[TreesAndBirds]

The rumored front runner, Sri Srinivasan, has 3 Stanford degrees. Sometime around 2000 I think we had 4 justices ( Rehquist, O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy), but Rehnquist and O'Connor have stepped off so need to re-stock. Lots of politics will be involved in this one though....

[TreesAndBirds]

The rumored front runner, Sri Srinivasan, has 3 Stanford degrees. Sometime around 2000 I think we had 4 justices ( Rehquist, O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy), but Rehnquist and O'Connor have stepped off so need to re-stock. Lots of politics will be involved in this one though....

[burger]

I saw Corey Booker mentioned, though he was not a leading candidate.

It's all moot anyway because the majority party in the senate has discovered a heretofore unknown clause of the constitution that permits the president from doing anything in his final year in office.

[burger]

I saw Corey Booker mentioned, though he was not a leading candidate.

It's all moot anyway because the majority party in the senate has discovered a heretofore unknown clause of the constitution that permits the president from doing anything in his final year in office.

[burger]

Anthony Kennedy, confirmed 97-0 in February 1988.

[burger]

Anthony Kennedy, confirmed 97-0 in February 1988.

[TreesAndBirds]

Anthony Kennedy, confirmed 97-0 in February 1988.

I  note that Kennedy was only confirmed after Robert Bork was denied confirmation  in a very acrimonious hearing.

And then-Senator  Obama voted against President Bush's two nominees, so it appears he believes that a president's nominees are not entitled to much deference.  Ironically one of the nominees Senator Obama voted against was CJ Roberts,  who ended up voting for and saving ObamaCare.

That said, I agree that the Senate should promptly move forward on the SC nomination, but both parties play these games.

For pure entertainment value I'd like to see Pres. Obama offer the nomination to Secretary Clinton. 😉

[TreesAndBirds]

Anthony Kennedy, confirmed 97-0 in February 1988.

I  note that Kennedy was only confirmed after Robert Bork was denied confirmation  in a very acrimonious hearing.

And then-Senator  Obama voted against President Bush's two nominees, so it appears he believes that a president's nominees are not entitled to much deference.  Ironically one of the nominees Senator Obama voted against was CJ Roberts,  who ended up voting for and saving ObamaCare.

That said, I agree that the Senate should promptly move forward on the SC nomination, but both parties play these games.

For pure entertainment value I'd like to see Pres. Obama offer the nomination to Secretary Clinton. 😉

[burger]

This is really simple: the "both sides do it" thing does not apply here.  Bork got a vote and lost, and his replacement got a vote and was easily nominated.  Obama's votes against Bush's nominees were meaningless theater, as the outcomes were never in doubt.

If Obama's nominees get a fair and prompt vote and can't get 50 votes, I won't complain.  But that option, in an unprecedented step, has already been taken off the table by McConnell.

Don't tell me it's just politics. This is something new under the sun.

[burger]

This is really simple: the "both sides do it" thing does not apply here.  Bork got a vote and lost, and his replacement got a vote and was easily nominated.  Obama's votes against Bush's nominees were meaningless theater, as the outcomes were never in doubt.

If Obama's nominees get a fair and prompt vote and can't get 50 votes, I won't complain.  But that option, in an unprecedented step, has already been taken off the table by McConnell.

Don't tell me it's just politics. This is something new under the sun.

[BostonCard]

We will see what happens.  Obama will nominate someone; McConnell can't prevent him from doing so.  Obama would be well served to nominate a relative moderate, and I suspect he will pick someone like Sri who has already been confirmed easily (Sri served under George Bush as well, so he would be a good pick).  I suspect McConnell will try to run out the clock regardless, but he does run the risk that Hillary (or even Bernie) will win the presidency and will nominate someone further to the left of whoever Obama nominates.  Plus there is a non-zero chance that Republicans lose their senate majority as they are defending more seats.

