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

[candycorn]

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

The GOP would have a hard time rationalizing voting for her for AG but not the SC.....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

One Chart Obliterates The Republican Argument For Obstructing Obama’s SCOTUS Nominee

Here is an easy-to-read chart that even a ten year old can comprehend, which shows that the Senate has managed to confirm a presidential nominee for the Supreme Court in a mere 19 days, so it's hard to understand why Republicans feel they can't possibly get this done in the next 342 days.…

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[ogibillm]

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.

it's going to be tough for the senate to say someone is unqualified to render judgment when they unanimously confirmed that individual a few short years ago to a district court seat.

 

[eagle7_31]

One Chart Obliterates The Republican Argument For Obstructing Obama’s SCOTUS Nominee

Here is an easy-to-read chart that even a ten year old can comprehend, which shows that the Senate has managed to confirm a presidential nominee for the Supreme Court in a mere 19 days, so it's hard to understand why Republicans feel they can't possibly get this done in the next 342 days.…

Depending on who BO sends up this will be done in one of two flavors, a filibuster or a 51-49 rejection. He sends up a hard core left winger that is what will happen. BO wises up and sends a genuine moderate (right Kagan etc, left of Thomas) he might have chance.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BO wises up and sends a genuine moderate (right Kagan etc, left of Thomas) he might have chance.

So-called "moderates" (in reality, people who have no particular fealty to what the Constitution says) are what have let court jurisprudence slide the country ever further to the left, against the Constitution.

I see no point in installing another one on the bench.

We've played around, backed and filled, deferred to Democrats enough. Now it's time to start the journey back to conservativism, responsibility, small government with limited powers, and freedom.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The Senate Republicans didn't say that they would reject any unqualified candidate. They said they would reject any candidate that Obama nominated. As they didn't think he should be allowed to nominate a justice.

Can you see the distinction?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Senate Republicans didn't say that they would reject any unqualified candidate. They said they would reject any candidate that Obama nominated.

Because they knew he would only nominate a liberal, or a "moderate" they could get to vote against the Constitution, of course.

If he nominated Janice Rogers Brown, of course they would approve her. But they know there's no way he would ever nominate Brown or anyone like her. Hence the statement.

Liberals look their silliest when they try to pretend a general statement was a literal statement of fact covering even impossible events.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

As usual, the liberal fanatics are trying to bash normal people for doing the same thing the liberals are doing.

 

[jillian]

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.

so if they're given a candidate who was recently confirmed unanimously to sit on a circuit court, they have an obligation to approve that justice because said justice is clearly suitable. right?

 

[jillian]

The Senate Republicans didn't say that they would reject any unqualified candidate. They said they would reject any candidate that Obama nominated.

Because they knew he would only nominate a liberal, or a "moderate" they could get to vote against the Constitution, of course.

If he nominated Janice Rogers Brown, of course they would approve her. But they know there's no way he would ever nominate Brown or anyone like her. Hence the statement.

Liberals look their silliest when they try to pretend a general statement was a literal statement of fact covering even impossible events.

liberals never look silly next to you.

thanks for the comparative.

 

[hadit]

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.

so if they're given a candidate who was recently confirmed unanimously to sit on a circuit court, they have an obligation to approve that justice because said justice is clearly suitable. right?

No, because the one does not guarantee the other. In this case, the Senate not only gets to decide who is suitable, but the criteria by which the person is considered suitable.

 

[jillian]

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.

so if they're given a candidate who was recently confirmed unanimously to sit on a circuit court, they have an obligation to approve that justice because said justice is clearly suitable. right?

No, because the one does not guarantee the other. In this case, the Senate not only gets to decide who is suitable, but the criteria by which the person is considered suitable.

not really. alito wasn't "suitable" to democrats. we are talking about judges appointed to high federal courts who were recently unanimously approved by the senate.

the senate can't force the president to appoint a conservative... same as dems couldn't force bush to appoint liberals.

 

[hadit]

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.

so if they're given a candidate who was recently confirmed unanimously to sit on a circuit court, they have an obligation to approve that justice because said justice is clearly suitable. right?

No, because the one does not guarantee the other. In this case, the Senate not only gets to decide who is suitable, but the criteria by which the person is considered suitable.

not really. alito wasn't "suitable" to democrats. we are talking about judges appointed to high federal courts who were recently unanimously approved by the senate.

the senate can't force the president to appoint a conservative... same as dems couldn't force bush to appoint liberals.

No, but they CAN reject any liberals sent their way. It's their prerogative.

 

[BluesLegend]

. 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 .............

I sent my representatives to Washington to stop him and the Democrats, we won they lost boo hoo deal with it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That's why he should nominate Brian Sandoval, the hispanic Republican moderate, who is pro-choice and pro gay marriage,

and let the partisan hacks in the GOP lynch one their own to spite Obama, if that's their wish.

 

[Little-Acorn]

so if they're given a candidate who was recently confirmed unanimously to sit on a circuit court, they have an obligation to approve that justice because said justice is clearly suitable. right?

The liberals also look quite silly when they move Heaven and Earth to try to deny the GOP any chance to use judgement.

Why do you not want them to take into consideration, what they learned about the nominee after he got onto the Circuit Court?

As always, the liberals are deathly afraid that the facts people find out about them, will sink them.