Obama should play this smart. Nominate a moderate

[KingOfCars]

Politics shouldn't be considered when nominating a SC Judge. It should be whether they believe in the COTUS or not.

=============
Apparently Republicans DO NOT.

The COTUS say it is Obama's RIGHT and DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for America to go without a Supreme Court until the Republicans got another chance to put one of theirs in office to do the choosing.

REPUBLICANS DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT REPUBLICAN SUPREME COURT MAJORITY.

If Obama yielded to their DEMANDS what would they do if Bernie or the Ice Queen is elected?

DEMAND WE WAIT FOUR MORE YEARS UNTIL THEY GET ANOTHER CHANCE
fuck Republicans

The Founding Fathers didn't envision a Supreme court filled with political activists, either.

========
Funny but you have no objection to the RIGHT WINGER ACTIVIST JUDGES that's why you loved Scalia so much --- he always ruled in your favor.

Explain excactly HOW Scalia was an activist, please.

 

[TNHarley]

“A question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.” – John Adams

 

[TNHarley]

Not to mention the Supreme court was meant to be a "check and balance" for the legislative and executive branches.
Yea, they were supposed to be hacks LOL

 

[TNHarley]

Politics shouldn't be considered when nominating a SC Judge. It should be whether they believe in the COTUS or not.

=============
Apparently Republicans DO NOT.

The COTUS say it is Obama's RIGHT and DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for America to go without a Supreme Court until the Republicans got another chance to put one of theirs in office to do the choosing.

REPUBLICANS DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT REPUBLICAN SUPREME COURT MAJORITY.

If Obama yielded to their DEMANDS what would they do if Bernie or the Ice Queen is elected?

DEMAND WE WAIT FOUR MORE YEARS UNTIL THEY GET ANOTHER CHANCE
fuck Republicans

The Founding Fathers didn't envision a Supreme court filled with political activists, either.

They're dead. Their visions are history.

========
But but but but in EVERYTHING else Republicans want the Constitution followed to the letter --- except when it doesn't benefit them --- then they want to wipe their ass with it. Bush even said " it'
s just a fucking piece of paper " when it prevented him from doing what he wanted ( but he did it anyway ).

Sounds like BOTH parties.

 

[BluesLegend]

What part of we hate the left is not clear to you?

What part of do what we fucking pay you for isn't clear to you?

And by not doing their job they are rejecting their Constitutional Duty. How do you think Scalia would have like that?

I sent my representatives to congress to oppose Obama, Scalia would be fine with that.

Not if that meant, as it does in this case, rejecting their constitutional duties.

There's no Constitutional time limit on confirming a SCOTUS justice. Obama can nominate a conservative justice to replace the conservative justice who passed away, or he can suck eggs and the next president will nominate a justice.

How about a nice moderate? Oh wait, that wouldn't help you so, no...

Pound sand, that is our answer to Obama.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What part of do what we fucking pay you for isn't clear to you?

And by not doing their job they are rejecting their Constitutional Duty. How do you think Scalia would have like that?

I sent my representatives to congress to oppose Obama, Scalia would be fine with that.

Not if that meant, as it does in this case, rejecting their constitutional duties.

There's no Constitutional time limit on confirming a SCOTUS justice. Obama can nominate a conservative justice to replace the conservative justice who passed away, or he can suck eggs and the next president will nominate a justice.

How about a nice moderate? Oh wait, that wouldn't help you so, no...

Pound sand, that is our answer to Obama.

 

[TNHarley]

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Thomas Jefferson

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about

 

[NLT]

Obama should play this smart. Nominate a moderate

 

[ogibillm]

Obama is such a lowlife snake. all these years they have followed this procedure close to the Presidential elections. but here he comes charging in just to stir up more crap all over us. I want NOTHING more from him. speak up people

this is a bullshit claim.

when is the last time a supreme court justice died this close to an election?

it's a rare occurrence, not a precedent.

 

[BluesLegend]

I sent my representatives to congress to oppose Obama, Scalia would be fine with that.

Not if that meant, as it does in this case, rejecting their constitutional duties.

There's no Constitutional time limit on confirming a SCOTUS justice. Obama can nominate a conservative justice to replace the conservative justice who passed away, or he can suck eggs and the next president will nominate a justice.

How about a nice moderate? Oh wait, that wouldn't help you so, no...

Pound sand, that is our answer to Obama.

View attachment 63588

Nominate a conservative justice and that justice will be confirmed in short order. The choice is Obama's.

 

[ogibillm]

Politics shouldn't be considered when nominating a SC Judge. It should be whether they believe in the COTUS or not.

=============
Apparently Republicans DO NOT.

The COTUS say it is Obama's RIGHT and DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for America to go without a Supreme Court until the Republicans got another chance to put one of theirs in office to do the choosing.

REPUBLICANS DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT REPUBLICAN SUPREME COURT MAJORITY.

If Obama yielded to their DEMANDS what would they do if Bernie or the Ice Queen is elected?

DEMAND WE WAIT FOUR MORE YEARS UNTIL THEY GET ANOTHER CHANCE
fuck Republicans

The Founding Fathers didn't envision a Supreme court filled with political activists, either.