Scalia has been dead less than 24 hours.  I find all this politicking about his successor to be a bit distasteful.  Pay your respects to Scalia, who, whether you agreed with him philosophically or not, was a brilliant mind who had a dramatic impact on the court.  There's plenty of time to spin between now and when his successor is nominated, let alone before the next president is inaugurated.

BC

[BostonCard]

We will see what happens.  Obama will nominate someone; McConnell can't prevent him from doing so.  Obama would be well served to nominate a relative moderate, and I suspect he will pick someone like Sri who has already been confirmed easily (Sri served under George Bush as well, so he would be a good pick).  I suspect McConnell will try to run out the clock regardless, but he does run the risk that Hillary (or even Bernie) will win the presidency and will nominate someone further to the left of whoever Obama nominates.  Plus there is a non-zero chance that Republicans lose their senate majority as they are defending more seats.

Scalia has been dead less than 24 hours.  I find all this politicking about his successor to be a bit distasteful.  Pay your respects to Scalia, who, whether you agreed with him philosophically or not, was a brilliant mind who had a dramatic impact on the court.  There's plenty of time to spin between now and when his successor is nominated, let alone before the next president is inaugurated.

BC

[CornFed]

I will be surprised if Obama nominates Sri, if he is as centrist as the comments above might suggest.  I would expect the President to nominate an activist judge (I don't know if Sri can be described thusly).

[CornFed]

I will be surprised if Obama nominates Sri, if he is as centrist as the comments above might suggest.  I would expect the President to nominate an activist judge (I don't know if Sri can be described thusly).

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I will be surprised if Obama nominates Sri, if he is as centrist as the comments above might suggest.  I would expect the President to nominate an activist judge (I don't know if Sri can be described thusly).

Supreme Court appointments aren't my area of expertise but I would imagine having a Republican Congress will guarantee that Obama can't get a a liberal activist judge through.  The GOP likely wants another Scalia, which they won't get.  But someone in the middle (dare I say, apolitical?) would be a nice compromise.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I will be surprised if Obama nominates Sri, if he is as centrist as the comments above might suggest.  I would expect the President to nominate an activist judge (I don't know if Sri can be described thusly).

Supreme Court appointments aren't my area of expertise but I would imagine having a Republican Congress will guarantee that Obama can't get a a liberal activist judge through.  The GOP likely wants another Scalia, which they won't get.  But someone in the middle (dare I say, apolitical?) would be a nice compromise.

[CornFed]

I'd really, really like a pony for Christmas.  Unfortunately, all there is is this pile of pony dung.

[CornFed]

I'd really, really like a pony for Christmas.  Unfortunately, all there is is this pile of pony dung.

[82 Card]

Scalia spent a year as a visiting lecturer at SLS back in my days on the Farm. The affable, eloquent and brilliant man described in all the articles is the opposite of what I remember. I did not take a class with him but did catch some after class sessions in the hallway and got accounts from people in his class. My impression of the guy was as an ill-tempered boor. Being one of the more conservative students in the law school, I wanted to like him but could not.

Most likely, the Republicans will filibuster any nominee. The Republicans have moved so far right that most of them would consider anything other than another right wing activist judge to be a total loss. The possibility of a Bernie Sanders pick approved by a Democratic Senate would not be much of a deterrent against the Republican program to demolish the country. In fact, the true believers might actually prefer a Sanders pick, figuring it would cause a major disruption that would then enable a far right counter attack. The best Obama can do is make a selection that would cause maximum pain from the filibuster. A moderate person of color who has recently been approved unanimously would probably accomplish that.

[82 Card]

Scalia spent a year as a visiting lecturer at SLS back in my days on the Farm. The affable, eloquent and brilliant man described in all the articles is the opposite of what I remember. I did not take a class with him but did catch some after class sessions in the hallway and got accounts from people in his class. My impression of the guy was as an ill-tempered boor. Being one of the more conservative students in the law school, I wanted to like him but could not.

