WI: Obama replaces 6 Supreme Court Justices during his first term?

So what if in addition to Justice Sotomayor replacing Justice Souter and Justice Kagan replacing Justice Stevens, Obama has the opportunity to replace the following four Supreme Court Justices during his first term?

Justice Ginsburg retires in 2009
Justice Breyer retires in 2010
Justice Scalia dies in 2010
Justice Kennedy dies in 2011

Who are likely replacements for these four justices?

What impact does Obama replacing 6 Justices have on the Court’s rulings?
 

Jasen777

Donor
So what if in addition to Justice Sotomayor replacing Justice Souter and Justice Kagan replacing Justice Stevens, Obama has the opportunity to replace the following four Supreme Court Justices during his first term?

Justice Ginsburg retires in 2009
Justice Breyer retires in 2010
Justice Scalia dies in 2010
Justice Kennedy dies in 2011

Who are likely replacements for these four justices?

What impact does Obama replacing 6 Justices have on the Court’s rulings?

Well Reid will have to go nuclear to get Scalia's replacement on the court since it gives a liberal majority (if I can count), and then probably for Kennedy's as well. Obviously this would give a chance for the court to have a liberal majority for a long time...

But I'll let someone else take the harder questions...
 
Well Reid will have to go nuclear to get Scalia's replacement on the court since it gives a liberal majority (if I can count), and then probably for Kennedy's as well. Obviously this would give a chance for the court to have a liberal majority for a long time...

But I'll let someone else take the harder questions...

But Reid had 59 (57D + 2I) Senate seats prior to the 2010 midterms?
 
Since Obama wanted to have the Republicans onboard even when he 59 seats i belive he will go moderate and choose a moderate that pleases both sides
 

SsgtC

Banned
I see someone geing impeached when 2010 rolls around.
Highly unlikely. Especially not for merely doing his Constitutional duty in nominating SCOTUS justices. The only way I could even see there being any backlash at all would be if he nominated far left wing justices. And even then, it would take the form of Republican stonewalling. Basically what we saw towards the end of his term moved up about 6 years
 
So what if in addition to Justice Sotomayor replacing Justice Souter and Justice Kagan replacing Justice Stevens, Obama has the opportunity to replace the following four Supreme Court Justices during his first term?

Justice Ginsburg retires in 2009
Justice Breyer retires in 2010
Justice Scalia dies in 2010
Justice Kennedy dies in 2011

Who are likely replacements for these four justices?

What impact does Obama replacing 6 Justices have on the Court’s rulings?

Reid can get Ginsburg and Breyer replacements confirmed fairly easily as they are just maintaining the status quo.

The Senate breaks on Scalia's replacement as that flips the court for a generation as there will be 5 Obama appointed judges in their late 40s to late 50s.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The Senate breaks on Scalia's replacement as that flips the court for a generation as there will be 5 Obama appointed judges in their late 40s to late 50s.
Not quite yet. If Obama nominated someone like Garland to replace Scalia, I think he gets approved fairly easily. He was moderate enough to give Conservative law makers a fig leaf to hide behind. The problem Congress when it's time to replace Kennedy. Depending on the outcome of the 2010 midterms (and exactly when in 2011 Justice Kennedy dies), the Senate may stonewall until after the 2012 election. Or force Obama to nominate either a Blue Dog Democrat or a Liberal RINO.
 
Not quite yet. If Obama nominated someone like Garland to replace Scalia, I think he gets approved fairly easily. He was moderate enough to give Conservative law makers a fig leaf to hide behind. The problem Congress when it's time to replace Kennedy. Depending on the outcome of the 2010 midterms (and exactly when in 2011 Justice Kennedy dies), the Senate may stonewall until after the 2012 election. Or force Obama to nominate either a Blue Dog Democrat or a Liberal RINO.
Kennedy's seat is not worth going to war over as it is not the decisive seat. If the GOP takes the Senate in November 2010, they could hold the seat open to 1/3/13 at which point a new Dem Majority confirms a 37 year old liberal to avoid a future block actuarial problem.

The 5th seat is the seat that breaks the Senate not the 6th.
 
Kennedy's seat is not worth going to war over as it is not the decisive seat. If the GOP takes the Senate in November 2010, they could hold the seat open to 1/3/13 at which point a new Dem Majority confirms a 37 year old liberal to avoid a future block actuarial problem.

The 5th seat is the seat that breaks the Senate not the 6th.

If the GOP stonewalls on replacing Scalia then if and when the Dems retain the senate in 2010 as they did in otl Reid will go nuclear and we will get super liberals replacing Scalia and Kennedy
 
I see someone geing impeached when 2010 rolls around.

On literally what grounds are you going to sell this to the American people? "Oh, he's fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate supreme court justices. WE HAVE TO STOP HIM BEFORE HE NOMINATES AGAIN!!"

Absolute best, you get Obama out... and then what? President Biden troll faces and starts nominating hardcore liberals? Gonna impeach him too? At what point does blatant miscarriage of the law cause the Republican party to implode on live television as moderates abandon it in droves, as the party leadership has clearly gone completely insane.
 
Last edited:
If the GOP stonewalls on replacing Scalia then if and when the Dems retain the senate in 2010 as they did in otl Reid will go nuclear and we will get super liberals replacing Scalia and Kennedy
I think the Senate GOP would have to stonewall a Scalia replacement solely to protect their own asses in primaries. Remember, this is the Tea Party wave that was knocking off establishment Republicans in the primary cycle (Delaware, Colorado, Nevada). In my opinion, an incumbent Republican trying to get through a primary by explaining to his/her base that 59 is bigger than 41 and that this means the Supreme Court is lost for a generation will have one hell of a hard time getting out of the primary. I think the internal party dynamics of the GOP demands an all-out fight unless the death is in late September or October at which point the clock runs out and the confirmation process is a 2011 problem.
 
I see someone geing impeached when 2010 rolls around.

Why? The GOP in OTL controlled the House for the last six years of Obama's presidency and made no attempt to impeach him.

BTW, this whole "president X would face impeachment" is used way too often here. Members of the House are well aware that it takes a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict, and that recklessly seeking impeachment without any chance of conviction is more likely to damage the party doing the impeaching than the president. If nothing else, the impeachment of Clinton in 1998-9 made that clear. And in any event with Clinton there was a plausible ground of impeachment--there really was a case that he had committed perjury and obstruction of justice. The case was not without its flaws but it was not frivolous either. Impeaching a president because you don't like his Supreme Court choices will just be seen as frivolous political grandstanding.

The failure of the Democrats to seek impeachment of Reagan over Iran-Contra, the failure of the Republican House to seriously consider impeaching Clinton before Monicagate, the fact that the GOP didn't try to impeach Obama during the six years it controlled the House during his administration (despite the endless Benghazi hearings), and the fact that Pelosi is discouraging talk of impeachment now are all evidence that the House, even when controlled by a party that greatly dislikes the president, doesn't undertake impeachment lightly.
 
Top