Why Lindsey Graham is the Guy Obama Needs to Please in Replacing Souter

if the GOP tries to use this kind of (unprecedented) tactic to block an appointment to the supreme court, Obama should use his recess appointment power to seat the justice -- and every other nominee that the GOP has held up for every other position.

Like Specter, Souter is no loss to the conservative cause. Good riddance is what I say. Now we shall see more proof of Obama's far left liberal extremism. The perfect storm of reawakening the sane people of this country is soon to be a reality. The liberal extremists will hopefully go cowering back into the holes they popped out of like a swarm of locust.

plukasiak, not that it would come to that but this is what would happen with a recess appointment.

"When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate"

Jay Newton-Small:
.
Why wouldn't Harry Reid simply propose changing the Senate rules, a la the "nuclear option" threatened by Frist that got us the Gang of 14 in the first place?
.
Why would this rule --an extra-constitutional convention that virtually guarantees a minority "filibuster" right to block a nominee-- be so sacrosanct to Harry Reid?
.
This looks insane from an outsider's perspective:
.
Previously, Republicans threaten to change the rules; Democrats form a coalition to capitulate. A relatively unpopular Bush proclaims he possesses an overwhelming mandate to pack the Court to the right, and nominates accordingly. Two rightist SCOTUS nominees are through Judiciary Committee with no minority block; two rightist SCOTUS nominees are through the Senate vote without even the threat of a filibuster from Democrats, who weakly cast pointless show votes against the new Justices.
.
Now, when Democrats are within an appeal denial of a filibuster-proof legislative majority in the entire Congress, field a strong Presidency, and the Republicans are in "consolidate, retrench to the hard, loyal, minority right"-mode, "Rahm may want to put Graham's # on speed dial"?
.
In what reasonable world does Harry Reid not at least appear to be capitulating to the popular President, his party and the American people, instead of the former Clinton impeachment prosecutor from South Carolina, Republican Lindsey Graham?
.
What information is missing from my analysis, Jay Newton-Small?
Why wouldn't Harry threaten to change the rules?

If Obama comes up with a nominee opposed by the right
.
The right will oppose any Obama nominee, so by definition Obama will come up with a nominee opposed by the right.
.
Whatever happened to the chants of "up or down vote" that we used to hear?

Doh - I meant to close the "i" tag after the first quote.

Look at it another way: first Ed Henry, followed by the hapless Halperin, then an excitable Chris Cilizza and now JNS: why all this breathless reporting on a "fight" when a nomination isn't even on the table. Where does all this froth come from? Why the rush to proclaim a great fight? You guys gin up a fight to the finish on every issue.

Pres Obama's action thus far suggests that he is cautious, pragmatic and ready to fight if need be. But the press types seem to be ginning this as yet another "struggle". And this is day 1.

If Pres Obama catches a cold are we going to be discussing pneumonia?

Would Harry Reid buck the system to help a democrat? Has he so far?

I see that Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein have proclaimed a Court War, too. Bloody silly stuff.

Right now the Republican base is like the crazy drunk teen-ogling uncle that everyone wants to just shut up and disappear for a while, because moderates are seeing the crazy and abandoning the GOP in droves.
Having Sessions or Hatch carry the this "American Taliban's" water and pit themselves against Obama in a pissing contest over "activist judges" and code words for racism like "state's rights" honestly sounds like the worst case scenario for the GOP.
I say they go for it.

a uber liberal nominee -- some one the right goes to war on
-
The right has already declared war on spending during a recession, volcano monitoring, flu prevention, the stimulus package, Gov. Sebelius, loose tea, and God knows what else.
-
Of course they will mount a jihad. They're an extreme, unserious party. That is what they do.

JNS: I see that fund raising and morale are now important to the 21 per centers. These guys are not serious, are they. Looks like they have been inside the tent for far too long. They need to get out into the fresh air.Are we looking at a 21 per centers Jihad?

Thanks for reponding to comments, JNS.
.
How are these two statements compatible:
.
This option will only come into play if Obama appoints a[n] uber liberal nominee -- some one the right goes to war on.
.
the right is also desperate for a fight
.
I mean, do you really think the right would only "go to war" on an "uber-liberal" nominee? Unless "uber-liberal" means "less radical than Scalia."