Most likely, the Republicans will filibuster any nominee. The Republicans have moved so far right that most of them would consider anything other than another right wing activist judge to be a total loss. The possibility of a Bernie Sanders pick approved by a Democratic Senate would not be much of a deterrent against the Republican program to demolish the country. In fact, the true believers might actually prefer a Sanders pick, figuring it would cause a major disruption that would then enable a far right counter attack. The best Obama can do is make a selection that would cause maximum pain from the filibuster. A moderate person of color who has recently been approved unanimously would probably accomplish that.

[BurgXXIII]

C'mon 82card, don't sugarcoat it.

[BurgXXIII]

C'mon 82card, don't sugarcoat it.

[CornFed]

Scalia spent a year as a visiting lecturer at SLS back in my days on the Farm. The affable, eloquent and brilliant man described in all the articles is the opposite of what I remember. I did not take a class with him but did catch some after class sessions in the hallway and got accounts from people in his class. My impression of the guy was as an ill-tempered boor. Being one of the more conservative students in the law school, I wanted to like him but could not.

Most likely, the Republicans will filibuster any nominee. The Republicans have moved so far right that most of them would consider anything other than another right wing activist judge to be a total loss. The possibility of a Bernie Sanders pick approved by a Democratic Senate would not be much of a deterrent against the Republican program to demolish the country. In fact, the true believers might actually prefer a Sanders pick, figuring it would cause a major disruption that would then enable a far right counter attack. The best Obama can do is make a selection that would cause maximum pain from the filibuster. A moderate person of color who has recently been approved unanimously would probably accomplish that.

Fat chance.  Do you actually believe that Republicans have moved any further right than their opposition has moved left?  The chasm of division between the two parties has been widened by this President and I do not expect him to start acting in a reasonable manner at this point.

[CornFed]

Scalia spent a year as a visiting lecturer at SLS back in my days on the Farm. The affable, eloquent and brilliant man described in all the articles is the opposite of what I remember. I did not take a class with him but did catch some after class sessions in the hallway and got accounts from people in his class. My impression of the guy was as an ill-tempered boor. Being one of the more conservative students in the law school, I wanted to like him but could not.

Most likely, the Republicans will filibuster any nominee. The Republicans have moved so far right that most of them would consider anything other than another right wing activist judge to be a total loss. The possibility of a Bernie Sanders pick approved by a Democratic Senate would not be much of a deterrent against the Republican program to demolish the country. In fact, the true believers might actually prefer a Sanders pick, figuring it would cause a major disruption that would then enable a far right counter attack. The best Obama can do is make a selection that would cause maximum pain from the filibuster. A moderate person of color who has recently been approved unanimously would probably accomplish that.

Fat chance.  Do you actually believe that Republicans have moved any further right than their opposition has moved left?  The chasm of division between the two parties has been widened by this President and I do not expect him to start acting in a reasonable manner at this point.

[burger]

Do you actually believe that Republicans have moved any further right than their opposition has moved left?  The chasm of division between the two parties has been widened by this President and I do not expect him to start acting in a reasonable manner at this point.

Um, yeah, I do.  And political scientists do, too.  Check out these graphs of the DW-NOMINATE system developed by political scientists to measure ideologies of senators and representatives:

http://voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm

Republicans have gotten extreme.  Democrats have shifted a little to the left.  There's no comparison between the two parties.

[burger]

Do you actually believe that Republicans have moved any further right than their opposition has moved left?  The chasm of division between the two parties has been widened by this President and I do not expect him to start acting in a reasonable manner at this point.

Um, yeah, I do.  And political scientists do, too.  Check out these graphs of the DW-NOMINATE system developed by political scientists to measure ideologies of senators and representatives:

http://voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm

Republicans have gotten extreme.  Democrats have shifted a little to the left.  There's no comparison between the two parties.

[Leftcoast]

Yes, I do believe the Republican Party has moved very, very far to the right. 

