The Assassination of Antonin Scalia by the Coward Barack Obama

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Assassination of Antonin Scalia by the Coward Barack Obama

«‹›27 »

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

euphronius posted:

The decision is to hold hearings or not. Obama will nominate someone soon after the funeral imho.

Yeah but it's already obvious that Republicans don't even want to hold hearings, let alone confirm a nomination.

E: this conflict is symbolic of how the very purpose of government and governing has been perverted from performing your obligated duty and having to reach across the aisle to get important work done to obstruction and partisanship at all costs. Even with all the problems of pork barrel spending to cut legislative deals, now we can't even manage that that government has become so dysfunctional.

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Feb 18, 2016

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 15:45

corn in the bible: Jun 5, 2004; Oh no oh god it's all true!

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

What's great about Scalia dying is that the need to nominate a replacement Supreme Court justice is putting Republican obstructionism in such naked, plain view that even Truth Is In The Middle journalism can't disguise it and how only now it's dawning on a few Republicans that "hey wait a second, maybe our immediate reflex to block Obama on doing literally anything is kind of a bad look for us...".

It's okay when it's business as usual where nobody in the general public is paying attention to the day-to-day business of government while you feed news of obstructionist victories to the Base, but not so much when attention is at an all-time high even more so than during a government shut-down.

Tea Party rancor from the base and conservative groups will force Republican senators between a rock and a hard place of whether to confirm nomination or not. Support an Obama nominee and get primaried out as a RINO traitor or obstruct his nomination for the next ten months to make it blindingly obvious in an election year that Republicans are the ones wrecking the government and provoking a constitutional crisis in refusing to perform the duties of government.

The schadenfreude is delicious.

nobody is going to care about this who wasn't already going to vote against the republicans

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:45

GreenNight: Feb 19, 2006; Turning the light on the darkest places, you and I know we got to face this now. We got to face this now.

Are Republicans pulling some bullshit where their won't be a recess until after the next election?

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:51

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

GreenNight posted:

Are Republicans pulling some bullshit where their won't be a recess until after the next election?

Almost definitely.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:54

Pillow Hat: Sep 11, 2001; What has been seen cannot be unseen.

corn in the bible posted:

nobody is going to care about this who wasn't already going to vote against the republicans

Counterpoint: Any moderate who is considering voting for the GOP will be turned off by this.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:05

corn in the bible: Jun 5, 2004; Oh no oh god it's all true!

Pillow Hat posted:

Counterpoint: Any moderate who is considering voting for the GOP will be turned off by this.

moderates don't really exist

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:10

CuwiKhons: Sep 24, 2009; Seven idiots and a bear walk into a dragon's lair.

I kind of felt that the GOP was already doing it's hardest to alienate moderates with such candidates as Donald "Mexico will pay for this wall" Trump and Ted "I support constitutional amendments that would grant a fetus full personhood" Cruz. The harder the GOP pushes to the right, the more moderates they leave on the left side.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:11

WeAreTheRomans: Feb 23, 2010; by R. Guyovich

corn in the bible posted:

moderates don't really exist

lol

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:31

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

corn in the bible posted:

moderates don't really exist

You know how no matter horrible or obvious a question is on a poll there is still a good 20% who don't know where they stand on the issue of fuckmurder? Those are your moderates. And when they do vote they always vote republican because hats the party with no ideological consistency at all.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:39

ZenVulgarity: Oct 9, 2012; I made the hat by transforming my zen

Should I die I would like warsz to replace me in my shitposts

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:46

Scrub-Niggurath: Nov 27, 2007

Al! posted:

You know how no matter horrible or obvious a question is on a poll there is still a good 20% who don't know where they stand on the issue of fuckmurder? Those are your moderates. And when they do vote they always vote republican because hats the party with no ideological consistency at all.

Undecided Moderates are the dumbest motherfuckers in American politics and the amount of pandering they receive is comical

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:51

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Al! posted:

You know how no matter horrible or obvious a question is on a poll there is still a good 20% who don't know where they stand on the issue of fuckmurder? Those are your moderates. And when they do vote they always vote republican because hats the party with no ideological consistency at all.