========
Funny but you have no objection to the RIGHT WINGER ACTIVIST JUDGES that's why you loved Scalia so much --- he always ruled in your favor.

Explain excactly HOW Scalia was an activist, please.

was there ever any doubt about how he was going to decide a case, or was it always in line with the 'conservative' political whim?

 

[ogibillm]

Not if that meant, as it does in this case, rejecting their constitutional duties.

There's no Constitutional time limit on confirming a SCOTUS justice. Obama can nominate a conservative justice to replace the conservative justice who passed away, or he can suck eggs and the next president will nominate a justice.

How about a nice moderate? Oh wait, that wouldn't help you so, no...

Pound sand, that is our answer to Obama.

View attachment 63588

Nominate a conservative justice and that justice will be confirmed in short order. The choice is Obama's.

no, they won't.
it doesn't matter who he nominates, there will be a long drawn out process where the candidate is accused of being satan himself.

the only thing i can think of that might head some of that off is to select a recent prior judicial appointee that was confirmed with near unanimous consent. it'll be tough to raise issues against someone that they did not already raise and dismiss.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Thomas Jefferson

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about

You're wrong as always.

 

[TNHarley]

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Thomas Jefferson

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about

You're wrong as always.

We are talking about the Supreme court and you post a quote talking about the need for laws to evolve. Yea, totally on point.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not if that meant, as it does in this case, rejecting their constitutional duties.

There's no Constitutional time limit on confirming a SCOTUS justice. Obama can nominate a conservative justice to replace the conservative justice who passed away, or he can suck eggs and the next president will nominate a justice.

How about a nice moderate? Oh wait, that wouldn't help you so, no...

Pound sand, that is our answer to Obama.

View attachment 63588

Nominate a conservative justice and that justice will be confirmed in short order. The choice is Obama's.

Nope, they've already said they would not do their constitutional duty.

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no Constitutional time limit on confirming a SCOTUS justice. Obama can nominate a conservative justice to replace the conservative justice who passed away, or he can suck eggs and the next president will nominate a justice.

How about a nice moderate? Oh wait, that wouldn't help you so, no...

Pound sand, that is our answer to Obama.

View attachment 63588

Nominate a conservative justice and that justice will be confirmed in short order. The choice is Obama's.

no, they won't.
it doesn't matter who he nominates, there will be a long drawn out process where the candidate is accused of being satan himself.

the only thing i can think of that might head some of that off is to select a recent prior judicial appointee that was confirmed with near unanimous consent. it'll be tough to raise issues against someone that they did not already raise and dismiss.

We both know Obama is going to use this opportunity to nominate some freak liberal lesbo just to poke a stick at his opponents in the GOP. He's still a community organizer thug that has been his leadership style from day one so the discussion is pointless. IF he nominated a conservative justice that would pin the GOP into a corner but he's never going to do that.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Politics shouldn't be considered when nominating a SC Judge. It should be whether they believe in the COTUS or not.

=============
Apparently Republicans DO NOT.

The COTUS say it is Obama's RIGHT and DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for America to go without a Supreme Court until the Republicans got another chance to put one of theirs in office to do the choosing.

REPUBLICANS DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT REPUBLICAN SUPREME COURT MAJORITY.

If Obama yielded to their DEMANDS what would they do if Bernie or the Ice Queen is elected?

DEMAND WE WAIT FOUR MORE YEARS UNTIL THEY GET ANOTHER CHANCE
fuck Republicans

The Founding Fathers didn't envision a Supreme court filled with political activists, either.

They're dead. Their visions are history.

========
But Republicans are CONSTANTLY DEMANDING that the courts follow the Constitution letter for letter.

Until, of course, it doesn't benefit REPUBLICANS.

 

[ogibillm]

How about a nice moderate? Oh wait, that wouldn't help you so, no...

Pound sand, that is our answer to Obama.

View attachment 63588

Nominate a conservative justice and that justice will be confirmed in short order. The choice is Obama's.

no, they won't.
it doesn't matter who he nominates, there will be a long drawn out process where the candidate is accused of being satan himself.

the only thing i can think of that might head some of that off is to select a recent prior judicial appointee that was confirmed with near unanimous consent. it'll be tough to raise issues against someone that they did not already raise and dismiss.

We both know Obama is going to use this opportunity to nominate some freak liberal lesbo just to poke a stick at his opponents in the GOP. He's still a community organizer thug that has been his leadership style from day one so the discussion is pointless. IF he nominated a conservative justice that would pin the GOP into a corner but he's never going to do that.

if you really believe that you're a fool.

 

[BluesLegend]

There's no Constitutional time limit on confirming a SCOTUS justice. Obama can nominate a conservative justice to replace the conservative justice who passed away, or he can suck eggs and the next president will nominate a justice.

How about a nice moderate? Oh wait, that wouldn't help you so, no...

Pound sand, that is our answer to Obama.

View attachment 63588

Nominate a conservative justice and that justice will be confirmed in short order. The choice is Obama's.

Nope, they've already said they would not do their constitutional duty.

It is Obama who will not perform his constitutional duty, respecting the will of the people who put the GOP in control of congress. He needs to nominate someone acceptable to the GOP controlled senate, we both know he won't but it will be Obama who fails in his constitutional duties.