Reagan would be called a RINO (Republican in name only) if he held his views and his record today.  He supported limited gun control (Brady bill), immigration reform including amnesty, negotiations and compromises with Democrats (Tip O'Neil and Reagan-legendary) and even raised taxes.  Of course he also said, "Government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem." 

There's a Reagan quote for everybody and his public bravado often didn't match his back room pragmatism so Reagan now is the ultimate republican Gumby - twistable to fit any viewpoint.  It doesn't hurt that like Gumby when taken out of the toy box and put on the modern campaign trail to provide a helpful sound bite he can't object.  The fit with the current crop of conservatives is Procrustean.  Look at the rancor of last night's debate and wonder how Reagan running now as Ronald "Smith" would have fared given his record on gun rights and immigration alone.

In my opinion this year's crop of Republicans also lack their idol's hopeful perspective and humor. Quantifying bitterness and vision is a subjective exercise so this may be only my opinion and like assumptions and certain orifices everyone has one of those.  Take mine for what little it's worth.

[Leftcoast]

Yes, I do believe the Republican Party has moved very, very far to the right. 

Reagan would be called a RINO (Republican in name only) if he held his views and his record today.  He supported limited gun control (Brady bill), immigration reform including amnesty, negotiations and compromises with Democrats (Tip O'Neil and Reagan-legendary) and even raised taxes.  Of course he also said, "Government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem." 

There's a Reagan quote for everybody and his public bravado often didn't match his back room pragmatism so Reagan now is the ultimate republican Gumby - twistable to fit any viewpoint.  It doesn't hurt that like Gumby when taken out of the toy box and put on the modern campaign trail to provide a helpful sound bite he can't object.  The fit with the current crop of conservatives is Procrustean.  Look at the rancor of last night's debate and wonder how Reagan running now as Ronald "Smith" would have fared given his record on gun rights and immigration alone.

In my opinion this year's crop of Republicans also lack their idol's hopeful perspective and humor. Quantifying bitterness and vision is a subjective exercise so this may be only my opinion and like assumptions and certain orifices everyone has one of those.  Take mine for what little it's worth.

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156517#msg156517 date=1455508450]Do you actually believe that Republicans have moved any further right than their opposition has moved left?  The chasm of division between the two parties has been widened by this President and I do not expect him to start acting in a reasonable manner at this point.

Um, yeah, I do.  And political scientists do, too.  Check out these graphs of the DW-NOMINATE system developed by political scientists to measure ideologies of senators and representatives:

http://voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm

Republicans have gotten extreme.  Democrats have shifted a little to the left.  There's no comparison between the two parties.
[/quote]

Agree, agree, agree.  Just ask Bernie Sanders how radically "left" Clinton and Obama have moved.  Considering that key components of Obama's landmark legislation were based on the medical reforms of a Republican Governor (and later candidate for the Presidency); considering that "radically liberal" ideas like "Cap & Trade" for greenhouse admissions have roots in conservative think tanks that wanted to apply mechanisms with a grounding in free market economic thinking...yes, I think the Republicans have moved far more to the right than the Dems have moved to the left.  But at this point, anytime that Obama opens his mouth the other party casts as what comes out as Socialist demagoguery.  If people truly want to believe that, I think they are not paying attention.

Of course, the study cited above, by Political Scientists, will be dismissed as simply the work of pointy-headed liberal intellectuals.  Besides the media, what other group is easier to dismiss?

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156517#msg156517 date=1455508450]Do you actually believe that Republicans have moved any further right than their opposition has moved left?  The chasm of division between the two parties has been widened by this President and I do not expect him to start acting in a reasonable manner at this point.

