I've read claims that President Obama can't appoint another Kagan or Sotomayor to replace Scalia because the Republicans wouldn't accept it. A White House staffer said that they were prepared to replace Ginsburg, but "this is totally different because there haven't been a lot of preparations for filling one of the conservative seats." Funny, the Republicans didn’t think there were “liberal seats” when Bush nominated Roberts.
Face it, the Republicans won’t accept ANYONE nominated by Obama. So why try to appease them? Why not nominate a highly qualified, strong defender of traditional Democratic values? And since the process is likely to be delayed to the next Presidency, why not consult with the two Democratic candidates before Obama makes his choice?
Imagine if, after announcing the nomination, both Clinton and Sanders were to state their support & their intent to renominate the same candidate if they become President & the Senate has not acted. It shouldn't be that hard for Obama to find a candidate Clinton & Sanders like. There are real differences between all three, but I think they are all on record as wanting a Justice who opposes uncontrolled money in politics & opposes governmental restrictions on a woman’s body.
It seems to me that this would add to the pressure on Senate Republicans to evaluate based on qualifications, rather than on politics. And when they resist (as expected), it would add to the pressure on Republicans standing for election. Democrats just need to repeat Senator Warren’s excellent comments. The confirmation process SHOULD only be about qualifications.
Best of all, it would create party unity. If the Republicans want to force this to be a political referendum, then “please proceed”! That will let us show clearly what our party stands for. And it could help all the way down the ticket — it's an argument that all Democrats can use against all Republicans who don't defy their party’s position on this.
One thing Obama absolutely should NOT do is to follow Senator Reid’s advice to choose someone the Republicans would normally support. A key argument for electing Democrats, in 2008, 2012, and 2016, is for a Democrat to be President when it’s time to nominate new Supreme Court justices. Why throw that away on appeasement? Especially when appeasement has been proven not to work?
UPDATE: I've never seen so many comments of the form "you are wrong because X” or “you haven't considered Y" when X and Y are explicit points in the diary. Maybe it's primary fever, infecting even comments on a diary that doesn't take sides.
I have read that there is precedent for a new President to renominate the previous President's Supreme Court candidate. The new thing would be announcing such a plan as part of a campaign. And that's what this diary is all about.