• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Loretta Lynch "Most Likely Candidate" to Replace Scalia

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch '''Most Likely Candidate''' to Replace Scalia - NBC News

A leading Supreme Court analyst thinks Attorney General Loretta Lynch is the "most likely candidate" to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Tom Goldstein, who runs the influential SCOTUSblog, had earlier predicted Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford would make the top of President Obama's shortlist. But in a revised blog post, Goldstein said he now believes Lynch is the leading contender.

Mr. Goldstein noted that tapping Lynch poses a couple of political problems for the Republicans if they wish to continue to stand by their obstructionist plan. For starters, Lynch's history as a prosecutor makes the notion of claiming that she is excessively liberal to be a difficult argument. Furthermore, Lynch would be the first African American Female nominated for the high court and the White House (as well as the DNC) would probably appreciate the amount of support that they would gain from women and minorities due to a public perception of an unfair treatment for such a person as Lynch.

However, I think that something else is going on here. Lynch provides the perfect "punching bag" for an initial candidate. As Mr. Goldstein notes, the historical precedent of nominating the first Black female and the subsequent attacks, that could be labled as racist or sexist, could prove beneficial in 2016. Additionally, Ms. Lynch already has experience being the punching bag after her exposure to the nomination process in 2015. Thus, even if the Republicans decide to expend a great deal of political capital denouncing an individual that many of them already approved, President Obama's chances of getting a subsequent nominee approved would increase significantly.
 
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch '''Most Likely Candidate''' to Replace Scalia - NBC News



Mr. Goldstein noted that tapping Lynch poses a couple of political problems for the Republicans if they wish to continue to stand by their obstructionist plan. For starters, Lynch's history as a prosecutor makes the notion of claiming that she is excessively liberal to be a difficult argument. Furthermore, Lynch would be the first African American Female nominated for the high court and the White House (as well as the DNC) would probably appreciate the amount of support that they would gain from women and minorities due to a public perception of an unfair treatment for such a person as Lynch.

However, I think that something else is going on here. Lynch provides the perfect "punching bag" for an initial candidate. As Mr. Goldstein notes, the historical precedent of nominating the first Black female and the subsequent attacks, that could be labled as racist or sexist, could prove beneficial in 2016. Additionally, Ms. Lynch already has experience being the punching bag after her exposure to the nomination process in 2015. Thus, even if the Republicans decide to expend a great deal of political capital denouncing an individual that many of them already approved, President Obama's chances of getting a subsequent nominee approved would increase significantly.

I don't believe Lynch will be a nominee. I think OBAMA's first nomination should be completely qualified and completely non-partisan. Nominating Lynch would be a bad move.
 
I don't believe Lynch will be a nominee.
I think OBAMA's first nomination should be completely qualified and completely non-partisan. Nominating Lynch would be a bad move.



I disagree. Nominating Lynch will be a great tactic and that's why I believe that Obama will do it.

How will the GOP look opposing a highly qualified Black female? Think about it.

If the GOP tries to block her they'll live to regret that.
 
President Obama would be an idiot - that's kind of redundant, I realize - and proven to be entirely politically motivated if he were to nominate Loretta Lynch as the replacement for Justice Scalia. Lynch was confirmed by the Senate last year by the slimmest of margins - 56-43 - and likely only because Eric Holder was totally despised by the Republicans and they were happy to show him the door and because a few moderate Republicans believe that a sitting President should have the cabinet officials he recommends.

Voting for a Supreme Court Justice would be an entirely different affair.
 
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch '''Most Likely Candidate''' to Replace Scalia - NBC News

Mr. Goldstein noted that tapping Lynch poses a couple of political problems for the Republicans if they wish to continue to stand by their obstructionist plan. For starters, Lynch's history as a prosecutor makes the notion of claiming that she is excessively liberal to be a difficult argument. Furthermore, Lynch would be the first African American Female nominated for the high court and the White House (as well as the DNC) would probably appreciate the amount of support that they would gain from women and minorities due to a public perception of an unfair treatment for such a person as Lynch.

However, I think that something else is going on here. Lynch provides the perfect "punching bag" for an initial candidate. As Mr. Goldstein notes, the historical precedent of nominating the first Black female and the subsequent attacks, that could be labled as racist or sexist, could prove beneficial in 2016. Additionally, Ms. Lynch already has experience being the punching bag after her exposure to the nomination process in 2015. Thus, even if the Republicans decide to expend a great deal of political capital denouncing an individual that many of them already approved, President Obama's chances of getting a subsequent nominee approved would increase significantly.




Loretta lynch? The very same Loretta lynch who wanted to prosecute people for saying mean things about Muslims?


That constitutional illiterate? That one? /facepalm
 
I disagree. Nominating Lynch will be a great tactic and that's why I believe that Obama will do it.

How will the GOP look opposing a highly qualified Black female? Think about it.

If the GOP tries to block her they'll live to regret that.

..and there in nutshell is how identity politics is played.... Let's ignore qualifications and focus on identity, let's ignore putting forth a nominee that BOTH parties can agree on and force one side or the other to oppose the nominee. Time to grow up people....
 
President Obama would be an idiot - that's kind of redundant, I realize - and proven to be entirely politically motivated if he were to nominate Loretta Lynch as the replacement for Justice Scalia. Lynch was confirmed by the Senate last year by the slimmest of margins - 56-43 - and likely only because Eric Holder was totally despised by the Republicans and they were happy to show him the door and because a few moderate Republicans believe that a sitting President should have the cabinet officials he recommends.

Voting for a Supreme Court Justice would be an entirely different affair.

So, Lynch was approved by a "mere" 56-43 margin for AG and that the AG is different from a supreme court justice and that is the full extent of your argument for why Obama would be idiot to nominate Lynch?
 
