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

[emilynghiem]

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!

Dear JQPublic1
I would like to see concerned citizens from all parties put together a Constitutional forum to discuss
these things. We need to pick a Justice and/or expand the Justice system to allow more conflict resolution
and equal input from all sides to RESOLVE issues and not put the decisions in the hands of Judges to decide any issue of BELIEFS for the entire nation which is not what they are supposed to do. Technically anything that isn't for govt to decide, the Justices and Judges should kick that out of court and back to the legislatures to fix in writing. They aren't supposed to rule in ways that use the Judiciary to "create laws from the bench" due to failure of the legislatures to resolve conflicts and establish policies that reflect the consent of the people.

The representation of the people is supposed to be on the Congressional and legislative level.
but when that is lost to bipartisan politics, then it gets kicked to the Judiciary to make rulings
or gets so lost in bureaucracy, the President takes to issues Executive Order to bypass the deadlock or backlog.

No -- we need Constitutional Justices who will kick back biased or bad laws back to the legislators and make them do their job instead of trying to rewrite or adjudicate for them and for the people.

If we need to have open dialogue on this process to get it shifted back to the legislatures and the states, and quit pushing conflicts up to courts and judges to legislate that way, that's why I would like to see a Constitutional type conference system set up to address issues of beliefs that are tying up legislation in 50/50 deadlocks BECAUSE beliefs are involved that neither side will or should compromise, much less be forced to by govt. No more!

BTW with Christie he lost me on his campaign to ban conversion therapy WITHOUT making a distinction with the voluntary and effective reparative/healing therapy.

If he doesn't recognize spiritual healing and the impact this has on major issues, from health care to the prison system and how we treat criminal illness as a curable diseases,
then his judgment is lacking.

I would want to see what he does with this information, and how that changes his outlook,
before assessing his judgment. If people don't have equal knowledge about how spiritual healing works,
it isn't fair to judge how they respond to conflicts and their vision of public policy and justice
that could totally change if they knew the extent to which people can completely change, and relations as well.

Maybe he would be a fair person.
But for him to go off and take the side of banning without considering all the information and knowledge out there, that showed to me he might be reactionary to the point of leaving out key factors critical to making a fully informed decision. So I'd have to see what kind of response and decisions he'd make GIVEN complete information first.

Thanks, JQPublic1
I think I will suggest to my Tea Party, Constitutionalist and Christian / Veteran Party contacts
that we go ahead and call to set up Constitutional conference and networks state by state, party by party,
to discuss ALL concerns about issues that normally end up in the hands of Judges and Supreme Court Justices.

Try to work these out ourselves, and in that process, we can assess which leaders among us can moderate and mediate conflict resolution, which ones are fair enough to serve as Judges who WON'T impose their opinions
but will seek consensus and/or separation on issues of beliefs that otherwise divide the nation by creed instead of including, representing and protecting the creeds, interests and consent of all people equally regardless of party or religious affiliation, and certainly not imposing one belief/creed over others by manipulating majority rule.

We could end up restructuring a more interactive Peace and Justice Department,
similar to what the progressives are pushing with their idea of creating a Cabinet level Peace Department.
I suggested to expand the Justice Dept to provide conflict resolution assistance, training and services instead of creating a new position, just add more mediation and access to help with a consensus based decision process as an equal alternative under the Justice system.

So why not set up a model and use this issue as the focus of discussion and conferencing
to address grievances, concerns and conflicts over what we want or don't want coming out of the Justice system with the current political division over beliefs.

Let's do it. Let's find out what it really does take to settle these issues.
Resolve as much as we can, then take our solutions and talking points of agreement,
and feed that to the govt officials on all levels and in all branches of govt to end the deadlocks
that occur when these issues aren't resolved in advance but get fed through the system
in the form of contested and biased laws and rulings (garbage in, garbage out).

Just an observation, I'm glad you weren't writing the Bill of Rights. Would be longer than war and peace.

