Of course Obama should nominate a SC justice, and the Senate should reject one they find unsuitable

[Little-Acorn]

Both tasks are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Obama, as President, should nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace the deceased Scalia. That is one of the things he was elected to do, as is any President. And there is no reason why he should not nominate this year.

And the Senate should consider each nominee, evaluate his qualifications, and vote to approve or reject each one. That is very clearly what this Senate was elected to do, as liberals were thrown out and Republicans (some conservative) were put in in their places. And if this Senate feels they will get more qualified nominees from the next President than from this one, then it is their duty to keep rejecting nominees until a well-qualified one is named by the President.

Qualification includes, for example, a dedication to the Constitution and a conviction that it is a framework we must adhere to, rather than an obstacle to be gotten around. Another qualification would be a belief that the meaning of the Constitution doesn't change with time or developing technology - that if people want its meaning to change, they should avail themselves of the amendment process spelled out in the document itself. And if the amendment process isn't completed, then the Constitution's meaning remains unchanged. And its meaning is what the people who wrote and ratified it wrote it to mean. We can change that at any time - but a 3/4 majority of ALL the states across the country must agree to the change, or else there is no change.

Any nominee who doesn't meet those qualification, should be rejected by the Senate. That is their job, just as it is Obama's job to nominate SC justices.

 

[Contumacious]

Both tasks are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Obama, as President, should nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace the deceased Scalia. That is one of the things he was elected to do, as is any President. And there is no reason why he should not nominate this year.

And the Senate should consider each nominee, evaluate his qualifications, and vote to approve or reject each one. That is very clearly what this Senate was elected to do, as liberals were thrown out and Republicans (some conservative) were put in in their places. And if this Senate feels they will get more qualified nominees from the next President than from this one, then it is their duty to keep rejecting nominees until a well-qualified one is named by the President.

Qualification includes, for example, a dedication to the Constitution and a conviction that it is a framework we must adhere to, rather than an obstacle to gotten around. Another qualification would be a belief that the meaning of the Constitution doesn't change with time or developing technology - that if people want its meaning to change, they should avail themselves of the amendment process spelled out in the document itself. And if the amendment process isn't completed, then the Constitution's meaning remains unchanged. And its meaning is what the people who wrote and ratified it wrote it to mean. We can change that at any time - but a 3/4 majority of ALL the states across the country must agree to the change, or else there is no change.

Any nominee who doesn't meet those qualification, should be rejected by the Senate. That is their job, just as it is Obama's job to nominate SC justices.

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.

So let's not pretend that the Constitution (1787) is still in effect, it ended in 1935. What we have now is a gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.

What we need is a nominee who will let us bear arms until such time as the Constitution can be RESTORED and ENFORCED.


.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If the Framers wanted to change the Constitution willy-nilly every time the wind shifted, then why did they bother to write it down?

The advantage of having a written Constitution, is that it does not change unless language is added later to make a change.

If they had wanted a "living, breathing" Constitution as today liberals try to call it, there would be no point in writing it down at all, since its meaning would be different a week or a month later.

But they didn't include any time-sensitive mandates in it, except those which could reasonably be expected to stand the test of time: We'll have a President, a Congress, and Courts. We will give to them only limited powers which are spelled out in the Constitution; they can have no others unless the new ones are also added to the Constitution by 3/4 of the states. All other powers are reserved for the states or the people, etc. etc.

The idea of a "living, breathing Constitution" that changes with the times, is merely an attempt to get around the fact that the rules actually in the Constitution do not, and should not, change with time. They should be changed only by a broad cross-section of the country. Not every time someone takes a deep breath.

 

[PredFan]

And any choice Obama makes will be unsuitable. Obama cannot miss this opportunity to further the destruction of this country, which he was raised to hate, far beyond the end of his disastrous regime. It must not be allowed to happen.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Carson: GOP Wouldn’t Stall SCOTUS Nom If It Controlled WH

 

[Little-Acorn]

Carson: GOP Wouldn’t Stall SCOTUS Nom If It Controlled WH

Was that supposed to be a revelation of something we didn't know?

It's reasonable to assume that, given his record, Obama would nominate people who didn't meet the qualifications I outlined above.