You're thinking of independents. I'm pretty sure people who self-describe as moderates lean Democratic these days.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:53

ReidRansom: Oct 25, 2004

Scrub-Niggurath posted:

Undecided Moderates are the dumbest motherfuckers in American politics and the amount of pandering they receive is comical

Yeah, when you consider that presidential elections are often decided by like 100,000 of the stupidest people Ohio has to serve up, it's really a bit frightening.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:54

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

quote:

WASHINGTON � President Barack Obama is looking to nominate a Supreme Court candidate who has enjoyed past Republican support, Vice President Joe Biden said, offering some of the first indications of the president's criteria in replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

In a radio interview airing Thursday, Biden pushed back against Republicans who insist that Obama hand off the decision to the next president. Still, Biden acknowledged that the Senate gets to have a say in confirming the president's pick.

"In order to get this done, the president is not going to be able to go out � nor would it be his instinct, anyway � to pick the most liberal jurist in the nation and put them on the court," the vice president told Minnesota Public Radio. "There are plenty of judges (who) are on high courts already who have had unanimous support of the Republicans."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/18/us/politics/ap-us-supreme-court-scalia-successor.html

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:56

Slate Action: Feb 13, 2012; by exmarx

I assume 'past Republican support' just means someone who was previously confirmed unanimously.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 16:59

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

evilweasel posted:

You're thinking of independents. I'm pretty sure people who self-describe as moderates lean Democratic these days.

This, don't discount the democratic voting population that is simply scared shitless of the republicans.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:05

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

In order to really hurt the republicans the nominee needs to be by all accounts a very uncontroversial and moderate choice, in which case the republicans might just go ahead and let them in. It's in the republicans interest right now to seem as obstructionist as possible, really.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:06

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Slate Action posted:

I assume 'past Republican support' just means someone who was previously confirmed unanimously.

Yeah, nominating someone like Sri Srinivasan who was confirmed 97-0 in 2013 would really lay bare the Republican obstructionism because even the argument that Obama was appointing some ultra-liberal wacko who post-Tea Party Republicans could never support would fall flat.

That being said, it might be a more tactical move to nominate someone liberal first, let the Senate wear out their "See, Obama is only going to nominate hippie communists" arguments, and then withdraw that person and nominate someone like Sri instead. But the more time you spend playing these games, the closer you get to November and the more likely it becomes that Republican "wait until January" arguments resonate with the electorate. If Obama is nominating someone in February, sure. But if that person gets stonewalled for months and he nominates someone new in July it could come off very different.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:07

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Slate Action posted:

I assume 'past Republican support' just means someone who was previously confirmed unanimously.

It makes the most sense by far. Let them argue why they won't have hearings for someone they unanimously approved.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:08

The Iron Rose: May 12, 2012; Cat Army

evilweasel posted:

You're thinking of independents. I'm pretty sure people who self-describe as moderates lean Democratic these days.

This is a) me, and b) generally my experience anyways. I remember calling into swing states in 2012 when I worked for Obama For America. The few folks who didn't hang up in anger generally expressed that moderate sentiment.

Lots of stupidity and anger too mind you. I always said I worked for the Romney PAC when people got outraged that they were being canvassed though so it all worked out.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:10

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Part of me hopes this is what causes the final crack in the GOP to make it crumble. Get a handful of moderate Republicans who utterly loathe the Tea Party enough to not care about crazy assholes deciding to primary them and confirm a new justice, though you'd almost certainly need 60 due to filibusters from Cruz and others.

If his pick ends up being Sri or one of the others confirmed in the last few years with unanimous support then the GOP is going to have to pray that the media covers for them well enough.

MickeyFinn posted:

This is an emerging problem in arbitration, so I can't imagine it being any different if a regular judge is involved.

