How likely is it that the Senate is going to pass to the Dems? I've barely seen any coverage of it, since it's a presidential year and not a mid-term.

Dems need to flip four seats. IL, WI, and PA are three they should be expected to get if they do well, OH or NH may be their best shot at the fourth. Of their own seats, maybe only NV is in play with Harry Reid retiring.

The only way I could see that scenario from happening is if Trump wins, but his fans only care about him and not downballot Republicans, and if enough anti-Trump Republicans are so disgusted by him that they stay home.

Kinda hard not to be annoyed by that wording given that Americans voted for Obama twice.

That's the dichotomy of the American system of government. The counterargument to Americans voting in Obama is that they also voted in a Republican majority into the Senate. And let's face it: if there was a GOP president and Dem Senate the roles would be completely reversed.

checks gonna check, balances gonna balance

I don't agree. I think most Democrats, at least the most powerful ones, would hold their tongues and see who was nominated. There was never this much talk about "we must stop everything Bush does." Democrats fought against the ideas and the actions, not the person.

LOL. What?!

Lame-Duck Obama's Supreme Court Appointee and F You All I Am Outta Here Short-List
1. Ralph Nader
2. "Kit", the hyper-liberal Thai tranny twink bartender he met on his malaysian bender
3. Bernie Sanders
4. Kareem Abdul Jabar
5. Roger Clinton Jr.

Am I mistaken in my impression that Scalia, for all his good, was pretty terrible when it came to the fourth amendment?

He's making his pitch.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ANz15lbuYr

Not the part of the public who's votes the Republicans aim at.

that was not well phrased, but the level of obstruction Republicans had for Obama vastly eclipses what democrats did with Bush. This makes sense, given the ideology.

I'd say he was a mixed bag on the Fourth Amendment. I don't think he particularly liked and was as passionate about it as he was other parts of the Constitution.

c'mon. it was the democrats that turned this entire process into an ideological litmus test to begin with. dick durbin's "because i disagree with this candidate on issue X this candidate is an unqualified political ideologue" came up both times with roberts and alito, despite their spotless pedigrees. it used to be whether the candidate was qualified, regardless of positions on certain topics. now, the candidate is put before congress and essentially made to testify about his or her personal beliefs on issues. it's a joke.

I mean, regardless, it doesn't really matter. Personally, I don't doubt that if the roles were reversed the positions would be as well, but it's irrelevant. It's the GOP's shitty luck that this happened while Obama was president, but that doesn't change anything. Barring the partisan considerations, there's no reason there shouldn't be a confirmation process.

The first really politicized confirmation hearing was probably Biden v. Bork a year before the 1988 election. Then the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hoopla a few years later doubled down on it.

im not saying one side is innocent, just that the level of and commitment to obstruction is significantly higher on the R side. and some of that is due to ideology - Dems are more likely to compromise to get something - even if it is just a basic level of functionality

If Ginsburg died in Febraury 2008 and you were a Democratic senator at that time, what do you do?

Be sad. Say, "I hope Bush nominates a candidate that we can confirm quickly so we don't drag this process out." Might not be what you're thinking, but it's what you say.