Edit a little and I will read.

Dear IsaacNewton
If people agreed to follow the
* Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment on equal protection of the laws
* The Code of Ethics for Govt Service [all posted on http://www.ethics-commission.net]
* local police policies and procedures for due process of laws
* and whatever conflict resolution or grievance process that the local schools in each district can use to educate, train and assist local communities in managing their own populations,

Then I wouldn't have to "keep explaining over and over" why these principles are essential to practice ourselves, first, before expecting govt to uphold these same standards consistently.

People would be too busy solving their own problems, as their own contribution to govt,
and redressing their own grievances directly between the parties affected.

The only reason I have to say anything is
people aren't focused on solutions, but just
blaming problems on opposing groups.

Believe me, IsaacNewton
I equally welcome the day people follow WHAT'S ALREADY WRITTEN
and I don't have to say a thing.

 

[kaz]

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

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Um...who said Obama can't nominate someone to the Supreme Court? Can you show that quote? Of course you can't. No one said that. Well, maybe the voices in your head, but so what?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

No, I'm pretty sure it is yet another example of how repubs work for themselves and have no interest at all in governing for the American people.

Keep in mind that the DNC is rigging the delegate process to favor Clinton over Sanders. That must really suck for Sanders supporters. I imagine it's because the DNC only works for themselves, and for whom they want to win. It's sad you don't realize it.

 

[jillian]

the president SHALL nominate and the senate SHALL ADVISE AND CONSENT

it doesn't say... if he feels like

it doesn't say... if he's in the last year in office

it doesn't say if there's a divided government

it says SHALL NOMINATE.

i think that's pretty clear.

is that what you wanted to know?

or should we talk about the other areas where the right is selective?

What do you think “consent” means, in this context?

Can consent mean anything without the right or authority to withhold that consent?

but consent has to occur after a process and for a reason. it can't be a temper tantrum

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

No one said it does.

Except for every lawyer trying to undermine it.

It simply rules as to the constitutionality of a law.

Au contraire, it simply indicates the level of obfuscation and interpretation being applied within that particular era. The thing is written in plain English and requires no judicial interpretation. The early Court knew this, and gave itself greater-than-equal status to review, and therefore to make what subtle changes it would outside of the amendment process, in the Marbury v. Madison ruling. Jefferson and Madison were, of course, furious with the ruling.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

No, I'm pretty sure it is yet another example of how repubs work for themselves and have no interest at all in governing for the American people.

That's one opinion, I don't happen to share it. They're doing exactly what I want them to do.

Not surprised.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

the president SHALL nominate and the senate SHALL ADVISE AND CONSENT

it doesn't say... if he feels like

it doesn't say... if he's in the last year in office

it doesn't say if there's a divided government


it says SHALL NOMINATE.

i think that's pretty clear.

is that what you wanted to know?

or should we talk about the other areas where the right is selective?

What do you think “consent” means, in this context?

Can consent mean anything without the right or authority to withhold that consent?

You can't withhold consent without actually going through the process. Dissent is given with a no vote not by inaction.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

No one said it does.

Except for every lawyer trying to undermine it.

It simply rules as to the constitutionality of a law.

Au contraire, it simply indicates the level of obfuscation and interpretation being applied within that particular era. The thing is written in plain English and requires no judicial interpretation. The early Court knew this, and gave itself greater-than-equal status to review, and therefore to make what subtle changes it would outside of the amendment process, in the Marbury v. Madison ruling. Jefferson and Madison were, of course, furious with the ruling.

Whatever dude. You go ahead with your fantasy world and the grown ups will work it out.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

No one said it does.

Except for every lawyer trying to undermine it.

It simply rules as to the constitutionality of a law.

Au contraire, it simply indicates the level of obfuscation and interpretation being applied within that particular era. The thing is written in plain English and requires no judicial interpretation. The early Court knew this, and gave itself greater-than-equal status to review, and therefore to make what subtle changes it would outside of the amendment process, in the Marbury v. Madison ruling. Jefferson and Madison were, of course, furious with the ruling.