And it's equally reasonable to assume that the Senate wouldn't approve them, for that reason. That was one of the reasons those Senators were elected to office.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

. That was one of the reasons those Senators were elected to office.

We elected Obama to nominate Supreme Court Justices and the Constitution says Obama Nominates .............

 

[Preacher]

That is the best way to do it the problem is the GOP in power has shown over and over and over they are nothing more than Obama's lapdog and will do as he says when push comes to shove. THAT is why some are saying we must stop him before its even allowed up for a vote.

 

[Little-Acorn]

THAT is why some are saying we must stop him before its even allowed up for a vote.

"We" can't stop him. He'd simply be doing his job as specified in the Constitution.

But the Senate can stop a nominee from gaining the bench, if they find him unqualified. They would simply be doing their job as specified by the Constitution.

 

[B. Kidd]

Carson: GOP Wouldn’t Stall SCOTUS Nom If It Controlled WH

Carson is dead-meat, ready to drop out (should've by now, but you know, ego being what it is.....). It's statements like this and other ones like belt-buckle assaults, getting into a battle royale w/Russia over Syria, etc. that have nullified his chances. But be my guest and go ahead and quote him.................

 

[imawhosure]

If the Framers wanted to change the Constitution willy-nilly every time the wind shifted, then why did they bother to write it down?

The advantage of having a written Constitution, is that it does not change unless language is added later to make a change.

If they had wanted a "living, breathing" Constitution as today liberals try to call it, there would be no point in writing it down at all, since its meaning would be different a week or a month later.

But they didn't include any time-sensitive mandates in it, except those which could reasonably be expected to stand the test of time: We'll have a President, a Congress, and Courts. We will give to them only limited powers which are spelled out in the Constitution; they can have no others unless the new ones are also added to the Constitution by 3/4 of the states. All other powers are reserved for the states or the people, etc. etc.

The idea of a "living, breathing Constitution" that changes with the times, is merely an attempt to get around the fact that the rules actually in the Constitution do not, and should not, change with time. They should be changed only by a broad cross-section of the country. Not every time someone takes a deep breath.

And any choice Obama makes will be unsuitable. Obama cannot miss this opportunity to further the destruction of this country, which he was raised to hate, far beyond the end of his disastrous regime. It must not be allowed to happen.

Carson: GOP Wouldn’t Stall SCOTUS Nom If It Controlled WH

That is the best way to do it the problem is the GOP in power has shown over and over and over they are nothing more than Obama's lapdog and will do as he says when push comes to shove. THAT is why some are saying we must stop him before its even allowed up for a vote.

No offense folks, but I chose this thread because it was the shortest on the board covering this issue.

QUESTION OF PERTINENCE-------------> Please show anywhere in our constitution, amendments, or anywhere else, where it shows how many Justices are required to sit on the bench!

Last I heard, the number was 6. Let me spell that for you.... S-I-X! Therefore, nobody has to be nominated to do anything under constitutional law. In fact, by rights, we should be eliminating 2 more.

 

[Preacher]

THAT is why some are saying we must stop him before its even allowed up for a vote.

"We" can't stop him. He'd simply be doing his job as specified in the Constitution.

But the Senate can stop a nominee from gaining the bench, if they find him unqualified. They would simply be doing their job as specified by the Constitution.

Has the senate stopped ANYTHING that the people that elected them wanted stopped? Hell no.Why would they start now?

 

[PredFan]

If Obama or any Democrat POTUS is allowed to tip the scales to the left, we can kiss our rights and liberties goodbye.

 

[B. Kidd]

If Obama or any Democrat POTUS is allowed to tip the scales to the left, we can kiss our rights and liberties goodbye.

10-4 that! It will be the hallmark not of a broken system, but of a disintegrating one. Most of the marbles are on the table.

 

[imawhosure]

If Obama or any Democrat POTUS is allowed to tip the scales to the left, we can kiss our rights and liberties goodbye.

The Democratic enthusiasm is so low, this should be a walk-in for the GOP if the Democrats don't change horses from Hilly to someone else. It shows in virtually EVERY, ISSUE, POLL.