I think Congress will wait to do anything until after the upcoming election. Daley, delay, delay any confirmation hearings.

Then if the Democrats win, they can nominate whoever they like. If the Republicans, the same.
 
So, Lynch was approved by a "mere" 56-43 margin for AG and that the AG is different from a supreme court justice and that is the full extent of your argument for why Obama would be idiot to nominate Lynch?

I don't always agree with C.J. but on this issue he's right. Nominating lynch would be a completely partisan move. I'm not convinced she's "the best for the job" and I don't care about "BLACK WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT" so much as most qualified.
 
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch '''Most Likely Candidate''' to Replace Scalia - NBC News



Mr. Goldstein noted that tapping Lynch poses a couple of political problems for the Republicans if they wish to continue to stand by their obstructionist plan. For starters, Lynch's history as a prosecutor makes the notion of claiming that she is excessively liberal to be a difficult argument. Furthermore, Lynch would be the first African American Female nominated for the high court and the White House (as well as the DNC) would probably appreciate the amount of support that they would gain from women and minorities due to a public perception of an unfair treatment for such a person as Lynch.

However, I think that something else is going on here. Lynch provides the perfect "punching bag" for an initial candidate. As Mr. Goldstein notes, the historical precedent of nominating the first Black female and the subsequent attacks, that could be labled as racist or sexist, could prove beneficial in 2016. Additionally, Ms. Lynch already has experience being the punching bag after her exposure to the nomination process in 2015. Thus, even if the Republicans decide to expend a great deal of political capital denouncing an individual that many of them already approved, President Obama's chances of getting a subsequent nominee approved would increase significantly.

Politically safe choice for sure.
 
I don't believe Lynch will be a nominee. I think OBAMA's first nomination should be completely qualified and completely non-partisan. Nominating Lynch would be a bad move.

Based on the bolded, it would be totally impossible to nominate any one.
 
He could go with someone like Patricia Ann Millett (DC, US Court of Appeals.)
 
I disagree. Nominating Lynch will be a great tactic and that's why I believe that Obama will do it.

How will the GOP look opposing a highly qualified Black female? Think about it.

If the GOP tries to block her they'll live to regret that.

Because Blacks will no longer vote Republican?

I think he's going to hold out for some flavor of Muslim woman.
 
I disagree. Nominating Lynch will be a great tactic and that's why I believe that Obama will do it.

How will the GOP look opposing a highly qualified Black female? Think about it.

If the GOP tries to block her they'll live to regret that.

Remember how long the GOP held up the nomination of Lynch for AG last year ?
 
Because Blacks will no longer vote Republican?

I think he's going to hold out for some flavor of Muslim woman.

Try Indian-American man, with Governors Jindal and Haley at his side .
 
I disagree. Nominating Lynch will be a great tactic and that's why I believe that Obama will do it.

How will the GOP look opposing a highly qualified Black female? Think about it.

If the GOP tries to block her they'll live to regret that.

Who cares? If Obama nominated a freaking albino the left would still figure out a way to turn GOP disagreement into some kind of anti-black bias.
 
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch '''Most Likely Candidate''' to Replace Scalia - NBC News



Mr. Goldstein noted that tapping Lynch poses a couple of political problems for the Republicans if they wish to continue to stand by their obstructionist plan. For starters, Lynch's history as a prosecutor makes the notion of claiming that she is excessively liberal to be a difficult argument. Furthermore, Lynch would be the first African American Female nominated for the high court and the White House (as well as the DNC) would probably appreciate the amount of support that they would gain from women and minorities due to a public perception of an unfair treatment for such a person as Lynch.

However, I think that something else is going on here. Lynch provides the perfect "punching bag" for an initial candidate. As Mr. Goldstein notes, the historical precedent of nominating the first Black female and the subsequent attacks, that could be labled as racist or sexist, could prove beneficial in 2016. Additionally, Ms. Lynch already has experience being the punching bag after her exposure to the nomination process in 2015. Thus, even if the Republicans decide to expend a great deal of political capital denouncing an individual that many of them already approved, President Obama's chances of getting a subsequent nominee approved would increase significantly.

who thinks that someone who didn't even graduate with honors from Harvard law school (let alone not being an editor on the law review) really should replace a man who was First in his class in College, and first in his class at Harvard Law school?
 
Remember how long the GOP held up the nomination of Lynch for AG last year ?

that's because she was another affirmative action quota pick like Holder with even less credentials than Holder had
 
Who cares? If Obama nominated a freaking albino the left would still figure out a way to turn GOP disagreement into some kind of anti-black bias.



It was mighty nice of Justice Scalia to time his demise to be a huge benefit to the Democratic Party.

:lol:
 
I don't always agree with C.J. but on this issue he's right. Nominating lynch would be a completely partisan move. I'm not convinced she's "the best for the job" and I don't care about "BLACK WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT" so much as most qualified.

Not Law review at Harvard
NOt magna cum laude (HLS often has no Summa Cum Laude graduates in a given year)

SO how is she in the same league as Alito, or Sotomayor-both of whom were top in their classes at Princeton and Yale Law or even Kagan?
 
...... poses a couple of political problems for the Republicans if they wish to continue to stand by their obstructionist plan.

lol, are you on the payroll? democrats started "obstructionism" decades ago with Bob Bork. so is it "obstructionism" or just politics as usual?

Nominating lynch would be a completely partisan move. I'm not convinced she's "the best for the job"
you're not? lol
 
Last edited:
To hell with qualifications! Let's nominate Lynch because she's a WOMAN and BLACK!

Obungle doing this would not surprise me one bit. He likes picking people who have zero qualifications. As long as they know how to kiss his ass or tow the party line, that's all that matters.
 
Back
Top Bottom