Not dead a day and The Obamanation intends to nominate successor for Scalia on Supreme Court: CNN

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"President Barack Obama intends to nominate a Supreme Court justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy, CNN reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources."

As authorized to do by the Constitution and reflecting the will of the American people, the majority of whom reelected him to a second term.

If the majority of the people didn't want the president to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, they had the opportunity in 2012 to elect someone else president; they chose to do otherwise.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Let me get this straight. Scalia was admired for his strict adherence to the literal constitution of the United States. According to the constitution, the President appoints justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Why are Conservatives, who admired Scalia the most and justly for his commitment to the constitution, so quick to repress the constitution by opposing the enumerated powers of the President in appointing a Justice?

What's the Conservative priority? Strong adherence to the constitution, or amassing no political power? Where are the Conservative constitutionalists?

if you dont understand the answer to what you just asked, you are part of the reason whats happening is happening.
obama is not looking for a justice that will follow the constitution, he is looking for those that will follow his personal desires.

Isn't that what confirmation by the Senate is supposed to determine? The qualifications of the night nominee?

My suggestion is to follow the constitution and not the partisan whims of either political ideology. Surely you cannot say that all the justices are not qualified to be on the bench. Or perhaps you believe that partisanship rather than judicial qualifications are more likely to important?

Obama needs to appoint a Conservative Italian America and he'll get approved by the Senate. It's that simple

no, he needs to appoint someone that has proven themselves to follow the law as written and has not used the bench to push his own personal views.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

reading the responses here only confirms my suspicions that the vast majority here do not have a clue how our government is supposed to work.
can anyone tell me why the justices are not able to be fired by the president?
(actually there is a way for them to be removed but its pretty hard)
What is the purpose of the supreme court? is it to work with the other branches? is it to agree with the other branches or is it to protect the integrity of the constitution by ruling on cases that may or may not violate that same constitution.
If it is the last, then how can anyone agree that appointing a justice based on his/her personal view on various things, or by their affiliation to party can be a good thing. It cant. It wouldn't be good if the right did it, and its no good when the left does it either.

 

[Jroc]

"President Barack Obama intends to nominate a Supreme Court justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy, CNN reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources."

As authorized to do by the Constitution and reflecting the will of the American people, the majority of whom reelected him to a second term.

If the majority of the people didn't want the president to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, they had the opportunity in 2012 to elect someone else president; they chose to do otherwise.

the majority elected a republican senate to block his marxist ass two years later

 

[Maryland Patriot]

"President Barack Obama intends to nominate a Supreme Court justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy, CNN reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources."

As authorized to do by the Constitution and reflecting the will of the American people, the majority of whom reelected him to a second term.

If the majority of the people didn't want the president to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, they had the opportunity in 2012 to elect someone else president; they chose to do otherwise.

the majority elected a republican senate to block his marxist ass two years later

I would call that a mandate.

 

[jillian]

Let me get this straight. Scalia was admired for his strict adherence to the literal constitution of the United States. According to the constitution, the President appoints justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Why are Conservatives, who admired Scalia the most and justly for his commitment to the constitution, so quick to repress the constitution by opposing the enumerated powers of the President in appointing a Justice?

What's the Conservative priority? Strong adherence to the constitution, or amassing no political power? Where are the Conservative constitutionalists?

if you dont understand the answer to what you just asked, you are part of the reason whats happening is happening.
obama is not looking for a justice that will follow the constitution, he is looking for those that will follow his personal desires.

Isn't that what confirmation by the Senate is supposed to determine? The qualifications of the night nominee?

My suggestion is to follow the constitution and not the partisan whims of either political ideology. Surely you cannot say that all the justices are not qualified to be on the bench. Or perhaps you believe that partisanship rather than judicial qualifications are more likely to important?