Whatever dude. You go ahead with your fantasy world and the grown ups will work it out.

Not you, then.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

No, I'm pretty sure it is yet another example of how repubs work for themselves and have no interest at all in governing for the American people.

Keep in mind that the DNC is rigging the delegate process to favor Clinton over Sanders. That must really suck for Sanders supporters. I imagine it's because the DNC only works for themselves, and for whom they want to win. It's sad you don't realize it.

How does the DNC do that? The delegates choose who to support not the DNC.

Superdelegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

Sure they can. There will be a price for doing so. They will be the only Senate in history to have ever done so. They will be hammered with that relentlessly.

 

[2aguy]

Certain factions among us have combed the Internet looking for anything to marginalize the talents, qualifications and ethics of President Obama. Don't worry, I am not going to write long boring rebuttals to the long boring written harangues deposited here to disparage a successful two term president.

Instead,I will call upon people who actually saw and commented on Obama's intelligence and his abilities. Here is an excerpt and link to comments from one of his academic mentors.

Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, author of a comprehensive new book, Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, says Barack Obama was an amazing law student.

During a broad discussion on Tuesday with The Fiscal Times about some of the most significant cases to come before the Roberts court and how those decisions may profoundly alter American life, Tribe reflected on the president as a young man.

Obama was his research assistant for two-and-a-half years at Harvard Law School where Tribe has taught for four decades.

How Barack Obama Amazed His Harvard Law Professor

Yeah....tribe is fishing for that opening on the Supreme Court for himself........not exactly a non biased source........

 

[Arizona Willie]

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

========
Go back to your Fox News coloring book.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

========
Go back to your Fox News coloring book.

How many times are you going to use that already worn out shit? Get some new material

 

[Arizona Willie]

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

========
Go back to your Fox News coloring book.

How many times are you going to use that already worn out shit? Get some new material

========
Hmmm you have no objection to right wingers calling Liberals " libtards " in the forum 10,000 times a day but can't take looking at the truth about right wingers even a few times.

I wonder why ....

Hypocrite much?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

========
Go back to your Fox News coloring book.

How many times are you going to use that already worn out shit? Get some new material

========
Hmmm you have no objection to right wingers calling Liberals " libtards " in the forum 10,000 times a day but can't take looking at the truth about right wingers even a few times.

I wonder why ....

Hypocrite much?

Yeah whatever "willie" with the ignorant avatar. Run along now troll

 

[Arizona Willie]

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

========
Go back to your Fox News coloring book.

How many times are you going to use that already worn out shit? Get some new material

========
Hmmm you have no objection to right wingers calling Liberals " libtards " in the forum 10,000 times a day but can't take looking at the truth about right wingers even a few times.

I wonder why ....

Hypocrite much?

Yeah whatever "willie" with the ignorant avatar. Run along now troll

========
When you threw the insult you committed an ad hominem attack and YOU LOSE.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You can't withhold consent without actually going through the process. Dissent is given with a no vote not by inaction.

Of course you can. And of course, the Senate can. That is entirely within its powers, as established in the Constitution.

This is not to say that I think they should, as has been threatened, absolutely refuse to act on any nominations.

Personally, I think that the Senate ought to give a fair hearing to any candidate that Obama chooses. Given the extreme contempt that Obama has for the Constitution, and for this nation's founding principles, it is likely that whomever he chooses will have similar contempt for it, and on demonstrating this, the Senate should then reject that candidate.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate does not have to withhold consent. The Senate constitutionally does not have to do anything on this matter. They can sit on their hands and watch Beany & Cecil reruns, and there's nothing Obama can do about it but whine.

Sure they can. There will be a price for doing so. They will be the only Senate in history to have ever done so. They will be hammered with that relentlessly.

Time will tell, eh?