I'd be so happy if arbitration was ruled illegal. I'd be amazed if it wouldn't be upheld as legal by a majority of the SCOTUS, but it's a loving abomination that exists solely to ensure people can be denied their rights by a pro-corporate system. Undo the god awful class action lawsuit ruling as well and put some goddamn fear back in to corporations that screw around.

euphronius posted:

"Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it�s the situation: the fact that it�s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.�
"

These are terrible "facts". If this is the best the right can come up with they aren't going to win.

The Dems winning this fight heavily depends upon keeping it in the media spotlight and not having a bunch of Truth Is In The Middle bullshit. The GOP should be hammered on this but I'm not holding my breath. The difference between Kennedy and this vacancy is minor at best the GOP should be bludgeoned with it.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:30

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Arbitration shouldn't be illegal, but the court needs to stop banning states from declaring arbitration clauses in specific contracts unconcionable. It's fine if two sophisticated parties want to agree to arbitration: it's not fine if businesses try to force customers into arbitration.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:32

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

For some reason Predictit now thinks that Obama has a 60% chance of getting a nominee confirmed (but only 30% chance of his first nominee being confirmed) :psyduck:

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:33

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

evilweasel posted:

For some reason Predictit now thinks that Obama has a 60% chance of getting a nominee confirmed (but only 30% chance of his first nominee being confirmed)

I think they are betting that Obama will put forth an option, the Republicans will give reasons why that option is unacceptable, and then Obama will put forth a new option that addresses those concerns.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:39

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Sandra Day O'Connor says the Republicans should get on with it and do their jobs.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/sandra-day-oconnor-obama-scalia-replacement/index.html

Not that it matters since they've moved way beyond even moderate Reaganism these days, but at least prominent people are speaking out against their strategy.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:41

Broken Machine: Oct 22, 2010

O'Connor applying pressure should help move the GOP to actually at least debate a nominee and go through the motions. What happens with 5th circuit cases in the meantime while they're waiting - are they split among the other justices, how does that work?

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:44

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Jarmak posted:

This, don't discount the democratic voting population that is simply scared shitless of the republicans.

Yo! That's me. Ted Cruz gives me Dead Zone vibes.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:44

Shifty Pony: Dec 28, 2004; Up ta somethin'

evilweasel posted:

Arbitration shouldn't be illegal, but the court needs to stop banning states from declaring arbitration clauses in specific contracts unconcionable. It's fine if two sophisticated parties want to agree to arbitration: it's not fine if businesses try to force customers into arbitration.

Definitely. The Roberts court's expansion of the enforceability of arbitration clauses in form contracts has been a real detriment to keeping corporations accountable or honest. Especially when they now nearly universally include Class action waivers.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:46

Doctor Butts: May 21, 2002

I thought this was a good read:

Joseph Fishkin posted:

Constitutional hardball in Justice Scalia�s country

Let me start by stating the really obvious�not a point about precedents or conventions but just a practical point. Imagine that Mitt Romney were President right now. Senator Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican Senate majority would not be arguing that Justice Scalia�s seat on the Court should remain vacant until a new President is sworn in. They would be arguing just the opposite: Instead of �delay, delay, delay,� the strategy would be �confirm, confirm, confirm��make absolutely sure the President�s choice is confirmed before any possibility of an adverse election. I don�t think there is any serious question about this. Thus, it�s fair to say that the Senate Republican leaders have made their rule clear. The rule is as follows: for a Supreme Court vacancy arising in February 2016, Democrats must win two consecutive Presidential elections�2012 and 2016�in order to appoint a successor. Republican victory in either of those elections would mean that a Republican president chooses the new Justice.

Is this rule unfair? Sure. Special pleading? Obviously. It has been widely noted that Justice Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate on February 3, 1988, nine months from election day. But: would the Democrats impose the same rather one-sided rule if they could, if the shoe were on the other foot (i.e. a Republican President facing a Democratic Senate)?