But, if the GOP fund raisers keep pushing to screw the will of the the voters, to many will again stay home in disgust. If they push an establishment candidate into the lead, fine. I will support them. But if they fail, they had better get behind the will of their voters and campaign, because if not, they will have no party left.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is considered to be a potential Obama pick for the Supreme Court.

Read more: Here Are Obama's Potential Supreme Court Nominees

 

[Jackson]

Both tasks are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Obama, as President, should nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace the deceased Scalia. That is one of the things he was elected to do, as is any President. And there is no reason why he should not nominate this year.

And the Senate should consider each nominee, evaluate his qualifications, and vote to approve or reject each one. That is very clearly what this Senate was elected to do, as liberals were thrown out and Republicans (some conservative) were put in in their places. And if this Senate feels they will get more qualified nominees from the next President than from this one, then it is their duty to keep rejecting nominees until a well-qualified one is named by the President.

Qualification includes, for example, a dedication to the Constitution and a conviction that it is a framework we must adhere to, rather than an obstacle to gotten around. Another qualification would be a belief that the meaning of the Constitution doesn't change with time or developing technology - that if people want its meaning to change, they should avail themselves of the amendment process spelled out in the document itself. And if the amendment process isn't completed, then the Constitution's meaning remains unchanged. And its meaning is what the people who wrote and ratified it wrote it to mean. We can change that at any time - but a 3/4 majority of ALL the states across the country must agree to the change, or else there is no change.

Any nominee who doesn't meet those qualification, should be rejected by the Senate. That is their job, just as it is Obama's job to nominate SC justices.

“this is Nero at his worst. The Constitution is gone.” Those were the trenchant words spoken extemporaneously when Justice James Clark McReynolds read his dissent from the bench.

So let's not pretend that the Constitution (1787) is still in effect, it ended in 1935. What we have now is a gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.

What we need is a nominee who will let us bear arms until such time as the Constitution can be RESTORED and ENFORCED.


.

Even after the Constitution is "restored and enforced," we will be able to bear arms unless the 2nd amendment is changed by a vote of the states.

 

[Jackson]

If Obama or any Democrat POTUS is allowed to tip the scales to the left, we can kiss our rights and liberties goodbye.

The Democratic enthusiasm is so low, this should be a walk-in for the GOP if the Democrats don't change horses from Hilly to someone else. It shows in virtually EVERY, ISSUE, POLL.

But, if the GOP fund raisers keep pushing to screw the will of the the voters, to many will again stay home in disgust. If they push an establishment candidate into the lead, fine. I will support them. But if they fail, they had better get behind the will of their voters and campaign, because if not, they will have no party left.

I agree with you. The GOP had better think ahead of what and how they treat all of the candidates in the race. This election is crucial.

 

[Jackson]

And any choice Obama makes will be unsuitable. Obama cannot miss this opportunity to further the destruction of this country, which he was raised to hate, far beyond the end of his disastrous regime. It must not be allowed to happen.

I would agree with you, but I read the bio for a few of them and some are not bad. Certainly better than Sotomayor.

 

[candycorn]

Both tasks are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Obama, as President, should nominate a Supreme Court justice to replace the deceased Scalia. That is one of the things he was elected to do, as is any President. And there is no reason why he should not nominate this year.

And the Senate should consider each nominee, evaluate his qualifications, and vote to approve or reject each one. That is very clearly what this Senate was elected to do, as liberals were thrown out and Republicans (some conservative) were put in in their places. And if this Senate feels they will get more qualified nominees from the next President than from this one, then it is their duty to keep rejecting nominees until a well-qualified one is named by the President.

Qualification includes, for example, a dedication to the Constitution and a conviction that it is a framework we must adhere to, rather than an obstacle to be gotten around. Another qualification would be a belief that the meaning of the Constitution doesn't change with time or developing technology - that if people want its meaning to change, they should avail themselves of the amendment process spelled out in the document itself. And if the amendment process isn't completed, then the Constitution's meaning remains unchanged. And its meaning is what the people who wrote and ratified it wrote it to mean. We can change that at any time - but a 3/4 majority of ALL the states across the country must agree to the change, or else there is no change.

Any nominee who doesn't meet those qualification, should be rejected by the Senate. That is their job, just as it is Obama's job to nominate SC justices.

Who are you and what have done with the real Little Acorn?