Obama needs to appoint a Conservative Italian America and he'll get approved by the Senate. It's that simple

no, he needs to appoint someone that has proven themselves to follow the law as written and has not used the bench to push his own personal views.

you mean and not overturn 200 years of jurisprudence with cases like heller and hobby lobby? i agree.

for the record, he needs to nominate the kind of judge he was elected TWICE to put on the bench.

if democrats said a republican president should appoint a "liberal" judge, you'd laugh your butts off.

now we're laughing at you... seriously. the arrogance of the rightwing fringe....

 

[jillian]

"President Barack Obama intends to nominate a Supreme Court justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy, CNN reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources."

As authorized to do by the Constitution and reflecting the will of the American people, the majority of whom reelected him to a second term.

If the majority of the people didn't want the president to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, they had the opportunity in 2012 to elect someone else president; they chose to do otherwise.

the majority elected a republican senate to block his marxist ass two years later

I would call that a mandate.

really? when the president was elected twice by a majority of voters?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Let me get this straight. Scalia was admired for his strict adherence to the literal constitution of the United States. According to the constitution, the President appoints justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Why are Conservatives, who admired Scalia the most and justly for his commitment to the constitution, so quick to repress the constitution by opposing the enumerated powers of the President in appointing a Justice?

What's the Conservative priority? Strong adherence to the constitution, or amassing no political power? Where are the Conservative constitutionalists?

if you dont understand the answer to what you just asked, you are part of the reason whats happening is happening.
obama is not looking for a justice that will follow the constitution, he is looking for those that will follow his personal desires.

Isn't that what confirmation by the Senate is supposed to determine? The qualifications of the night nominee?

My suggestion is to follow the constitution and not the partisan whims of either political ideology. Surely you cannot say that all the justices are not qualified to be on the bench. Or perhaps you believe that partisanship rather than judicial qualifications are more likely to important?

Obama needs to appoint a Conservative Italian America and he'll get approved by the Senate. It's that simple

no, he needs to appoint someone that has proven themselves to follow the law as written and has not used the bench to push his own personal views.

you mean and not overturn 200 years of jurisprudence with cases like heller and hobby lobby? i agree.

for the record, he needs to nominate the kind of judge he was elected TWICE to put on the bench.

if democrats said a republican president should appoint a "liberal" judge, you'd laugh your butts off.

now we're laughing at you... seriously. the arrogance of the rightwing fringe....

well theres your problem.
You cant comprehend what you read.
makes sense when it comes to your total lack of understanding the actual role of the supreme court.

 

[jillian]

reading the responses here only confirms my suspicions that the vast majority here do not have a clue how our government is supposed to work.
can anyone tell me why the justices are not able to be fired by the president?
(actually there is a way for them to be removed but its pretty hard)
What is the purpose of the supreme court? is it to work with the other branches? is it to agree with the other branches or is it to protect the integrity of the constitution by ruling on cases that may or may not violate that same constitution.
If it is the last, then how can anyone agree that appointing a justice based on his/her personal view on various things, or by their affiliation to party can be a good thing. It cant. It wouldn't be good if the right did it, and its no good when the left does it either.

the integrity of the constitution is protected by the senate doing it's job and appointing the president's nominee so long as he or she is qualified. not because you are terrified that a judge will be put on the bench who isn't a theocrat.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

"President Barack Obama intends to nominate a Supreme Court justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy, CNN reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources."

As authorized to do by the Constitution and reflecting the will of the American people, the majority of whom reelected him to a second term.

If the majority of the people didn't want the president to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, they had the opportunity in 2012 to elect someone else president; they chose to do otherwise.

the majority elected a republican senate to block his marxist ass two years later

I would call that a mandate.

really? when the president was elected twice by a majority of voters?

and then the majority took away his power by shifting the houses?
pretty much. The majority finally had enough and neutered the kenyan.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

reading the responses here only confirms my suspicions that the vast majority here do not have a clue how our government is supposed to work.
can anyone tell me why the justices are not able to be fired by the president?
(actually there is a way for them to be removed but its pretty hard)
What is the purpose of the supreme court? is it to work with the other branches? is it to agree with the other branches or is it to protect the integrity of the constitution by ruling on cases that may or may not violate that same constitution.
If it is the last, then how can anyone agree that appointing a justice based on his/her personal view on various things, or by their affiliation to party can be a good thing. It cant. It wouldn't be good if the right did it, and its no good when the left does it either.

the integrity of the constitution is protected by the senate doing it's job and appointing the president's nominee so long as he or she is qualified. not because you are terrified that a judge will be put on the bench who isn't a theocrat.

every time you post you just prove more and more how little you understand.