Um, yeah, I do.  And political scientists do, too.  Check out these graphs of the DW-NOMINATE system developed by political scientists to measure ideologies of senators and representatives:

http://voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm

Republicans have gotten extreme.  Democrats have shifted a little to the left.  There's no comparison between the two parties.
[/quote]

Agree, agree, agree.  Just ask Bernie Sanders how radically "left" Clinton and Obama have moved.  Considering that key components of Obama's landmark legislation were based on the medical reforms of a Republican Governor (and later candidate for the Presidency); considering that "radically liberal" ideas like "Cap & Trade" for greenhouse admissions have roots in conservative think tanks that wanted to apply mechanisms with a grounding in free market economic thinking...yes, I think the Republicans have moved far more to the right than the Dems have moved to the left.  But at this point, anytime that Obama opens his mouth the other party casts as what comes out as Socialist demagoguery.  If people truly want to believe that, I think they are not paying attention.

Of course, the study cited above, by Political Scientists, will be dismissed as simply the work of pointy-headed liberal intellectuals.  Besides the media, what other group is easier to dismiss?

[winflop]

I saw Corey Booker mentioned, though he was not a leading candidate.

It's all moot anyway because the majority party in the senate has discovered a heretofore unknown clause of the constitution that permits the president from doing anything in his final year in office.

Try again there.  Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and [b]by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law[/b]: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Obama can nominate anyone he wants, but without confirmation by the Senate it ain't happening.  It's how the system is designed.

[winflop]

I saw Corey Booker mentioned, though he was not a leading candidate.

It's all moot anyway because the majority party in the senate has discovered a heretofore unknown clause of the constitution that permits the president from doing anything in his final year in office.

Try again there.  Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and [b]by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law[/b]: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Obama can nominate anyone he wants, but without confirmation by the Senate it ain't happening.  It's how the system is designed.

[81alum]

For pure entertainment value I'd like to see Pres. Obama offer the nomination to Secretary Clinton. 😉

How about Obama resigns and Biden appoints him to the SC?

Or the Republicans stall this for a year and Hillary wins the Presidency and nominates Obama. 

“I mean, he’s brilliant, he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor,” she added. “So he’s got all the credentials, but we would have to get a Democratic Senate to get him confirmed.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...eme-court/

As for the delay, the liberal wing will be just fine with a 4-4 deadlock indefinitely.  If the Republicans are too unreasonable about confirming a democratic nominee, the Democrats could respond in kind should a Republican win the Presidency.  After all, the Senate is specifically constructed to create inertia.

Perhaps Obama can find an Earl Warren type nominee--someone with conservative Republican credentials who has a secret agenda to remake the nation on the principle of fairness.

[81alum]

For pure entertainment value I'd like to see Pres. Obama offer the nomination to Secretary Clinton. 😉

How about Obama resigns and Biden appoints him to the SC?

Or the Republicans stall this for a year and Hillary wins the Presidency and nominates Obama. 

“I mean, he’s brilliant, he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor,” she added. “So he’s got all the credentials, but we would have to get a Democratic Senate to get him confirmed.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...eme-court/

As for the delay, the liberal wing will be just fine with a 4-4 deadlock indefinitely.  If the Republicans are too unreasonable about confirming a democratic nominee, the Democrats could respond in kind should a Republican win the Presidency.  After all, the Senate is specifically constructed to create inertia.

Perhaps Obama can find an Earl Warren type nominee--someone with conservative Republican credentials who has a secret agenda to remake the nation on the principle of fairness.

[socalstanfan1]

I don't see how this ends well for the Republicans.  Their hold on the Senate is tenuous to begin with, and in recent presidential-year elections the Democrats have done a much better job of turning out the vote.  The Republican party is looking incredibly fragmented, which generally doesn't bode well for turn-out-the-vote efforts: nominate a centrist, establishment candidate, and the far-right turnout is tepid (see McCain and Romney election bids); nominate the far-right candidate and lose the center, plus pretty much any moderate independent voter.  Then, add in a Senate bid to obstruct the nomination of a Supreme Court justice (and that is certainly how I would spin it if I'm a Democrat, as "obstruction"), and you've given the Democrats a prime issue for rallying their own base. 

