All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[heretic]

Additionally, the missing guy is extreme right wing - now the court has 4 liberals, 3 conservatives, and a swing vote. Ties generally defer to the lower court decision.

One of the recommended political moves for Obama is to nominate Sri Srinivasan. The guy was confirmed a few years ago to the DC Circuit unanimously (97-0). Blocking him now would be very difficult to portray as anything other than an acting like spoiled children.

So would a great deal else done in the last 8 years. I would not put it past them and hope the voters notice.

[Gray Lensman]

So would a great deal else done in the last 8 years. I would not put it past them and hope the voters notice.

True, but obstructing someone they had previously approved of unanimously will be difficult to sell to independent voters. It would almost certainly become a talking point in every potential Senate race in addition to the Presidential one.

Two other possibilities are Jane Kelly from the 8th Court of Appeals and Jacqueline Nguyen from the 9th Court. Both are Obama appointees who were confirmed to the Appeals Courts unanimously.

[worstblogever]

Don't worry, they will. Jesus Christ himself could be the replacement and Republicans will say no because Obama nominated him. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. As others have already said, the GOP wants the new president to pick Scalia's replacement (a strategy that could blow up in their faces if a Democrat wins), meaning SCOTUS would go almost an entire year without that all important swing vote, resulting in the potential for gridlock aplenty, just what Republicans love.

The narrative Democrats have about how important presidential elections are for the Supreme Court could backfire for the GOP if they definitively make the nomination reliant upon who wins the presidency. Every woman who wants Roe v. Wade upheld, every person upset by the Voting Rights Act getting overturned, every gay marriage supporter, every person who Bernie gets fired up about the Citizens United decision... All of those people will be motivated to turn out by the Democratic nominee. And when voter turnout is high, Democrats win.

Besides that, the GOP are going to get bad press for obstructionism if they block a replacement... Obama as 340 days left in his presidency. 340 DAYS. They couldn't shut down the legislative branch for 18 days without getting heat... shutting down the SCOTUS for almost a full year? Yeah, that'll work out well for them.

[Mister Mets]

It has been interesting to see the GOP talking about the importance of the Constitution while sounding like Chicken Little when it comes to to the Supreme Court.

It's ok, dudes. The Supreme Court is in the Constitution.

As is the Senate's advise and consent role.

Dang, go away for a day and s##t happens. Sorry for his family, but this is pretty huge. I know next to nothing (ah, who am I kidding? I know nothing) about who he might potentially nominate but it looks like he has two options. As one person mentioned (Mets?) he could go full out and nominate the most liberal Justice he can because he's not going to get a Justice through who's much to the left of Scalia (which is to say, just about all of them) or go out of his way to nominate a conservative one that might get past the Republican Congress and help his legacy as a President willing to reach across the aisle (even if it's mostly to get his hand slapped away).

He'd also get to vet them and pick the one who gets nominated, as opposed to having a Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Kasich with free rein and that Republican Congress. Who, I don't know? Maybe Ted Olson? He's at least pro marriage equality.

I doubt Obama's going to go with a conservative (unless Ruth Bader Ginsburg resigns, and there's a deal with Republicans picking a replacement for Scalia, and Democrats picking a replacement for Ginsburg, with an agreement to have a fast approval process.) There was a West Wing episode about that, although there are too many Senators on both sides who would push against it.

Obama's best play might be to nominate someone who has good credentials, isn't very young (this way if the nomination is rejected, it wouldn't be someone who the next Democratic president might have tried to appoint with a Democratic Senate) and isn't a straight white guy. Deval Patrick, former Governor of Massachusetts and United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division) would be a potential contender, as would Martha Minow, current Dean of Harvard Law School (and Obama's favorite professor there.) The main options for Republicans would be to agree to replace Scalia with a liberal justice, or to be painted as obstructionists, turning off swing voters and increasing turnout for Democrats, while rejecting someone who would probably not have been otherwise nominated.

[worstblogever]

It was BUT one year ago that we posted a “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profile for Greg Collett, a three-time losing candidate for the Idaho State Senate who has the chutzpah to campaign against the Affordable Care Act and government being involved with insurance while simultaneously having his ten children on Medicaid. He responded to criticism for this from both the right, and the left, by going online to cite Mormon doctrine to defend his stunning hypocrisy. Not to be limited to kooky on just one issue, Collett also claims that "public education is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto". Since it seems highly unlikely that Collett will ever be successfully elected, we’ll set aside his CSGOPOTD profile on the shelf at this time to profile a different deranged member of the Republican Party instead.(Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 443-12, since this was established in July 2014.)


