[Clintonfatigued]

“If Obama loses on November 6, look for Ginsberg to resign on November 7 so Obama can replace her with another communist.”

Confirmation hearings take months. There wouldn’t be enough time to confirm such a judge.

[Josa]

And this article doesn’t account for an unexpected, breitbart-like death.

[jiggyboy]

A few years ago, the situation was reversed. Long story short, there was some discussion that, Constitutionally, judges didn't require a vote, just "advice and consent"; therefore, GWB should just announce that some Senators "gave advice" and "consented" to the appointment of the Supreme Court Judge (Alito?), who will now taking his place at the S.C. Rush Limbaugh was beating that drum for about a week.

It didn't come to that of course, but that was some serious discussion for a while.

You better believe that Obama would interpret "advice and consent" in whatever way he needs it to, despite whatever Democrats were saying at the time. When has the Constitution ever mattered to him before?

BTW, I found this little gem as I was trying to figure out which Justice was the subject of my hazy recollection:

“As we all know, there’s been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.”

Guess who said that?

[GeronL]

Harry Reid would do everything he can to make it happen. It’s not like the GOP has a spine.