I doubt it. The parties are not similarly situated. The leaders of a typical American political party face a mix of conflicting incentives: earning the respect of the activist base on their own side versus earning the respect of moderates and others who want to see the government function effectively. For today�s Republicans, the incentives are unusually heavily weighted in one direction. Entrepreneurs on the far right (some of them themselves members of Congress) have marshalled legions of activists and deep-pocketed donors ready to run primary opponents against any Republican who seems to compromise too much with President Obama, whose entire presidency they view, as one observer recently noted, �as an eight-year constitutional crisis.� The result has been a predictable series of major escalations from the right�repeated government shutdowns, threats to default on the debt, blocking the appointment of essentially all appellate judges on a blanket basis�that have come to seem almost normal. A decision simply to refuse to hold any hearings or votes on a Supreme Court nominee, regardless of who the nominee is, would be entirely consistent with this pattern�so much so that within hours of the news of Justice Scalia�s death, before the obituaries were even up on the web, both nonpartisan observers and Senator McConnell himself were predicting, assuring, or even assuming, just such an escalation. It is possible for something to be both unprecedented and predictable based on current trends; this is both. If left-wing activists held as much sway over Democrats as right-wing activists now hold over Republicans, President Obama would be about to escalate in kind�to use his recess appointment power to put, say, Elizabeth Warren on the Court right now, before Congress returns from its recess. (Don�t hold your breath.)

Where does this leave us? One way or another�whether the Republicans follow through on their present strategy as I expect they probably will, or not�it seems we are headed for a presidential election campaign in which the future direction of the Supreme Court will play a highly salient role. That, on its face, has the potential to be a good thing: it could potentially help bring to the surface, for the general public, some of the more important long-term consequences of their votes. The careful reader will notice a lot of weasel words in the previous sentence. Whether focusing attention right now on the Supreme Court actually turns out to be a salutary development for our politics will depend on just what we bring to the surface�on what terms we have our coming argument about the Court. In that way our political system now faces an unusual test.

We have a Court today that is as divided and polarized as the rest of our political system. Its two major factions are linked relatively tightly with the two political parties in the world of ordinary politics. In the sweep of American history this is an unusual development; it has many causes, but no Justice deserves more credit for it than Justice Scalia. He will go down in history as the Court�s greatest practitioner (to date) of popular constitutionalism. He was a forceful and indefatigable galvanizer of public opinion whose highest-profile written opinions, oral opinions from the bench, and extracurricular speechifying all rested firmly on the premise that what the public thinks about the Constitution really matters, and that by changing minds, he could ultimately change the way we all understand the Constitution.

Justice Scalia was more effective outside the Court than inside. It is something of a mystery why he reserved some of his most vicious and personal written barbs for Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O�Connor, the two votes he needed most throughout his career if he hoped to become the Justice Brennan of the right. In the end he did not become the Brennan of the right. Instead he became a more iconoclastic sort of leader, and also one more consonant with our contemporary politics: a leader who views the opposing side in major disputes as deeply, profoundly wrong and even worthy of ridicule. Today any conversation about the Court necessarily takes place in the world he helped make.

After Justice Scalia�s death, many obituaries and remembrances have argued that Heller, the Second Amendment case from 2008, best exemplifies his success as a jurist. In that case, in which he wrote the majority opinion, even the two dissents argued with Scalia primarily on ground he chose: the Amendment�s original meaning. This was indeed a remarkable triumph for Justice Scalia and one that exemplifies an important dimension of his legacy.

But another dimension of his legacy is best understood through no case of his at all. When Republicans out on the campaign trail today talk about the Supreme Court, many of them speak of the Court in terms that are at once scornful and apocalyptic, describing a �lawless� Court �untethered to reason and logic,� �unhindered by the clear intent of the people�s elected representatives,� �engaged in constitutional contortionism� and an �assault on the rule of law� because of �the Court�s hubris and thirst for power� which is leading ultimately to �judicial tyranny� or even judicial �oligarchy.� And those are just a few choice quotes from a single Ted Cruz op-ed! That particular piece by Senator Cruz begins with two substantial quotes from Justice Scalia�s recent dissents. It follows up shortly thereafter with a paragraph-long Scalia block quote, and then continues on, stringing together what one might uncharitably call �straining-to-be-memorable passages� in a similar vein. Basically this Cruz piece, like much of the Cruz oeuvre of commentary on the Court, is off-brand Scalia. It�s got the outrage, the apocalyptic foreboding, and the sheer contempt for the other side, all tuned to just the same Scalia frequency and with the dial cranked up just as high, but with only half the wit.