Andrew Koenig

We are now on the 443rd original "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profile, and in it, we're going to talk about Andrew Koenig of the Missouri House of Representatives, of District 99. Please do not mix him up with the actor Andrew Koenig, who played Boner on the TV show "Growing Pains" and then would eventually take his own life in 2010.) No, the legislator Andrew Koenig has served as a member of that body since 2008, where he won his first two terms unopposed, before defeating William Pinkston in both 2012 and 2014 by around 20 points. In his eight years in the Missouri state legislature, Koenig has been involved in some of the dumbest efforts that body has seen in that time frame.

For starters, Koenig was one of the co-sponsors of HB 283, Missouri's "Birther Bill" back in 2011, when conspiracy theorists throughout the Missouri state legislature were hanging out with Orly Taitz, and convincing themselves that they needed to do more to keep secret Manchurian candidates from being elected president. This is not a single instance of producing legislation based on a conspiracy theory, though, as Koenig also supported a bill to prohibit compliance with the United Nations Agenda 21 environmental treaty a few years ago, apparently because he's another one of those conservatives who believe it's a secret plot for global domination.

Then there was the time in May 2014, that Koenig sponsored HB 1587, a bill to prevent teachers from misinforming students about "scientific controversies", specifically citing "the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution" as controversial. That got him mentioned on the Colbert Report... but believe it or not, that' not he only time Koenig was raked over the coals by Colbert, as he also did in 2012 for trying to place a ban on school teachers from talking about being gay, at all.

Hell, Koenig's response to the civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting death of Michael Brown was to vote for a bill to make it easier for police officers to declare their use of deadly force was justified. But don't worry, he doesn't want the police state to get to restrictive, as he also put out a nullification bill that would prohibit Missouri law enforcement from enforcing federal firearms laws.

Since we mentioned that, Koenig does seem to love some nullification law, like how he co-sponsored and voted for legislation to try and have Missouri prohibit implementation of the Affordable Care Act, apparently showing he doesn't know how the Civil War started, but thinking fighting against socialized healthcare is worth that kind of conflict happening again.

And no, Andrew Koenig still continues to ignore basic facts to push forth partisan bills. Like how after the Planned Parenthood videos were debunked as widely misleading frauds by a pro-life group, he still insisted on trying to create legislation to assure that any fetal remains are destroyed in an incinerator, rather than be used for stem cell research, or any other scientific endeavor, or perhaps even allowing investigators to just perform surprise inspections of clinics whenever they want without a warrant, because the 4th Amendment shouldn't apply to them. And you think he would know Planned Parenthood was found innocent of any wrongdoing, considering he led the witch hunt by chairing the Missouri House Committee that was looking for any kind of evidence they could to justify that.

Maybe that should come as little surprise, though, considering he's willing to co-sponsor legislation to create stricter Voter Identification laws, even though said laws disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters to combat the statistically non-existent problem of in-person voter fraud. And he also decided to co-sponsor legislation to attempt to drug test people on welfare, even though whenever such bills pass, they fail to find significant drug use among those who need government assistance. That is, until courts overturn said laws as violations of the 4th Amendment. Because Koenig is a man who solves problems that don't just not need solving, the problems he claims exist are mythical. He could just as easy produce bills to prevent the immigration of sasquatches or allow for the sale of slaughtered unicorn meat, while he's at it.

Koenig is term-limited in 2016, and cannot run for MIssouri's House of Representatives for a fifth term... so instead, he's going to make a run for Missouri State Senate, instead, trying to grab the seat in District 15 of State Senator Eric Schmitt, who is term-limited himself. No Democrat has challenged there since 2008, so hopefully someone tries to run to offer the Show Me State better leadership than someone as wacky as Andrew Koenig offers.

[macattack]

They've been acting like spoiled children for years, this would be nothing new for them. As I've said previously, the GOP doesn't care, blocking Obama is their mission, damn the consequences.

You need to give and take. Obama will not compromise his ideas, so the GOP keeps blocking him. This is always how Congress has worked when the opposition party controls Congress. Reagan and Clinton had to compromise and such bills actually passed, albeit after a lot of fighting and hand-wringing. Eventually both President and Congress give way enough to get bills passed.

