Obama Considering Republican for Supreme Court: Nev. Gov. Supported Tesla Gigafactory

[Curt Renz]

Republican Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada is apparently being considered by President Obama for the Supreme Court vacancy. He is a friend of Tesla Motors who was instrumental in getting the Gigafactory located in Nevada, and overturning the state’s requirement that new cars be sold through franchised dealerships.

The late Justice Scalia preferred a soft interpretation of the US Constitution’s interstate commerce clause, and may not have been helpful in any Tesla suit against a state insisting that Tesla have franchised dealerships. Sandoval may be more attentive to Tesla’s arguments. Meanwhile, the Republican controlled US Senate may have a hard time avoiding Supreme Court nomination hearings involving a Republican governor of Mexican heritage.

Reuters Article

 

[335eye]

Not gonna happen. Congress is within its rights to not have hearings. For better or worse politics will prevail.

 

[bonnie]

Not gonna happen. Congress is within its rights to not have hearings. For better or worse politics will prevail.

Oh, I don't know.

Given the choice between 'we're so obstructionist that we wouldn't even consider a Republican' and 'a moderate Republican justice is better than taking a chance on a new Democrat president choosing a liberal justice' ... they might go for not appearing obstructionist & petulant (which hurts them during their own campaigns).

 

[nwdiver]

He is a friend of Tesla Motors who was instrumental in getting the Gigafactory located in Nevada, and overturning the state’s requirement that new cars be sold through franchised dealerships.

.... He also killed rooftop solar in his state...

 

[rolosrevenge]

.... He also killed rooftop solar in his state...

Which means he's the perfect centrist! He supported one green technology and killed another. Can't have too much of a good thing after all.

 

[deonb]

a moderate Republican justice is better than taking a chance on a new Democrat president choosing a liberal justice

If a Democrat wins the presidency it will just be 5 years or 9 years without a replacement. Unless Democrats also take 60 seats in the house - which isn't going to happen.

not appearing obstructionist & petulant (which hurts them during their own campaigns).

Uhh, no. Their entire platform is based on being obstructionist & petulant. That's why people vote for them.

 

[bonnie]

If a Democrat wins the presidency it will just be 5 years or 9 years without a replacement. Unless Democrats also take 60 seats in the house - which isn't going to happen.

Then they have the problem of a tied court, which means the lower court rulings will stand ... and those courts are statistically more liberal than SCOTUS. Plus there is a debatable provision in the Constitution that allows the President to temporarily appt a Justice, if the Congress is unnecessarily delaying a qualified appointment (that's how William Brennan originally got on the Court).

And if they're foolish enough to take longer than a scheduled 3 day recess during that time, game over. No vacations for them. Why? Because SCOTUS ruled, as part of a bigger ruling, that during a recess, the President can fill a vacancy - even if the vacancy happened well before the recess.

It's like a giant chess game! I don't think the 'obstruct no matter what' strategy was well thought out. Just the fact that the lower courts will prevail when SCOTUS deadlocks should be enough to ensure some action.

Also, one other interesting piece of info: Before Scalia died, he would have formed opinions and rulings that just haven't been heard (like all the justices do). IF there is another justice in the pipeline, then Scalia's unheard opinions on things like diversity, will stand. If there is NOT another justice in the pipeline, his opinions go out the window and the lower courts prevail. Which could be counter to what many Republicans want. The problem, of course, is right now no one knows exactly what he had in the pipeline. So another variable on this mess.

Just fascinating to follow. And definitely not as simple as blocking an appointment for the best outcome.

 

[Curt Renz]

If a Democrat wins the presidency it will just be 5 years or 9 years without a replacement. Unless Democrats also take 60 seats in the house - which isn't going to happen.

Only the Senate can provide advice and consent to a President's Supreme Court nomination. The House of Representatives plays no part. Currently there are 54 Republicans in the Senate, 44 Democrats and 2 independents including Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders who caucus with the Democrats.

 

[Joel]

Willam Brennan (Walter might have done a great job portraiting William) :smile:

Then they have the problem of a tied court, which means the lower court rulings will stand ... and those courts are statistically more liberal than SCOTUS. Plus there is a debatable provision in the Constitution that allows the President to temporarily appt a Justice, if the Congress is unnecessarily delaying a qualified appointment (that's how Walter Brennan originally got on the Court).

And if they're foolish enough to take longer than a scheduled 3 day recess during that time, game over. No vacations for them. Why? Because SCOTUS ruled, as part of a bigger ruling, that during a recess, the President can fill a vacancy - even if the vacancy happened well before the recess.

It's like a giant chess game! I don't think the 'obstruct no matter what' strategy was well thought out. Just the fact that the lower courts will prevail when SCOTUS deadlocks should be enough to ensure some action.

Also, one other interesting piece of info: Before Scalia died, he would have formed opinions and rulings that just haven't been heard (like all the justices do). IF there is another justice in the pipeline, then Scalia's unheard opinions on things like diversity, will stand. If there is NOT another justice in the pipeline, his opinions go out the window and the lower courts prevail. Which could be counter to what many Republicans want. The problem, of course, is right now no one knows exactly what he had in the pipeline. So another variable on this mess.

Just fascinating to follow. And definitely not as simple as blocking an appointment for the best outcome.

 

[bonnie]

Willam Brennan (Walter might have done a great job portraiting William) :smile:

Hahaha. I'm not even embarrassed. It's been a crazy day with hands typing faster than brain. But I am laughing at myself.

Thanks for the correction! Will fix it in the original, but your quote will stay for posterity.

 

[Joel]

:smile:

Hahaha. I'm not even embarrassed. It's been a crazy day with hands typing faster than brain. But I am laughing at myself.

