Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

[hadit]

The Constitution is very clear that a President's term is four years, not three, and that he shall nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices when there is a vacancy.

It's very, very, very clear about that.

The Gnu Right loves the Constitution only when it suits them. The rest of the time, they treat it as an inconvenience getting in the way of their political inventions.

I hate the idea of Obama appointing another judge, but it is his Constitutional imperative.

McConnell tipped his hand as a hater of the Constitution by preemptively stating he would not even allow the Senate to advise or consent to a nomination. He will not allow a nomination to come to an up or down vote.

McConnell throttled the Constitution, and I am extremely disappointed the GOP candidates for President went along with it.

Oh, Obama certainly has the right and responsibility to nominate a new justice, and the Senate has the right and responsibility to approve or reject the nominee, and it that process takes until Obama is out of office, so be it. Thus, it is just as wrong to say that Obama has the right to install the next justice as it is to say he doesn't have the right to nominate the next justice.

yes. but if they refuse to vote, they're abdicating their responsibility. this is a giant rightwing temper tantrum because they're terrified that they won't be able to have a court with only rightwingers.

but that's not how the system works.

I think they should just say it was G-d's will and shut up assuming the candidate is qualified.

Absolutely they should hold a vote. I was ticked when the democrats refused to vote on Bush's minority picks and I don't want the Republicans to do it either. They should vote and reject if the nominee is unsuitable, and they get to decide who is suitable and who is not.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What it means has changed.

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

So go draft a new one. Until then, the amendment process is the only legal process available to make changes. All other changes are by their nature illegal.

really? interesting. it hasn't been viewed that way since marbury v madison (look it up, you'll learn something).

constitutional construction is about interpretation. the words "DUE process" have no meaning absent interpretation. "UNREASONABLE search and seizure" has no meaning absent interpretation. "EQUAL protection" has no meaning absent interpretation. do you really think if these things were that easy, you'd have a 5-4 court ever? every one of those people is smarter than you....whether you agree with their pov or not. and THEY don't agree on the words.

but *you* and the pretend constitutionalist brigade... *you* know what it means.

Exactly.

And the notion of "strict interpretation" is a rightwing partisan contrivance, devoid of authority or merit.

As to what., the "living breathing document" leftwing contrivance? You don't like the law, change it. Judges don't change laws, if that were their role, we wouldn't need Congress.

 

[daws101]

How the U.S. Constitution Has Evolved Over Time


America has grown and changed during the last 200 years, and so has the U.S. Constitution, including amendments to our voting laws and age, and limiting presidential terms in office.

In 1787, only white men over 21 could vote, and the President could serve for as long as he was elected! These Constitutional amendments changed those laws.

15th Amendment. This amendment, ratified in 1870, said that no citizen's vote could be taken away because of his race or color or because he was once a slave. In 1863, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, giving slaves their freedom. Nine years later this amendment gave citizens of all races the right to vote. It was a start in giving blacks full equality with whites.

19th Amendment. After this amendment was ratified in 1920, all women in the U.S. were allowed to vote. In 1787, men were always considered head of the household. Only they could vote. But women were becoming better educated. By 1848, they were working together to gain voting rights. Lawmakers were finally convinced 72 years later that women could vote as intelligently as men.

22nd Amendment. This amendment limits a president to two terms in office. George Washington started the presidential tradition of serving for two four-year terms. President Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected four terms in a row, was the first to break with this tradition. Many Americans thought that his four terms had allowed him to become too powerful. This national feeling helped get this amendment ratified in 1951.

26th Amendment. This amendment was passed in 1971, and it gave people 18 to 20 years old the right to vote. The national voting age had been 21. Eighteen-year-olds are old enough to join the U.S. armed forces. Many people think that this makes them old enough to vote for U.S. leaders, too. This amendment had widespread support. It was ratified in only four months.

Why has the Constitution changed?
Here's why, including what might be in store for the future of the Constitution.

You may have heard the U.S. Constitution called "a living document." Though it may seem like a dry piece of paper to you, it really is designed to live and grow as the nation grows.

Even the Founding Fathers knew it might have to change with the times. Article Five of the Constitution spells it out: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . ." States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law.

In the past 200 years, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The 13th Amendment, in 1865, forever banned the practice of slavery. The 15th Amendment, in 1870, gave all citizens the right to vote, regardless of their race.

