Conventional wisdom states that Republicans have every political reason to block anyone President Obama nominates for the Supreme Court.
Yes, the Devil is in the details, or potential "bargain" struck between Obama and R's "compromising" - or capitulating on a "moderate" nominee.
"(Obama) would offer a compromise choice, a centrist swing vote – perhaps negotiated with some Senate Republicans – putting the Supreme Court in perfect ideological balance."
"Perfect ideological balance" is the very definition of sellout and vehicle for big-money to continue to dominate/control our nation and society for many decades via scotus. "the Republican Party’s first instinct is to reflexively obstruct. But after making a cold calculation, clear-headed Republicans will see that the logical move is to make a deal" - with the sellout in chief.
Obama considers his "legacy" apparently highly and the TPP especially highly and he will, IMO, compromise to effect passage of that greatest of all his sellouts! He will not fight for a progressive justice - that is not in his DNA or politics - even given RepubliCon obstructionism and pathology.
If that 'compromise" between Obama and R's came to pass with a pro-corporate, pro-big-money "moderate" (such a BS descriptive capable of all manner of deceptions isn't it?) nominee, even if "moderate" on social issues, it would be rightly viewed by the Dem base, progressives and independents, as yet another sell-out by the corporatist Obama. His record as potus and issues he pushed or derailed tells the tale........
Like so many MSM comments, the whole issue is bogus, seems to me. Why, why should the Supreme Court Judge have to be chosen by his political leanings. Who cares if the lady has political leanings. Everybody leans. Why should we have to find a person so way off base as Scalia. That logic would require us to replace a football quarterback who has never thrown a completed pass with one whoo has never thrown a completed pass. Don't we always want to trade up? The only relevant issue is competence. We need to have judges that know the law, and who know that good laws and good governance, and common good are all in the same box. Our Attorney General is an outstanding individual. She was very recently confirmed by an admiring Senate. General Lynch is about as qualified as you can get. Hopefully she will continue to be a honest umpire, calling plays as she sees them. Liberal/Conservative. Hogwash. The real issue is that we just cannot pick a person who things the value of Pi is 4.31. Just can't have dumb. And we can't have bought. Harvard, highest honors; Harvard Law. Now that is the sort of person we should be looking for. Fortunately, we know who that is.
"Obama is highly unlikely to pick a left-wing version of a Bork. He would either pick someone in the “mainstream liberal” mold of Sonia Sotomayor or Elana Kagan, or he would offer a compromise choice, a centrist swing vote – perhaps negotiated with some Senate Republicans – putting the Supreme Court in perfect ideological balance."
I think this is the direction the matter will take.
Seriously? WE get to pick? The whole point of the Supreme Court Judge is that these individuals are NOT elected by the people, and that gives an ideological edge to the serving President and the party that he or she would arguably represent.
I would rather have President Bernie Sander select the next justice. Let them obstruct!!
It would be a betrayal of historical magnitude for Obama to pick some ghastly 'centrist' as his nominee. We imagine him capable of doing so because of his years of give-away-the farm negotiations. But his SC nominees have not been of this character -- so there's little reason to expect that he will act, at this point, as if he's learned nothing in the last 7 years.
I concur, this site is trying to hard to make us democrats.
Trade up in the eyes of whom? The republicans control the senate and want to use that influence to "trade up" for someone crazier.
What makes you think they won't continue to obstruct after he is in office? Where are you going to take the senate, the supreme court?