage your symptoms — and enjoy your baby.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/10/the-mothers-who-cant-escape-the-trauma-of-childbirth/408589/

  11. Elena

    I have two beautiful children, every challenge of pregnancy and birth was worth it! But it was my choice to have them.

  12. Scout

    The President should nominate Ted Cruz, then sit back and see how the folks on both sides of the aisle react. It wouldn’t be pretty, but it could be entertaining.

  13. Elena

    LOL!!!!!!! You are one twisted soul Scout, but that IS ingenious.

  14. I won’t vote for anyone on the national or state level who isn’t pro-choice. Unless women can control their own reproduction, they simply have no power. It’s an economic issue.

    Does that mean I advocate abortion? Absolutely not. I advocate contraception. Abortion should be rarely used. In a perfect world, unwanted pregnancy would be abolished because of the use of contraception.

    However, the world isn’t perfect as as long as the state is making up laws for women, then we have a real issue.

    I am using my good manners today, unlike what I saw in the GOP debate. Women will make those deeply personal decisions about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, not the state. You all can make all the laws in the world, and it really won’t stop women, especially women of means and probably poor women also.

    There is really something offed up about a bunch of men who whine and complain about paying for SNAP, WIC and all the other programs that help women and children and at the same time support defunding Planned Parenthood. What that really means is refusing to reimburse Planned Parenthood for Medicaid. There is also something offed up about these same men refusing to expand Medicaid to some 400,000 people in Virginia, all while denigrating people who want to use reproductive services.

    There is the real hypocrisy. I will never vote for any of you loony tune political candidates–its all about economic power. Until women have control of their own reproduction–they have no economic power. That’s just the reality of it all.

  15. I won’t vote for anyone on the national or state level who isn’t pro-choice. Unless women can control their own reproduction, they simply have no power. It’s an economic issue.

    Does that mean I advocate abortion? Absolutely not. I advocate contraception. Abortion should be rarely used. In a perfect world, unwanted pregnancy would be abolished because of the use of contraception.

    However, the world isn’t perfect as as long as the state is making up laws for women, then we have a real issue.

    I am using my good manners today, unlike what I saw in the GOP debate. Women will make those deeply personal decisions about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, not the state. You all can make all the laws in the world, and it really won’t stop women, especially women of means and probably poor women also.

    There is really something offed up about a bunch of men who whine and complain about paying for SNAP, WIC and all the other programs that help women and children and at the same time support defunding Planned Parenthood. What that really means is refusing to reimburse Planned Parenthood for Medicaid. There is also something offed up about these same men refusing to expand Medicaid to some 400,000 people in Virginia, all while denigrating people who want to use reproductive services.

    There is the real hypocrisy. I will never vote for any of you loony tune political candidates–its all about economic power. Until women have control of their own reproduction–they have no economic power. That’s just the reality of it all.

  16. Cargosquid

    Sandoval did not accept Obama’s offer.

    1. Well, do you blame him? Would he have, in a different political climate? Probably.

  17. Jackson Bills

    @MoonHowler
    So you obviously thought Democrats like Obama, Biden and twenty some others were both repugnant and childish when they did the same thing a few years ago, right?

  18. Jackson Bills

    @Cargosquid
    Of course, because it was never serious. He could see that and wanted no part of it.

  19. Pat.Herve

    Jackson Bills :
    @MoonHowler
    So you obviously thought Democrats like Obama, Biden and twenty some others were both repugnant and childish when they did the same thing a few years ago, right?

    Yes, it was and is wrong. This partisan gridlock is total BS.

    1. Obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism is wrong, regardless of who does it. Mitch O’Connell said the first couple of days of Obama’s tenure in office that the only thing he planned to do was block Obama and make sure he didn’t get reelected. Therefore, he is contemptible. He places party above country.

      Everything he has done that I am aware of has proven that was O’Connell’s goal.

  20. Ed Myers

    Sure Sandoval was a trial balloon to prove that no candidate would be acceptable. This will be used in the election and then if Democrats win and a very liberal appointment is made to the court, the Rs will get blamed. The gamble is whether to take the deal today or wait for a potentially worse set of choices tomorrow.

  21. Cargosquid

    @MoonHowler

    Blocking Obama is for the good of the country. His reelection was harmful.

    If Obama REALLY wanted to drive them crazy, he would nominate Cruz, probable the best qualified.

    The Senate wants him gone. The GOP does not want him as President.

    1. Cruz isn’t qualified to be in office, in my opinion.

      Obama’s reelection was the will of the people. He won by popular election, both times. Get over it.

      You trumpet tea party constitution all the time. However, it is very clear, in the Constitution, how we elect our presidents. It is you who cannot accept that Obama was properly elected. Get over it.

      I and many others have been pleased with his presidency in most regards.

      You should learn to state, “in your opinion” rather than as though something is fact, just because you think it.

Comments are closed.