Americans have added laws only to take them back. In 1919, the 18th Amendment was passed. It banned the making and selling of alcohol. But it was impossible to get all people to stop drinking. Many people felt the government had no right to make laws about their private habits. So in 1933, the 21st Amendment was adopted. It repealed, or canceled, the 18th Amendment.

The nation may need amendments in the future. For example, advances in technology may change the way we communicate. Someday, we may be able to vote from our own homes, hooked into central computers through our TV sets. And what if we are able to live in space? We may need new laws to govern space life.

What kind of laws do you think we will need in the future? How would you change the Constitution if you could?
Newstime asked that question of people who've worked closely with the Constitution. Here are their responses.

Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1969-86: "It is not perfect, as Franklin said, but the best thing of its kind that was ever put together."

Jimmy Carter, President, 1977-81: "[One of the] changes I would like to see in the Constitution: Elect Presidents for one six- or seven-year term."

Gerald Ford, President, 1974-77: "I would favor repeal of the 22nd Amendment that imposes a two-term limitation on a President's service."

Richard Nixon, President, 1969-74: "I would lengthen the term of members of the House of Representatives from two years to four years. This would give them more time to concentrate on policy instead of politics!"

How the U.S. Constitution Has Evolved Over Time | Scholastic.com

I see "amendment" plays a large role in your paste.

that was not the point I was making ...
epic fail

"Run, little fella. Run."

who's running ? not even bright enough to ask what point It was, too busy making false assumptions.
second epic fail.

#63 was the point.

nope

 

[jillian]

The Constitution is very clear that a President's term is four years, not three, and that he shall nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices when there is a vacancy.

It's very, very, very clear about that.

The Gnu Right loves the Constitution only when it suits them. The rest of the time, they treat it as an inconvenience getting in the way of their political inventions.

I hate the idea of Obama appointing another judge, but it is his Constitutional imperative.

McConnell tipped his hand as a hater of the Constitution by preemptively stating he would not even allow the Senate to advise or consent to a nomination. He will not allow a nomination to come to an up or down vote.

McConnell throttled the Constitution, and I am extremely disappointed the GOP candidates for President went along with it.

Oh, Obama certainly has the right and responsibility to nominate a new justice, and the Senate has the right and responsibility to approve or reject the nominee, and it that process takes until Obama is out of office, so be it. Thus, it is just as wrong to say that Obama has the right to install the next justice as it is to say he doesn't have the right to nominate the next justice.

yes. but if they refuse to vote, they're abdicating their responsibility. this is a giant rightwing temper tantrum because they're terrified that they won't be able to have a court with only rightwingers.

but that's not how the system works.

I think they should just say it was G-d's will and shut up assuming the candidate is qualified.

Absolutely they should hold a vote. I was ticked when the democrats refused to vote on Bush's minority picks and I don't want the Republicans to do it either. They should vote and reject if the nominee is unsuitable, and they get to decide who is suitable and who is not.

no you weren't. they didn't refuse to vote on bush's picks. if they did we wouldn't have Samuel Alito. the one that had to WITHDRAW her application was his personal counsel who knew nothing about the 4th amendment. it was embarrassing. but they didn't refuse to vote on her, she withdrew after she embarrassed the president at her hearings. but then again, baby bush probably thought she was smart.

 

[hadit]

The Constitution is very clear that a President's term is four years, not three, and that he shall nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices when there is a vacancy.

It's very, very, very clear about that.

The Gnu Right loves the Constitution only when it suits them. The rest of the time, they treat it as an inconvenience getting in the way of their political inventions.

I hate the idea of Obama appointing another judge, but it is his Constitutional imperative.

McConnell tipped his hand as a hater of the Constitution by preemptively stating he would not even allow the Senate to advise or consent to a nomination. He will not allow a nomination to come to an up or down vote.

McConnell throttled the Constitution, and I am extremely disappointed the GOP candidates for President went along with it.

Oh, Obama certainly has the right and responsibility to nominate a new justice, and the Senate has the right and responsibility to approve or reject the nominee, and it that process takes until Obama is out of office, so be it. Thus, it is just as wrong to say that Obama has the right to install the next justice as it is to say he doesn't have the right to nominate the next justice.

yes. but if they refuse to vote, they're abdicating their responsibility. this is a giant rightwing temper tantrum because they're terrified that they won't be able to have a court with only rightwingers.

but that's not how the system works.

I think they should just say it was G-d's will and shut up assuming the candidate is qualified.

