The DNCC is already changing the rules to give her more delegates as seen in this article:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269879-ap-clinton-shores-up-superdelegate-votes

If she drops out, I tend to think the DNCC will change the rules again to allow Biden to run. During the general election, I see this being a very hard to win election for the Democrats regardless of who the nominee is. I think it would be hilarious if Hillary got the nomination and was then indicted.

I'm working on the instrument. I'll finish it at some point.

We'll see how it turns out. I don't put much stock into a lot of polls. I do think people are starting to see through Trump's grand standing. What really got people to like Trump was his lack of political correctness, his willingness to say whatever is on his mind. It is certainly nice, and refreshing, to hear someone say what's on their mind regardless of how it polls or what a focus group says. That being said, I want more than that from a candidate. I want to hear the substance and their positions. I don't think I'm alone in this.

Trump will continue to do well in the polls and he's certainly a political phenomenon, given that anytime he says something that would sink most campaigns, his poll numbers seem to rise. The potential exists for a brokered convention, but let's see how South Carolina goes.

Do find it rather ironic that many on the right have stated that they want the President to follow his responsibilities stated in the Constitution - except - in this situation of nominating a candidate for the SCOTUS.  Did hear Mr. McConnell mention something along the lines that the President should not propose a nominee and that the American people need to be involved in this decision.  Pretty weak argument since I believe the President and all the members of the Senate were indeed duly elected by the American people to make just these kinds of decisions.

I find it ironic that the President now suddenly cares about the Constitution because it's convenient for him.

That being said, when the President nominates someone the Republicans should give the nominee a hearing and an up or down vote. Unless that nominee is someone who is suitable and won't legislate from the bench, the Republicans should vote down on the merits.

It is absolutely clear that the President has the responsibility and ability to nominate a person for the SCOTUS.  I believe he could even do a recess appointment, although I not so sure if the timing is there.  The Senate can do what it pleases with the nomination, delay/defer, deny or approve.  That is completely within the Senate’s control.

He could make a recess appointment but I don't see that being likely right now. He's going to nominate someone first and see how it plays out.

So why would the leadership of the Senate urge the President to shirk his Constitutional responsibilities?  Is there a lack of qualified candidates?  Perhaps there isn’t enough time for the Senate to thoughtfully execute it’s own responsibilities in the process?  Is the Senate content with having an undermanned SCOTUS operate for more than a year, considering many of the important cases pending?  Believe that any logical and informed person would have to say no to all of these questions.  The only plausible reason remaining is ideology.  Do find it very intriguing that the majority leadership of Senate wishes to make it’s decisions based on ideology and not fact or reason.

Please cite for me where in the Constitution it specifies the number of Supreme Court justices required to operate the court.

This is a no lose scenario for the President.  By proposing a qualified nominee, the President can either have the nominee confirmed -or- we will have a situation unfold, for the whole county to see, just how the current Senate does it’s business.  Should the Senate decide to just ignore the Presidents nomination, the Democrats will have a golden opportunity to use that in the upcoming elections, I fear that will not play well for the Republicans.  Should the Senate decide to actually hold hearings on the nominee and drag it out for many months, a similar situation exists.  The Democrats will hammer on the qualifications and experience of the nominee, the Republicans will have, IMHO, a difficult time refuting this.  Again, it boils down to the fact that the Senate Republican leadership will be left with trying to justify a decision based on ideology, a difficult position to explain to the American public.

So the President should nominate someone and if the Republicans vote down on the merits then they are the bad guys? Please cite for me in the Constitution where the Senate is required to confirm a presidential nominee. While we're at it, please tell me what the qualifications and experience of the nominee will have that make it very hard to vote down. By that logic, anyone nominated should have qualifications and experience, just perhaps not the qualifications and experience that the Senate majority believes they should have.

Face it, I doubt anybody posting in this thread really wants a neutral judge on the bench, they want one that thinks lock step with them. The SCOTUS is very much a political arena and that is why they are appointed for life, so that they can potentially rise above partisan politics, but at the core, they still likely are who they are when they accepted the job. Some take the job very seriously and strive to be non partisan, and others see it as an opportunity.

I want a judge who will look at the issue presented and put some thought and analysis into the arguments and contrast that with what the Constitution says. I realize they're human and politics and personal interpretation comes into play. Don't we always hear about how issue X or Y shouldn't be a litmus test?

You can want what you want, but we get what we get.

Well now that's deep.

I'm just kinda surprised there's any debate on this at all - the sitting President gets to select Supreme Court Justices. Democracy in action.

If and when there's a Republican president, then he'll get to choose if and when another vacancy opens up.

It just seems so simple.

First, the President doesn't get to select Supreme Court justices, he gets to nominate them and it's up to the Senate to confirm them. There is no obligation that the Senate confirm the nominee. Second, a president doesn't get to choose if there is a vacancy on the court since they are lifetime appointments. Generally speaking, with death being the exception, Supreme Court justices try to retire during a presidency that is closely aligned to their ideology so that their replacement is also of the same ideology.

A President Cruz will have a difficult if not impossible task of getting anything through as the democrats hate him and half of the Republicans (including the majority of Senate Republicans) despise him.

The Republicans will be forced to support a President Cruz to some extent. They don't want to lose either house so they'll find a way to work with him.

I just turned it on and it seems to be a free for all on stage. The moderators seem to pit them against each other like in every other debate. I don't think we'll hear anything new.