 

[jillian]

if you dont understand the answer to what you just asked, you are part of the reason whats happening is happening.
obama is not looking for a justice that will follow the constitution, he is looking for those that will follow his personal desires.

Isn't that what confirmation by the Senate is supposed to determine? The qualifications of the night nominee?

My suggestion is to follow the constitution and not the partisan whims of either political ideology. Surely you cannot say that all the justices are not qualified to be on the bench. Or perhaps you believe that partisanship rather than judicial qualifications are more likely to important?

Obama needs to appoint a Conservative Italian America and he'll get approved by the Senate. It's that simple

no, he needs to appoint someone that has proven themselves to follow the law as written and has not used the bench to push his own personal views.

you mean and not overturn 200 years of jurisprudence with cases like heller and hobby lobby? i agree.

for the record, he needs to nominate the kind of judge he was elected TWICE to put on the bench.

if democrats said a republican president should appoint a "liberal" judge, you'd laugh your butts off.

now we're laughing at you... seriously. the arrogance of the rightwing fringe....

well theres your problem.
You cant comprehend what you read.
makes sense when it comes to your total lack of understanding the actual role of the supreme court.

that's funny.

do tell, pretend patriot.

 

[jillian]

reading the responses here only confirms my suspicions that the vast majority here do not have a clue how our government is supposed to work.
can anyone tell me why the justices are not able to be fired by the president?
(actually there is a way for them to be removed but its pretty hard)
What is the purpose of the supreme court? is it to work with the other branches? is it to agree with the other branches or is it to protect the integrity of the constitution by ruling on cases that may or may not violate that same constitution.
If it is the last, then how can anyone agree that appointing a justice based on his/her personal view on various things, or by their affiliation to party can be a good thing. It cant. It wouldn't be good if the right did it, and its no good when the left does it either.

the integrity of the constitution is protected by the senate doing it's job and appointing the president's nominee so long as he or she is qualified. not because you are terrified that a judge will be put on the bench who isn't a theocrat.

every time you post you just prove more and more how little you understand.

again, hysterically funny coming from someone who has gotten the sum total of his constitutional "knowledge" from rightwingnut bloggers.

poor idiota socktard

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Isn't that what confirmation by the Senate is supposed to determine? The qualifications of the night nominee?

My suggestion is to follow the constitution and not the partisan whims of either political ideology. Surely you cannot say that all the justices are not qualified to be on the bench. Or perhaps you believe that partisanship rather than judicial qualifications are more likely to important?

Obama needs to appoint a Conservative Italian America and he'll get approved by the Senate. It's that simple

no, he needs to appoint someone that has proven themselves to follow the law as written and has not used the bench to push his own personal views.

you mean and not overturn 200 years of jurisprudence with cases like heller and hobby lobby? i agree.

for the record, he needs to nominate the kind of judge he was elected TWICE to put on the bench.

if democrats said a republican president should appoint a "liberal" judge, you'd laugh your butts off.

now we're laughing at you... seriously. the arrogance of the rightwing fringe....

well theres your problem.
You cant comprehend what you read.
makes sense when it comes to your total lack of understanding the actual role of the supreme court.

that's funny.

do tell, pretend patriot.

how about you do a little research and discover on your own why your are being looked at like an uneducated fool.
No offense of course.