Thanks for the correction! Will fix it in the original, but your quote will stay for posterity.

 

[335eye]

Oh, I don't know.

Given the choice between 'we're so obstructionist that we wouldn't even consider a Republican' and 'a moderate Republican justice is better than taking a chance on a new Democrat president choosing a liberal justice' ... they might go for not appearing obstructionist & petulant (which hurts them during their own campaigns).

You're right but the Republican Senate is so inept that as soon as they begin the process they'll get rolled, better to stonewall.

 

[CHGolferJim]

Don't understand why some people's political threads are immediately challenged and others aren't.

 

[bonnie]

Don't understand why some people's political threads are immediately challenged and others aren't.

I suspect it is because others quickly devolve into taking potshots at other forum members' political stances. So far this one is just about the potential paths (or lack of) towards a new SCOTUS justice.

 

[deonb]

Only the Senate can provide advice and consent to a President's Supreme Court nomination. The House of Representatives plays no part. Currently there are 54 Republicans in the Senate, 44 Democrats and 2 independents including Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders who caucus with the Democrats.

Sorry, you're right - I meant Senate, not House. The Democrats would need 60 senators to be able to do anything.

The entire game is rigged.

A conservatives platform is to prevent change. For that you only need 40 Senators. However, to enact change to pass a progressive platform you need 60.

So the senate rules fundamentally favors the conservative platform more - it's not just based on who is elected at the moment.

- - - Updated - - -

And if they're foolish enough to take longer than a scheduled 3 day recess during that time, game over. No vacations for them. Why? Because SCOTUS ruled, as part of a bigger ruling, that during a recess, the President can fill a vacancy - even if the vacancy happened well before the recess

Wow. Really? I'm surprised the media didn't pick up on this?

 

[Foghat]

Sorry, you're right - I meant Senate, not House. The Democrats would need 60 senators to be able to do anything.

The entire game is rigged.

A conservatives platform is to prevent change. For that you only need 40 Senators. However, to enact change to pass a progressive platform you need 60.

So the senate rules fundamentally favors the conservative platform more - it's not just based on who is elected at the moment.

- - - Updated - - -



Wow. Really? I'm surprised the media didn't pick up on this?

the media did pick up on this. As a matter of fact, congress was on recess all last week and president Obama could have slipped in a recess appointment then. However, he publicly announced he would not do a recess appointment, so that was that for the recess appointment.

president Obama is basically looking at the electorate pressure as being sufficient in ousting a lot of republicans if they block a Supreme Court justice from taking the bench this year. If they don't get the justice in, at least the democrats could potentially regain the majority in the senate as well as have a New Democratic president in office.

Secondly, Sandavol used to be a investor owned monopoly utility lawyer who advocated for raising electricity rates on electricity users to raise utility profits. He also was personally instrumental in expediting legislation with personal contact with warren buffet to buy nv energy in 2013 as governor. Warren buffet has been instrumental in a nationwide anti roof top solar competition campaign and recently orchestrated the dismantling or rooftop solar industry in Nevada. Sandavol's top advisors are nv energy lobbyists and his most recent appointee to the utiltiy commission worked for a company with current and pending contracts with nv energy.

Sandavol is also under investigation for having direct communications over email and text with NVE energy as well as commissioners over net metering decision that killed the rooftop solar industry.

After a little vetting, Sandavol will not get past the consideration phase, especially with the presidents CPP in 4-4 limbo in the Supreme Court.

 

[Doug_G]

Don't understand why some people's political threads are immediately challenged and others aren't.

It's very simple. We do allow reasonable political discourse when it is relevant to Tesla, EVs, energy policy, etc. As long as it stays reasonable and relevant, which unfortunately it often doesn't.

What we do NOT allow is partisan bickering. Which unfortunately many of these threads devolve into.

 

[emchen]

the media did pick up on this. As a matter of fact, congress was on recess all last week and president Obama could have slipped in a recess appointment then. However, he publicly announced he would not do a recess appointment, so that was that for the recess appointment.

president Obama is basically looking at the electorate pressure as being sufficient in ousting a lot of republicans if they block a Supreme Court justice from taking the bench this year. If they don't get the justice in, at least the democrats could potentially regain the majority in the senate as well as have a New Democratic president in office.

Is this the reason he didn't take the recess appointment approach? I couldn't understand why he didn't choose to troll the (R) Senate with a recess appointment. Would've been so satisfying to watch!

 

[Curt Renz]

Sorry, you're right - I meant Senate, not House. The Democrats would need 60 senators to be able to do anything.

The entire game is rigged.

A conservatives platform is to prevent change. For that you only need 40 Senators. However, to enact change to pass a progressive platform you need 60.

Actually, if the Democrats attain 51 seats in the Senate they would control the agenda and could advance consideration of a nomination. Sixty votes are not required to end a filibuster of a nomination, only a majority of 51.

- - - Updated - - -

Sandavol is also under investigation for having direct communications over email and text with NVE energy as well as commissioners over net metering decision that killed the rooftop solar industry.

After a little vetting, Sandavol will not get past the consideration phase, especially with the presidents CPP in 4-4 limbo in the Supreme Court.

Indeed, that and his veto of a gun purchase background check bill could quickly send his résumé to the oval office waste basket.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Is this the reason he didn't take the recess appointment approach? I couldn't understand why he didn't choose to troll the (R) Senate with a recess appointment. Would've been so satisfying to watch!

There's an 80% chance of him getting his nominee through and an 18.5% chance it's Hillary so no big hurry really. And the main priority is to have Republican Senators be seen as obstructionists, many of them are up for re-election this year.