Ted Cruz is sometimes called anti-establishment, but really he and others like former Senator Jim DeMint, head of the Heritage Foundation and the Senate Conservatives Fund, are better described as leaders of a new, competing political establishment within the Republican Party. This new establishment is iconoclastic and very willing to make enemies within the party if that is what it takes to drag the party as a whole to the right. To the consternation of observers outside their narrow orbit, they have turned firmly against Chief Justice Roberts, branding him an apostate and a closet liberal for having enough of a sense of judicial restraint to avoid striking down Obamacare�a view that now reverberates throughout the Republican presidential primary field. (And don�t get them started on Justice Kennedy.) Justice Scalia was their star. He provided almost all of the best material originating from within the Court itself to support claims like those in the previous paragraph, that we are living in a time of unbridled hubris and judicial activism from the left. That is the central message, on judicial and constitutional matters, of this new right-wing establishment, whose reach now extends way beyond a few radio hosts and lobbyists and Senators, to encompass a substantial swath of the actual Republican party electorate. For this faction, the Constitution is hanging by a thread, beset by the activist liberals who dominate the American judiciary.

The story of the emergence of this point of view in our politics is far larger than any one person. Justice Scalia has played an important role in it, but this story began well before he joined the Court and will continue long after his death. The depiction of the Supreme Court as a lawless, unprincipled, hubristic body, imposing liberal, secular values on an unwilling nation, was a mainstay of Nixon-era opponents of what at that time really was a relatively liberal Court�on busing, school prayer, abortion, free speech for Communists and antiwar protesters and the like, the rights of criminal defendants, the death penalty, and so on. But that is not today�s Court. We haven�t had a Court like that in forty years.

The decision about who should replace Justice Scalia, and who should fill the next vacancies on the Court, requires a judgment about the jurisprudence of the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts, not the Warren Court. Americans need to decide whether we wish to continue in the direction these courts have plotted or reverse course. To decide this, we need to understand something of what these courts have been up to. The past forty years have not been, to put it mildly, a steady march leftward from Roe to Obergefell. They have been years of dramatic changes, mostly rightward, mostly of low or moderate salience but often of enormous import. Both sides ought to want to tell the public their version of the story of these changes.

In this regard, the strategies of liberal politicians have generally been an enormous disappointment. Typically, their key move has been to focus on the possibility that a new conservative nominee might �overturn Roe vs. Wade.� I�m not that old, and I have heard that slogan more times than I can count. Perhaps it makes sense in terms of marketing. But it is deeply stupid. It doesn�t even capture what the current conservative court is doing in the area of abortion�gutting the right without overturning the case. Lately there has been a similar invocation of Citizens United on the left. Apparently some hope that any future Sanders or Clinton appointee would hypothetically �vote to overturn� that case. But this, too, captures only a small slice of what is at stake in the Court�s new libertarian First Amendment jurisprudence�or even specifically in its campaign finance jurisprudence. It certainly gives no hint about why you ought to care about Supreme Court appointments if you care about, say, mandatory arbitration, environmental protection, voting rights, or anything on an enormous and growing list of legal issues that may not be at the forefront of the culture wars, but that affect things that matter to Americans who care about politics.

We remake our constitutional and legal order in large part through �partisan entrenchment�: We elect Presidents who appoint Article III judges who make the changes through their decisions. There are various things to be said about this process both descriptively and normatively. Normatively, it seems to me that it works better, and produces outcomes with a stronger claim to legitimacy, if we can have a relatively more honest debate about what the alternatives look like: about how one can reasonably expect the Justices affiliated with and appointed by Presidents from each of the two major parties to behave.