 

[jillian]

Obama needs to appoint a Conservative Italian America and he'll get approved by the Senate. It's that simple

no, he needs to appoint someone that has proven themselves to follow the law as written and has not used the bench to push his own personal views.

you mean and not overturn 200 years of jurisprudence with cases like heller and hobby lobby? i agree.

for the record, he needs to nominate the kind of judge he was elected TWICE to put on the bench.

if democrats said a republican president should appoint a "liberal" judge, you'd laugh your butts off.

now we're laughing at you... seriously. the arrogance of the rightwing fringe....

well theres your problem.
You cant comprehend what you read.
makes sense when it comes to your total lack of understanding the actual role of the supreme court.

that's funny.

do tell, pretend patriot.

how about you do a little research and discover on your own why your are being looked at like an uneducated fool.
No offense of course.

yeah, i guess all that time in school taught me less than you've learned from the google.

laughable twit.

do tell where what i posted wasn't true instead of spouting about things you know less than zero about.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

no, he needs to appoint someone that has proven themselves to follow the law as written and has not used the bench to push his own personal views.

you mean and not overturn 200 years of jurisprudence with cases like heller and hobby lobby? i agree.

for the record, he needs to nominate the kind of judge he was elected TWICE to put on the bench.

if democrats said a republican president should appoint a "liberal" judge, you'd laugh your butts off.

now we're laughing at you... seriously. the arrogance of the rightwing fringe....

well theres your problem.
You cant comprehend what you read.
makes sense when it comes to your total lack of understanding the actual role of the supreme court.

that's funny.

do tell, pretend patriot.

how about you do a little research and discover on your own why your are being looked at like an uneducated fool.
No offense of course.

yeah, i guess all that time in school taught me less than you've learned from the google.

laughable twit.

do tell where what i posted wasn't true instead of spouting about things you know less than zero about.

keep digging yourself deeper idiot. You have no clue what the purpose of the supreme court is.
and you have proven that here.

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans are always the obstructionists. Where have you been?

BORK lately?

The Constitutional obstructionist that tried and failed to institute the phantom theory of "original intent"? What about him?

Wow. The stupidest comment I've seen i a week on here. So stupid I'm off to do something else.

 

[jillian]

you mean and not overturn 200 years of jurisprudence with cases like heller and hobby lobby? i agree.

for the record, he needs to nominate the kind of judge he was elected TWICE to put on the bench.

if democrats said a republican president should appoint a "liberal" judge, you'd laugh your butts off.

now we're laughing at you... seriously. the arrogance of the rightwing fringe....

well theres your problem.
You cant comprehend what you read.
makes sense when it comes to your total lack of understanding the actual role of the supreme court.

that's funny.

do tell, pretend patriot.

how about you do a little research and discover on your own why your are being looked at like an uneducated fool.
No offense of course.

yeah, i guess all that time in school taught me less than you've learned from the google.

laughable twit.

do tell where what i posted wasn't true instead of spouting about things you know less than zero about.

keep digging yourself deeper idiot. You have no clue what the purpose of the supreme court is.
and you have proven that here.

so what do you think their purpose is? nothing you've posted indicates anything other than you're a dolt.

but do proceed.

 

[Dr Grump]

keep digging yourself deeper idiot. You have no clue what the purpose of the supreme court is.
and you have proven that here.

Her pinkie is more qualified than you to comment. You don't have a clue. That's what I love about you neocon whackjobs who call yourselves "patriots" (why is it always right wing loons who have board names with words like 'patriot' and 'eagle' in them?), you get your (mis)information from other loons who don't have a clue.

The fact you call Obama a Kenyan says it all. That aside, if you don't even know something a simple as Obama gets to appoint who he likes as long as they are qualified you are beyond clueless. That aside, I do agree he should appoint something who is qualified instead of their political affiliations. However, when somebody like Clarance Thomas makes that cut, all bets are off really....

 

[Valerie]

well theres your problem.
You cant comprehend what you read.
makes sense when it comes to your total lack of understanding the actual role of the supreme court.

it'd be a sad day when anyone should take comprehension lessons from a dolt like you.