Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[eagle1462010]

Find a libertarian Judge or Conservative Judge and nominate that one..............Presto.........nomination..........The Constitution requires vetting of a Life Time Appointment for a reason.......so the Senate can vote for or against the nominee from the executive............So the Senate has no obligation to appoint what is probably coming from Obama...

The Dems have stone walled in the past and had some thrown out............It's time for them to get a taste of their own medicine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch

have no details. But this is huge.

Well, there goes our privilege to bear arms.

Sad, very very sad.


.

Not if they are willing to use the Dems play book..........they can stall 10 months using the Dems on changing rules against them.

Absolutely nothing actually REQUIRES them to move any more expeditiously than they choose to, nor does anything require them to approve anyone before they're ready. It's not like approvals for Justices move all that particularly quickly, anyway. And it would not be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy for that length of time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In another 2013 interview, Scalia stated that "In order for capitalism to work, in order for it to produce a good and stable society, traditional Christian virtues are essential"

His time and mentality is over

You wish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If this had happened say 2-3 months before the election I'd say they could stall that long and not get beaten silly over it. Not now, it's too far away. 9 months away, almost a year. A stall like that would herald in a permanent break-down of US Constitutional government.

If one party can in effect rule on their own in perpetuity by delay this form of government has run its course. We will have reached a point where one cohort in the population has deemed their beliefs trump the Constitution or form of government we have.

Go read some history, this is how democracies end. Not with a big bang, but by slow strangulation.

I say they let Obama make a recess appointment, and the new justice will only serve until December. They will be out a job in January when the new Congress takes their seats.

I say, why give him any concessions at all if we can avoid it? If he can be kept from making a recess appointment, do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Uh, Oh....Who is Uncle Clarence Thomas going to lean on now that his mentor is gone?

I don't rejoice over anyone's death and my condolences to the bereaved. Looks like Obama has the last laugh after all and his Obamacare is all but guaranteed well into the 21st century, BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

R.I.P 'Tony"

Trump will get to appoint three more justices, at least. Ginzburg is not long for this world. Kennedy probably also won't last through two Trump terms. Of course, the court can do a lot of damage in the meantime.

So what?
It will now be 5 libs and 4 cons even if the R's do get the Presidency this fall.
Enough to do a lot of damage.

Technically, Kennedy is a mushy moderate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Find a libertarian Judge or Conservative Judge and nominate that one..............Presto.........nomination..........The Constitution requires vetting of a Life Time Appointment for a reason.......so the Senate can vote for or against the nominee from the executive............So the Senate has no obligation to appoint what is probably coming from Obama...

The Dems have stone walled in the past and had some thrown out............It's time for them to get a taste of their own medicine.

Obama himself tried to filibuster Alito, so I say rub his damned nose in it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Article Two of the United States Constitution places the power of appointing Justices with the President of the United States, stating:

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... 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..."​

More: Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Obama will be the president for the next 10 months - and the Constitution gives him the power to nominate Supreme Court justices. Will rabid Conservatives try to deny his choice for partisan reasons?

You miss that whole "advice and consent" part, or did you think that Obama had somehow turned the United States fully into the monarchy he so longs for?

The Senate is under no obligation to approve his nominations. There is nothing you can say that will make it different.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Article Two of the United States Constitution places the power of appointing Justices with the President of the United States, stating:

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... 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..."​

More: Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Obama will be the president for the next 10 months - and the Constitution gives him the power to nominate Supreme Court justices. Will rabid Conservatives try to deny him of that right?

Your damned skippy.

He can nominate away...getting a confirmation will be dicey

I am personally praying my hardest that the GOP grows a pair quickly.

 

[IsaacNewton]

If this had happened say 2-3 months before the election I'd say they could stall that long and not get beaten silly over it. Not now, it's too far away. 9 months away, almost a year. A stall like that would herald in a permanent break-down of US Constitutional government.

If one party can in effect rule on their own in perpetuity by delay this form of government has run its course. We will have reached a point where one cohort in the population has deemed their beliefs trump the Constitution or form of government we have.

Go read some history, this is how democracies end. Not with a big bang, but by slow strangulation.

I say they let Obama make a recess appointment, and the new justice will only serve until December. They will be out a job in January when the new Congress takes their seats.

I say, why give him any concessions at all if we can avoid it? If he can be kept from making a recess appointment, do it.

The Democrats, if they need to, can in a year block anyone a Republican president would nominate.

Cons you seem to think you live in a world where you always get what you want, like a child. Once again reality is going to slap you in the face.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Article Two of the United States Constitution places the power of appointing Justices with the President of the United States, stating:

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... 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..."​

More: Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Obama will be the president for the next 10 months - and the Constitution gives him the power to nominate Supreme Court justices. Will rabid Conservatives try to deny him of that right?

Your damned skippy.

He can nominate away...getting a confirmation will be dicey

I am personally praying my hardest that the GOP grows a pair quickly.