If we are stuck instead in a conversation about out-of-control, unprincipled, hubristic liberal judicial activists (like Chief Justice Roberts, it would seem), then I expect the debate we are now entering will produce more heat than light. But perhaps producing heat is what Ted Cruz wants. It got him this far. If his side of this debate is a dominant voice, and especially if he becomes the Republican nominee on the strength of his strong constitutional views and values�a strategy he is now very publicly exploring�then there will be plenty of people to thank. But one who would deserve particular credit, more credit than anyone else helping to organize a movement from inside the confines of One First Street, is Justice Scalia.

TL;DR
We all know part of this SC poo poo is Scalia's fault, and we all know that if the roles were reversed, Democrats wouldn't seriously threaten to pull this poo poo.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 17:52

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

vyelkin posted:

Sandra Day O'Connor says the Republicans should get on with it and do their jobs.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/sandra-day-oconnor-obama-scalia-replacement/index.html

Not that it matters since they've moved way beyond even moderate Reaganism these days, but at least prominent people are speaking out against their strategy.

She's still my #1 pick for Troll Obama to nominate. She's not 100% anti-abortion which is reason enough for the far right to hate her, but seeing the GOP justify stonewalling a former justice would be amazing because the how can you honestly claim she's unqualified without coming across as the most partisan shill imaginable. Plus it'd mean you're also saying Reagan was wrong to appoint her.

It's a shame she retired (though with good reason) and if she was still on the bench I can only imagine how a lot of major decisions might've turned out. Hobby Lobby might have still been 5-4 in their favor but I'm not too sure on that. I could see her changing the outcome of the VRA being gutted though.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 18:32

1-800-DOCTORB: Nov 6, 2009

I still think Ted Cruz would be a better troll nomination. I would love for Ted to filibuster his own nomination.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 18:36

gohmak: Feb 12, 2004; cookies need love

Doctor Butts posted:

I thought this was a good read:

TL;DR
We all know part of this SC poo poo is Scalia's fault, and we all know that if the roles were reversed, Democrats wouldn't seriously threaten to pull this poo poo.

If the shoe was on the other foot Democrats would bite the bullet and remind the people that this is what happens when we allow a Republican president.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:31

Pillow Hat: Sep 11, 2001; What has been seen cannot be unseen.

What are the realistic chances Obama is nominated in the future, supposing that a Democrat is in the White House?

# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:38

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

Pillow Hat posted:

What are the realistic chances Obama is nominated in the future, supposing that a Democrat is in the White House?

Michelle will either kill him or divorce him.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:40

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Pillow Hat posted:

What are the realistic chances Obama is nominated in the future, supposing that a Democrat is in the White House?

Very low, unless there's a vacacy in like year one of the next presidency. He'll be 55 when he leaves office and you don't want to nominate someone much older than that since you want your nominee to last as long as possible. Plus he may not even be interested.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:43

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

I know, but you know how there are people who wake up every day and have to mentally come to terms that Obama is the president? Now it'll be that way until one of them dies.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:45

Pillow Hat: Sep 11, 2001; What has been seen cannot be unseen.

evilweasel posted:

Plus he may not even be interested.

I wondered about this.

Edit: I mean I think he would find the work enjoyable, but I guess the question is if he wants to be that busy and under stress. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:45

ZenVulgarity: Oct 9, 2012; I made the hat by transforming my zen

Pillow Hat posted:

I wondered about this.

Like a previous poster suggested, Michelle would kill him.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:47

Pillow Hat: Sep 11, 2001; What has been seen cannot be unseen.

I would love to read his opinions, though. Especially since he wouldn't be under any pressure to be particularly diplomatic.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 15:45

Scrub-Niggurath: Nov 27, 2007

Pillow Hat posted:

What are the realistic chances Obama is nominated in the future, supposing that a Democrat is in the White House?

As great of a troll as it would be to put Obama in one of the highest offices of power in government permanently, I wouldn't wish that on the poor guy, he deserves a much needed vacation from DC

# ? Feb 18, 2016 19:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Assassination of Antonin Scalia by the Coward Barack Obama

«‹›27 »