Reid kind of shot himself in the foot with Burris by proclaiming the sanctity of the Senate rules then -- words that will come back to haunt him if he tries to change them now.
.
F@ck. F@ck!

Thanks so much for your response to commentary, Jay Newton-Small; it is very much appreciated.
.
I didn't see that last update.
.
If you'd rather respond to other commentary, I understand, but I'm still missing something:
.
Reid's words about the sanctity of Senate Rules would come back to haunt him
.
How likely is it that Reid's clumsy attempts to stop a criminal governor's appointment will be successfully used against him in the press? By whom would this stellar case against Reid be made, exactly?
.
this option will only come into play if Obama appoints a uber liberal nominee
.
Does Jacobson mean a nominee who is a left-leaning version of Sam Alito replacing another moderate like O'Conner?
.
Why would Obama and Reid doing what Bush and Frist did successfully in similar circumstances be wrong, either politically or on its merits?
.
The "right goes to war", and Harry Reid is truly hamstrung by Roland Burris, plus Obama's famous hard-ass Chief-of-Staff is compelled to send Lindsey Graham a bouquet of flowers and an "I love you" card? The Democrats meekly threaten a filibuster over Alito, and Republicans go on Meet The Press to calmly discuss the nuclear option?
.
Do you see how this reeks of some truly bizarre asymmetry, Jay Newton-Small? Do you see just how unreasonable this sounds to people outside the Beltway, even to neutral ?
.
Thanks again so much for your response, not just to me, but to other commenters as well --it is enlightening and clarifying.

when does Arlen officially become a member "of the majority"? Since he was appointed to the Justice Committee "by the minority", can't he retain his official "minority party" status indefinitely, while "unofficially" being a democrat?

Jay,
.
This kind of inside baseball reporting hurts America. It fosters the idea that this is the way it is and has to be and that's that.
.
Why don't you do a story on the best candidates for the job (not the most likely ones)? Why don't you do a story on where the supreme court has headed, and where smart people think it could and should go?
.
Instead, all posibilities are reverse-telescoped into this procedural BS. You guys did the same thing with the stimulus vote, and helped midwife a manifestly worse bill (per basically every academic economist).
.
You are helping ensure a worse court with this kind of irresponsible reporting.
.
Side note: Graham is not a moderate, whatever his PR people may say.

So, according to Senate rules, even if one party had 75 senators to the other parties 25, they think it makes sense to allow the minority on the Judiciary Committee (which, at that point, would be down to probably 6 or 7 members) a veto over a Supreme Court appointment. How screwed up is that? It's bad enough that the country has to put up with the undemocratic requirement for 60 votes in the full Senate to get almost anything passed. Is this what the Framers had in mind? Since when does everything require a supermajority? And don't get me started on my stupid state of California that requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature to pass the damn budget or raise taxes by even a nickel. We need someone to take the lead on returning us to the true democracy we were at our founding -- which means majority rule except for fundamental matters like equal protection and constitutional amendments. We have lost our way.

Sorry, that's "even to neutral folks?"

If the GOP insists on being playground-style oppositional Obama might just as well appoint whoever he wants. Giving Lindsey Graham veto power is not what we voted for.

Like Specter, Souter is no loss to the conservative cause. Good riddance is what I say. Now we shall see more proof of Obama's far left liberal extremism. The perfect storm of reawakening the sane people of this country is soon to be a reality. The liberal extremists will hopefully go cowering back into the holes they popped out of like a swarm of locust.
.
Biblical imagery, implied racism, veiled threats against the majority of the nation, mindless reiteration of Obama's political leanings, and grammatical errors.
.
A-
.
It would have been an A+ but he forgot to throw in a reference to socialism.

JNS: Thanks for the clarification. I still think there is something wrong with the framing: "Obama will be in trouble if he appoints a liberal" vs "GOP minority will block anyone who is not their brand of radicalism." Or does "liberal" just mean "opposed by the GOP"?
.
Also I think right/left is the wrong frame for the judicial branch.