Absolutely they should hold a vote. I was ticked when the democrats refused to vote on Bush's minority picks and I don't want the Republicans to do it either. They should vote and reject if the nominee is unsuitable, and they get to decide who is suitable and who is not.

no you weren't. they didn't refuse to vote on bush's picks. if they did we wouldn't have Samuel Alito. the one that had to WITHDRAW her application was his personal counsel who knew nothing about the 4th amendment. it was embarrassing. but they didn't refuse to vote on her, she withdrew after she embarrassed the president at her hearings. but then again, baby bush probably thought she was smart.

Miguel Estrada
Priscilla Owen
Charles W. Pickering
Carolyn Kuhl
David W. McKeague
Henry Saad
Richard Allen Griffin
William H. Pryor
William Gerry Myers III
Janice Rogers Brown

These were all denied a vote by democrat filibusters. Interesting that democrats fought to keep a Hispanic off the bench.

 

[daws101]

The Thurmond Rule originated in 1968, when late Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina lead the charge against U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s attempt to upgrade Justice Abe Fortas, who had strong ties to the Lyndon administration, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

That incident was not about filling a vacancy, and President Obama has roughly 11 months left in office. The current situation does not fit the mold of the the Thurmond Rule.

 

[daws101]

If it has, such changes are completely illegal.

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

So go draft a new one. Until then, the amendment process is the only legal process available to make changes. All other changes are by their nature illegal.

really? interesting. it hasn't been viewed that way since marbury v madison (look it up, you'll learn something).

constitutional construction is about interpretation. the words "DUE process" have no meaning absent interpretation. "UNREASONABLE search and seizure" has no meaning absent interpretation. "EQUAL protection" has no meaning absent interpretation. do you really think if these things were that easy, you'd have a 5-4 court ever? every one of those people is smarter than you....whether you agree with their pov or not. and THEY don't agree on the words.

but *you* and the pretend constitutionalist brigade... *you* know what it means.

Exactly.

And the notion of "strict interpretation" is a rightwing partisan contrivance, devoid of authority or merit.

As to what., the "living breathing document" leftwing contrivance? You don't like the law, change it. Judges don't change laws, if that were their role, we wouldn't need Congress.

Living constitution[edit]
Origins[edit]
The phrase originally derives from the title of a 1927 book of that name by Professor Howard Lee McBain,[2] while early efforts at developing the concept in modern form have been credited to figures including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson.[3][4] The earliest mentions of the Constitution as "living", particularly in the context of a new way of interpreting it, comes out of Woodrow Wilson's book Constitutional Government in the United States [5] where he wrote:

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.[6]

Wilson strengthened this view, at least publicly, while he campaigned for President in 1912. He said:

Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.[7]

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

False the constitution was never meant to be a static document.
Jefferson suggested that a new one by drafted every 12 years to keep pace with the changes in the country.

So go draft a new one. Until then, the amendment process is the only legal process available to make changes. All other changes are by their nature illegal.

really? interesting. it hasn't been viewed that way since marbury v madison (look it up, you'll learn something).

constitutional construction is about interpretation. the words "DUE process" have no meaning absent interpretation. "UNREASONABLE search and seizure" has no meaning absent interpretation. "EQUAL protection" has no meaning absent interpretation. do you really think if these things were that easy, you'd have a 5-4 court ever? every one of those people is smarter than you....whether you agree with their pov or not. and THEY don't agree on the words.

but *you* and the pretend constitutionalist brigade... *you* know what it means.

Exactly.

And the notion of "strict interpretation" is a rightwing partisan contrivance, devoid of authority or merit.

As to what., the "living breathing document" leftwing contrivance? You don't like the law, change it. Judges don't change laws, if that were their role, we wouldn't need Congress.

Living constitution[edit]
Origins[edit]
The phrase originally derives from the title of a 1927 book of that name by Professor Howard Lee McBain,[2] while early efforts at developing the concept in modern form have been credited to figures including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson.[3][4] The earliest mentions of the Constitution as "living", particularly in the context of a new way of interpreting it, comes out of Woodrow Wilson's book Constitutional Government in the United States [5] where he wrote:

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.[6]

Wilson strengthened this view, at least publicly, while he campaigned for President in 1912. He said:

Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.[7]

Hes sounds like a loon. A document is just that, a document.