Also, I doubt that the majority of Americans see Sotomayor and Kagan as "radical" or "out of the mainstream" justices.  Referring to them in that way, particularly Sotomayor, allows the Democrats to drive home the point that it is the Republicans who are out of step with the general electorate, and as a party out of step with the fastest growing sector of the electorate.  Given narrowness of the Republican path to the White House, the GOP may well stop the nomination of another Obama justice, but at the same time lose both their latest shot at the White House, as well as their hold on the Senate.

[socalstanfan1]

I don't see how this ends well for the Republicans.  Their hold on the Senate is tenuous to begin with, and in recent presidential-year elections the Democrats have done a much better job of turning out the vote.  The Republican party is looking incredibly fragmented, which generally doesn't bode well for turn-out-the-vote efforts: nominate a centrist, establishment candidate, and the far-right turnout is tepid (see McCain and Romney election bids); nominate the far-right candidate and lose the center, plus pretty much any moderate independent voter.  Then, add in a Senate bid to obstruct the nomination of a Supreme Court justice (and that is certainly how I would spin it if I'm a Democrat, as "obstruction"), and you've given the Democrats a prime issue for rallying their own base. 

Also, I doubt that the majority of Americans see Sotomayor and Kagan as "radical" or "out of the mainstream" justices.  Referring to them in that way, particularly Sotomayor, allows the Democrats to drive home the point that it is the Republicans who are out of step with the general electorate, and as a party out of step with the fastest growing sector of the electorate.  Given narrowness of the Republican path to the White House, the GOP may well stop the nomination of another Obama justice, but at the same time lose both their latest shot at the White House, as well as their hold on the Senate.

[81alum]

Fat chance.  Do you actually believe that Republicans have moved any further right than their opposition has moved left?  The chasm of division between the two parties has been widened by this President and I do not expect him to start acting in a reasonable manner at this point.

Many ideology surveys show only minimal change among Americans over the last 50 years on political ideology.  BUT there have been major shifts right and left by elected officials.  This has been driven primarily by increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering of districts, made possible by modern computing and increasingly sophisticated data sets.  Ideologically safe districts allow candidates to cater to the middle of their party's ideology rather than to the middle of the district's ideology.  It will be interesting to see if California's "top two" primary system gradually chances that.  All that said, the Senate is the only legislative body in the nation that cannot be gerrymandered, since state lines cannot be redrawn.  It should theoretically be more resistant to the extremes of American politics.  On the other hand, unlike the House, it has granted itself the filibuster rule which allows for a form of minority rule.  Nothing undermines the spirit of compromise more than the filibuster--which has grown in use over the last fifty years.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/454162/ris...ning-chart

As for Obama--or Sanders for that matter--neither is really more left wing than FDR or LBJ on domestic policy.  Just listen to FDR's 1944 State of the Union for comparison.  If you do, it is hard to conclude that Obama has gone any further than FDR--who first proposed national health care.

[81alum]

Fat chance.  Do you actually believe that Republicans have moved any further right than their opposition has moved left?  The chasm of division between the two parties has been widened by this President and I do not expect him to start acting in a reasonable manner at this point.

Many ideology surveys show only minimal change among Americans over the last 50 years on political ideology.  BUT there have been major shifts right and left by elected officials.  This has been driven primarily by increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering of districts, made possible by modern computing and increasingly sophisticated data sets.  Ideologically safe districts allow candidates to cater to the middle of their party's ideology rather than to the middle of the district's ideology.  It will be interesting to see if California's "top two" primary system gradually chances that.  All that said, the Senate is the only legislative body in the nation that cannot be gerrymandered, since state lines cannot be redrawn.  It should theoretically be more resistant to the extremes of American politics.  On the other hand, unlike the House, it has granted itself the filibuster rule which allows for a form of minority rule.  Nothing undermines the spirit of compromise more than the filibuster--which has grown in use over the last fifty years.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/454162/ris...ning-chart

As for Obama--or Sanders for that matter--neither is really more left wing than FDR or LBJ on domestic policy.  Just listen to FDR's 1944 State of the Union for comparison.  If you do, it is hard to conclude that Obama has gone any further than FDR--who first proposed national health care.