I wouldn't hold my breath

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Meltdown by a NYTimes writer.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yes, The Senate Arbitrarily Blocked A SCOTUS Nom Before—In The Mid-1800s



Senate Republicans can claim some precedence for blocking any of President Obama’s nominees to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia until a new president is elected—if they reach back to the mid-1800s.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Good! You can count to two. Maybe next week we will try for three!

And 4-4 ties can still benefit Obama.

Congress won't do anything
Repblicans need SCOTUS to invalidate Obama executive orders
4-4 ties won't do it

The first court to hear the case is NOT the Supreme Court. Their decision will hold.

That's assuming lower courts rule against Obama's executive orders.

Anyone with a room temp IQ can see that Obama is an ignoramus when it comes to the Constitution.

I think he just believes he doesn't NEED to know it, because he should be allowed to rule as king.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If this had happened say 2-3 months before the election I'd say they could stall that long and not get beaten silly over it. Not now, it's too far away. 9 months away, almost a year. A stall like that would herald in a permanent break-down of US Constitutional government.

If one party can in effect rule on their own in perpetuity by delay this form of government has run its course. We will have reached a point where one cohort in the population has deemed their beliefs trump the Constitution or form of government we have.

Go read some history, this is how democracies end. Not with a big bang, but by slow strangulation.

I say they let Obama make a recess appointment, and the new justice will only serve until December. They will be out a job in January when the new Congress takes their seats.

I say, why give him any concessions at all if we can avoid it? If he can be kept from making a recess appointment, do it.

The Democrats, if they need to, can in a year block anyone a Republican president would nominate.

Cons you seem to think you live in a world where you always get what you want, like a child. Once again reality is going to slap you in the face.

Yeah, sucks don't it! Elections have consequences. Now who was it that said that?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yeah, sucks don't it! Elections have consequences. Now who was it that said that?

All the crying Republicans after Obama whipped ass in 2012...the POTUS is now in place to Nominate a Supreme Court Justice

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah, sucks don't it! Elections have consequences. Now who was it that said that?

All the crying Republicans after Obama whipped ass in 2012...the POTUS is now in place to Nominate a Supreme Court Justice

Nope. Try again.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Senator Warren said in a statement, "Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did - when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes."

 

[Cecilie1200]

The timing could not be worse for the GOP, but the court cannot be left deadlocked for more than a year simply because the GOP is being childish. Doing so would clearly show that the GOP is only too happy to damage the country to get their way. Refusing to govern in a presidential election year, with 24 GOP Senate seats to defend would be a huge mistake. If they do, and they might, they will lose the Senate, lose the White House, and lose the chance to name the next SC Justice.

If McConnell follows through, refusing to allow an Obama's nomination to come to the Senate floor for a vote, he will be creating the longest vacancy in the history of the 9 man court. That will leave the left leaning 8 justice court to make crucial decision over the next year and possibly much longer if there's a democrat elected. Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

If the court has a tie vote on a case, then the ruling of previous federal court will stand. Court decisions can have a huge impact. Suppose the court was called to make a decision that would determine the presidency as they did with Bush vs. Gore and could not reach a decision.

Clearly the Republican Senate is placing their political aim of a more conservative court above their constitutional duty.

Disingenous.

Two vacancies occurred on the Supreme Court during Tyler's presidency, as Justices Smith Thompson and Henry Baldwin died in 1843 and 1844, respectively. Tyler, ever at odds with Congress—including the Whig-controlled Senate—nominated several men to the Supreme Court to fill these seats. However, the Senate successively voted against confirming John Canfield Spencer, Reuben Walworth, Edward King and John M. Read (King was rejected twice). One reason cited for the Senate's actions was the hope that Clay would fill the vacancies after winning the 1844 presidential election.[92] Tyler's four unsuccessful nominees are the most by a president.[104]
Finally, in February 1845, with less than a month remaining in his term, Tyler's nomination of Samuel Nelson to Thompson's seat was confirmed by the Senate. Nelson, a Democrat, had a reputation as a careful and noncontroversial jurist. Still, his confirmation came as a surprise. Baldwin's seat remained vacant until James K. Polk's nominee, Robert Grier, was confirmed in 1846.

Now, Smith Thompson died in December of 1843 and Henry Baldwin died in April of 1844. Thompson's seat was filled February of 1845, which by my math would be a vacancy of 14 months. Baldwin's seat was filled in August of 1846 by the next President, James Polk. That works out to 28 months, if I'm counting correctly.

Your attempt to limit it ONLY to the "9-man court" to try to make it look like the Senate has some obligation to allow the outgoing President to appoint Justices is duly noted, and summarily dismissed. It's reminiscent of "hottest summer in recorded history, so GLOBAL WARMING!", which leaves out the fact that we've only been tracking and recording such things for a few decades. And you already know how much respect we give THAT crap.

Let's all just keep in mind that our nation's history extends back well past the liberal saint, FDR, and is just as relevant.