 

[daws101]

So go draft a new one. Until then, the amendment process is the only legal process available to make changes. All other changes are by their nature illegal.

really? interesting. it hasn't been viewed that way since marbury v madison (look it up, you'll learn something).

constitutional construction is about interpretation. the words "DUE process" have no meaning absent interpretation. "UNREASONABLE search and seizure" has no meaning absent interpretation. "EQUAL protection" has no meaning absent interpretation. do you really think if these things were that easy, you'd have a 5-4 court ever? every one of those people is smarter than you....whether you agree with their pov or not. and THEY don't agree on the words.

but *you* and the pretend constitutionalist brigade... *you* know what it means.

Exactly.

And the notion of "strict interpretation" is a rightwing partisan contrivance, devoid of authority or merit.

As to what., the "living breathing document" leftwing contrivance? You don't like the law, change it. Judges don't change laws, if that were their role, we wouldn't need Congress.

Living constitution[edit]
Origins[edit]
The phrase originally derives from the title of a 1927 book of that name by Professor Howard Lee McBain,[2] while early efforts at developing the concept in modern form have been credited to figures including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson.[3][4] The earliest mentions of the Constitution as "living", particularly in the context of a new way of interpreting it, comes out of Woodrow Wilson's book Constitutional Government in the United States [5] where he wrote:

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.[6]

Wilson strengthened this view, at least publicly, while he campaigned for President in 1912. He said:

Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.[7]

Hes sounds like a loon. A document is just that, a document.

only to the ignorant .

 

[dannyboys]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

The court can't go a year without a justice.

Where is that in the Constitution?

 

[regent]

If Marshall and his court had been strict interpreters of the Constitution, they would not have made the decision they did in Marbury.

 

[dannyboys]

The Constitution is very clear that a President's term is four years, not three, and that he shall nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices when there is a vacancy.

It's very, very, very clear about that.

The Gnu Right loves the Constitution only when it suits them. The rest of the time, they treat it as an inconvenience getting in the way of their political inventions.

I hate the idea of Obama appointing another judge, but it is his Constitutional imperative.

McConnell tipped his hand as a hater of the Constitution by preemptively stating he would not even allow the Senate to advise or consent to a nomination. He will not allow a nomination to come to an up or down vote.

McConnell throttled the Constitution, and I am extremely disappointed the GOP candidates for President went along with it.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President has the right to "appoint" SCJs'?
You're a lying little creep.

 

[g5000]

The Constitution is very clear that a President's term is four years, not three, and that he shall nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices when there is a vacancy.

It's very, very, very clear about that.

The Gnu Right loves the Constitution only when it suits them. The rest of the time, they treat it as an inconvenience getting in the way of their political inventions.

I hate the idea of Obama appointing another judge, but it is his Constitutional imperative.

McConnell tipped his hand as a hater of the Constitution by preemptively stating he would not even allow the Senate to advise or consent to a nomination. He will not allow a nomination to come to an up or down vote.

McConnell throttled the Constitution, and I am extremely disappointed the GOP candidates for President went along with it.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President has the right to "appoint" SCJs'?
You're a lying little creep.

You are a retard. You really should have read the Constitution before showing your flaming ass.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

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 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: 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.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


Anything else I can help you with, dipshit?

 

[g5000]

I've always suspected the retards who claim to adore the Constitution have never read it, and they frequently demonstrate they haven't. Like just now.

 

[daws101]

I've always suspected the retards who claim to adore the Constitution have never read it, and they frequently demonstrate they haven't. Like just now.

amen brother!

 

[jillian]

So go draft a new one. Until then, the amendment process is the only legal process available to make changes. All other changes are by their nature illegal.

really? interesting. it hasn't been viewed that way since marbury v madison (look it up, you'll learn something).

constitutional construction is about interpretation. the words "DUE process" have no meaning absent interpretation. "UNREASONABLE search and seizure" has no meaning absent interpretation. "EQUAL protection" has no meaning absent interpretation. do you really think if these things were that easy, you'd have a 5-4 court ever? every one of those people is smarter than you....whether you agree with their pov or not. and THEY don't agree on the words.

but *you* and the pretend constitutionalist brigade... *you* know what it means.

Exactly.

And the notion of "strict interpretation" is a rightwing partisan contrivance, devoid of authority or merit.

As to what., the "living breathing document" leftwing contrivance? You don't like the law, change it. Judges don't change laws, if that were their role, we wouldn't need Congress.