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156517#msg156517 date=1455508450]
Fat chance.  Do you actually believe that Republicans have moved any further right than their opposition has moved left?  The chasm of division between the two parties has been widened by this President and I do not expect him to start acting in a reasonable manner at this point.

Many ideology surveys show only minimal change among Americans over the last 50 years on political ideology.  BUT there have been major shifts right and left by elected officials.  This has been driven primarily by increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering of districts, made possible by modern computing and increasingly sophisticated data sets.  Ideologically safe districts allow candidates to cater to the middle of their party's ideology rather than to the middle of the district's ideology.  It will be interesting to see if California's "top two" primary system gradually chances that.  All that said, the Senate is the only legislative body in the nation that cannot be gerrymandered, since state lines cannot be redrawn.  It should theoretically be more resistant to the extremes of American politics.  On the other hand, unlike the House, it has granted itself the filibuster rule which allows for a form of minority rule.  Nothing undermines the spirit of compromise more than the filibuster--which has grown in use over the last fifty years.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/454162/ris...ning-chart

As for Obama--or Sanders for that matter--neither is really more left wing than FDR or LBJ on domestic policy.  Just listen to FDR's 1944 State of the Union for comparison.  If you do, it is hard to conclude that Obama has gone any further than FDR--who first proposed national health care.
[/quote]

I agree with you on the historical perspective, though I suspect many current conservatives would consider FDR a socialist.  More difficult to paint as "liberal" in my mind is Obama's signing the largest free-trade agreement in American history, over the objections of unions and environmentalists.  How a president who does that is presented as a closet socialist is beyond me.  Where the US HAS trended more liberal is on social issues, particularly gay rights.  But in this case, I think Obama and the Democrats are following public opinion (particularly the opinions of people under 40), rather than drifting far from the mainstream.

[socalstanfan1]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14611.msg156517#msg156517 date=1455508450]
Fat chance.  Do you actually believe that Republicans have moved any further right than their opposition has moved left?  The chasm of division between the two parties has been widened by this President and I do not expect him to start acting in a reasonable manner at this point.

Many ideology surveys show only minimal change among Americans over the last 50 years on political ideology.  BUT there have been major shifts right and left by elected officials.  This has been driven primarily by increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering of districts, made possible by modern computing and increasingly sophisticated data sets.  Ideologically safe districts allow candidates to cater to the middle of their party's ideology rather than to the middle of the district's ideology.  It will be interesting to see if California's "top two" primary system gradually chances that.  All that said, the Senate is the only legislative body in the nation that cannot be gerrymandered, since state lines cannot be redrawn.  It should theoretically be more resistant to the extremes of American politics.  On the other hand, unlike the House, it has granted itself the filibuster rule which allows for a form of minority rule.  Nothing undermines the spirit of compromise more than the filibuster--which has grown in use over the last fifty years.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/454162/ris...ning-chart

As for Obama--or Sanders for that matter--neither is really more left wing than FDR or LBJ on domestic policy.  Just listen to FDR's 1944 State of the Union for comparison.  If you do, it is hard to conclude that Obama has gone any further than FDR--who first proposed national health care.
[/quote]

I agree with you on the historical perspective, though I suspect many current conservatives would consider FDR a socialist.  More difficult to paint as "liberal" in my mind is Obama's signing the largest free-trade agreement in American history, over the objections of unions and environmentalists.  How a president who does that is presented as a closet socialist is beyond me.  Where the US HAS trended more liberal is on social issues, particularly gay rights.  But in this case, I think Obama and the Democrats are following public opinion (particularly the opinions of people under 40), rather than drifting far from the mainstream.