Obama's first words to the Republicans were "I won", as if that explains everything. Obama does not have the right to have his bills passed unimpeded or without modification. Neither does Congress. Neither side is willing to compromise in this situation, but it was Obama that started this acrimonious relationship by suggesting, in two words, that the GOP should just get out of the way and let his agenda pass.

Also, RIP Scalia, since no one else here will type that.

[Tami]

Curious - How does Governor John Kasich compare to the rest of the remaining Republican Candidates?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The narrative Democrats have about how important presidential elections are for the Supreme Court could backfire for them. Every woman who wants Roe v. Wade upheld, every person upset by the Voting Rights Act getting overturned, every gay marriage supporter, every person who Bernie gets fired up about the Citizens United decision... All of those people will be motivated to turn out by the Democratic nominee. And when voter turnout is high, Democrats win.

Besides that, the GOP are going to get bad press for obstructionism if they block a replacement... Obama as 340 days left in his presidency. 340 DAYS. They couldn't shut down the legislative branch for 18 days without getting heat... shutting down the SCOTUS for almost a full year? Yeah, that'll work out well for them.

And Republicans will STILL block any Obama nominee. They can't help themselves, it's in their DNA. They don't care about bad press, they don't care about the threat of shutting down the legislative branch or SCOTUS. After seven years of playing roadblock to everything Obama's done or ever wanted to do, Republicans are not about to develop common sense and stop now, and they won't.

[Tendrin]

You need to give and take. Obama will not compromise his ideas, so the GOP keeps blocking him. This is always how Congress has worked when the opposition party controls Congress. Reagan and Clinton had to compromise and such bills actually passed, albeit after a lot of fighting and hand-wringing. Eventually both President and Congress give way enough to get bills passed.

Obama's first words to the Republicans were "I won", as if that explains everything. Obama does not have the right to have his bills passed unimpeded or without modification. Neither does Congress. Neither side is willing to compromise in this situation, but it was Obama that started this acrimonious relationship by suggesting, in two words, that the GOP should just get out of the way and let his agenda pass.

The notion that Obama won't compromise is laughable on its face. Especially coming from a political party whose leaders declared that their primary goal is to make Obama a one term president, immediately upon his election, and declared an immediate agenda of obstruction. 'Comrpomise' does not mean 'given the Republicans everything they want', which in reality, is what it would take. You're living in an alternate universe.

[Michael P]

Curious - How does Governor John Kasich compare to the rest of the remaining Republican Candidates?

His policies still suck (anti-union, anti-woman, pro-cultural imperialism), but he's not as big of an asshole as Cruz or Trump. He's essentially an older, uglier Rubio.

[Gray Lensman]

His policies still suck (anti-union, anti-woman, pro-cultural imperialism), but he's not as big of an asshole as Cruz or Trump. He's essentially an older, uglier Rubio.

Not quite, Rubio is actually pretty far to the right (and was once a Tea-Party darling, which is something I don't think Kasich will ever be accused of). Kasick would have been far right wing under Reagan, maybe even Dubya, but the party has lurched so far to the right that now he is seen as a moderate.

Rubio can seem reasonable, but his only moderate position that I ever remember was his now abandoned immigration stance. Think of him as a guy preaching the (current) Republican Gospel and you won't be far off.

[Tendrin]

With one primary difference: he did accept Medicaid expansion.

[Tami]

Thanks. Found this which was an interesting read: The 2016 U.S. Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet.

[macattack]

And Republicans will STILL block any Obama nominee. They can't help themselves, it's in their DNA. They don't care about bad press, they don't care about the threat of shutting down the legislative branch or SCOTUS. After seven years of playing roadblock to everything Obama's done or ever wanted to do, Republicans are not about to develop common sense and stop now, and they won't.

Obama voted against Roberts and Alito, and the Republicans confirmed Kagan and Sotomayor. Not to mention the Democratic Senate blocked Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers (which caused the nomination of Alito). What is your point here?

The Senate is under no obligation to confirm a presidential appointee, regardless of party. If the voters don't like it, it is up to them to make the Senate pay.

[Tendrin]

Obama voted against Roberts and Alito, and the Republicans confirmed Kagan and Sotomayor. What is your point here?

The Senate is under no obligation to confirm a presidential appointee, regardless of party. If the voters don't like it, it is up to them to make the Senate pay.

But they need a reason, and that reason can't be 'well, we're hoping we win the presidential election'.