Living constitution[edit]
Origins[edit]
The phrase originally derives from the title of a 1927 book of that name by Professor Howard Lee McBain,[2] while early efforts at developing the concept in modern form have been credited to figures including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson.[3][4] The earliest mentions of the Constitution as "living", particularly in the context of a new way of interpreting it, comes out of Woodrow Wilson's book Constitutional Government in the United States [5] where he wrote:

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.[6]

Wilson strengthened this view, at least publicly, while he campaigned for President in 1912. He said:

Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.[7]

Hes sounds like a loon. A document is just that, a document.

only if you know less than zero

now do try your best to follow along,

"President's Scholar in Constitutional Law at Columbia University from 1904 to 1906, and an Honorary Fellow in Constitutional Law from 1906 to 1907. He earned his Master of Arts (MA) degree there in 1905,[2] writing his master's thesis on "Constitutional development in Virginia, 1776–1850",[3] and a Doctor of Philosophy in 1907,[4] writing his thesis on "De Witt Clinton and the origin of the spoils system in New York".[5]"

Howard Lee McBain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but no doubt the wingnut pretend constitutionalist brigade knows more about the constitution than he did.

 

[JQPublic1]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

You are neither an astronaut OR a Constitutionalist so how would you know? Congress doesn't fool with Obama and his executive orders because they know he knows his stuff. His background as an academic who taught Constitutional Law affords him the luxury of riding a fine line that might get a less qualified man impeached.

 

[dannyboys]

The Constitution is very clear that a President's term is four years, not three, and that he shall nominate and appoint Supreme Court Justices when there is a vacancy.

It's very, very, very clear about that.

The Gnu Right loves the Constitution only when it suits them. The rest of the time, they treat it as an inconvenience getting in the way of their political inventions.

I hate the idea of Obama appointing another judge, but it is his Constitutional imperative.

McConnell tipped his hand as a hater of the Constitution by preemptively stating he would not even allow the Senate to advise or consent to a nomination. He will not allow a nomination to come to an up or down vote.

McConnell throttled the Constitution, and I am extremely disappointed the GOP candidates for President went along with it.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President has the right to "appoint" SCJs'?
You're a lying little creep.

You are a retard. You really should have read the Constitution before showing your flaming ass.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

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 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: 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.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


Anything else I can help you with, dipshit?

"with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,".
BOBOBO can't appoint anyone to be a SCJ without the "consent" of the Senate.....dipshit. Go blubber somewhere else asshole.
You fucking LIB assholes are attempting to 'imply' that BONOBO can 'unilaterally "appoint" a SCJ.
Nice try fool
It like claiming BONOBO can buy a carton of Camels. Yes he can. AFTER the SENATE gives him the fucking money. HAAAA HAAAAAA!
President Trump and the majority REP Senate will decide who the next SCJ is and then possibly, in Trump's two terms another 5-6 SCJ's.
Now you can go hit your head against the wall.

 

[g5000]

You fucking LIB assholes are attempting to 'imply' that BONOBO can 'unilaterally "appoint" a SCJ.

Nope. No one has said that.

But what McConnell has said is that he won't even allow a chance for the Senate to vote up or down on their consent. He is ignoring the Constitution unilaterally.

Sorry you got your ass burned. You really ought to read the Constitution before shooting your gob off about it.

 

[JQPublic1]

The Constitution ALSO does not say we need to select a Justice based on legal experience and years on the bench as a judge, etc. The Constitution is silent on the qualifications for a judge.

I would go by the CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVT SERVICE
ethics-commission.net
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

If the President and Senate can find a candidate who recognizes political beliefs and will not approve any law or ruling that favors one political belief or faith based bias over another, but puts the Constitution first and remains neutral where ALL people of ALL beliefs, creeds, and parties are included and represented equally, then that would be a fair person to fill the tiebreaking position.

If it's going to be more rightsided or leftsided politics, I would say NO to any such candidate who can't either resolve such beliefs or separate them from govt and keep the conflicts to the individuals and parties to work out.

Personally I think former prosecutor Chris Christie fits that bill. As a republican governor of a Blue state he seems to be responsive to the needs and desires of his democrat constituency.. But is Christie moderate enough to support Obama's crowing achievement, Obamacare? Maintaining Obamacare would be the central consideration for any one nominated by the President. But he is wise enough to understand that someone like Christie is the only viable chance he has to get his nominee approved by the top heavy republican Senate. If Christie's apparent affinity for the democrat base of his home state plays any part of any future role as a USSC Justice, I would definitely put him near the top of my short list of people who could have any chance of confirmation such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and John Kasich!