Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[80zephyr]

nothing short of bigotry.

I'd readily admit that I am a bit of a bigot against morons..Scalia was the "dog whistler" justice ...

.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s reprehensible suugestion that affirmative action harms blacks by offering opportunities that transcend their intellectual talents and abilities exemplifies the crisis of institutional racism at the heart of American democracy.

That a sitting Supreme Court justice could feel emboldened enough to articulate the kind of boldfaced belief in white supremacy thought to have ended with formal racial segregation illustrates the contours of the nation’s New Jim Crow, a system that justifies the dearth of African-American bodies in predominantly white spaces by questioning whether they truly belong there in the first place.

http://www.newsweek.com/scalia-comments-shine-light-us-institutional-racism-403823

Scalia was telling the truth. Only those folks who want a "1984" type of world would deny the truth.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

The right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

For all you "caps-challenged" right wingers who massage your guns for sexual gratification, the 2nd amendment actually states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Which means that all you gun-toting charmers should sign up to join a militia and be "well regulated:.........LOL

So your historically challenged as well... WE THE PEOPLE are the militia.. An armed populace was the founding fathers answer to stopping would be kings and runaway government. But alas another left wing fool who is ignorant of history is spouting crap again..

Wrong. The Militia are recruited by officers appointed by the state government and trained in concordance with the rules of the Congress.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.

George Mason

 

[nat4900]

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.

George Mason

Search for George Mason's approval of the Constitution....

 

[80zephyr]

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.

George Mason

Search for George Mason's approval of the Constitution....

Why?

Mark

 

[MisterBeale]

IOW, that would mean, they might have control, but it would still be more red than blue.

MrBeale needs a color chart....

What, you don't know what color represents the independents?

 

[gipper]

COTUS is clear, POTUS nominates and the Senate advises and consents to the nomination.

President Obama will do his duty and nominate a replacement for Justice Saclia, and the Senate Republicans, even before said nomination, will begin to assassinate the character of the unknown person as liberal, and one who will allow abortion up to the birth, the confiscation of all firearms from our citizens and the suppression of voting by anyone who has not given their DNA to a government agent.

It's clear, Sen. Cruz said so and he never lies. In fact the Republican's will once again vote in lockstop to deny President Obama his choice, even if Jesus Christ himself appeared with The President in the Rose Garden as his nominee,.

Have you forgotten what the Ds did to Bork and Thomas?

Or was what they did to those two justices, fair and just in your mind?

Fair? Funny that would be a concern of yous. But I digress, see Bork and the Saturday Night Massacre. One could never consider him to be of open mind or non partisan.

Thomas, a token since he was nominated by a Republican (remember the BIG TENT lie) was qualified but not highly by the ABA, and was challenged for sexual harassment by a black women attorney, yet still confirmed by the Senate.

That said, if the President Obama nominates an individual with an impeccable record on the bench and in his or her personal life, and the Republican Senate assassinates his or her character based on "what if's" (see Cruz's comments from the most recent debate, as well as other comments by members of the clown car) we can once again point to the hypocrisy of the Republican's, and their propensity to put politics before their duty and the United States of America.

You silly partisans are so easily fooled.

Let me summarize your point...when the Rs dislike a D president nominee for SC and attack the choice, it is politics.

When the Ds do it to an R president nominee, it is fair and just.

CRAZY!!!

 

[nat4900]

You silly partisans are so easily fooled.

Let me summarize your point...when the Rs dislike a D president nominee for SC and attack the choice, it is politics.

When the Ds do it to an R president nominee, it is fair and just.

CRAZY!!!

You're somewhat correct.....HOWEVER,

how do you feel about Cruz stating that whomever Obama may nominate, may constitute "the end of the 2nd amendment"......(I.e., everyone's guns will be taken away........a bit of over the top imbecility?)

 

[gipper]

You silly partisans are so easily fooled.

Let me summarize your point...when the Rs dislike a D president nominee for SC and attack the choice, it is politics.

When the Ds do it to an R president nominee, it is fair and just.

CRAZY!!!

You're somewhat correct.....HOWEVER,

how do you feel about Cruz stating that whomever Obama may nominate, may constitute "the end of the 2nd amendment"......(I.e., everyone's guns will be taken away........a bit of over the top imbecility?)

It may be over the top, but do you deny BO would love to confiscate guns as would most pols in the D party and some in the R party?

How many current SC justices would rule the 2A does not provide an individual right? I suspect some would.

 

[Two Thumbs]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

obviously he should

but since they probably weren't ready with a list, I don't think its a good idea to go with Sotos alt.


soto is such a far left nutbar that another nutbar would be the end of the Constitution, so if he could find someone reasonable, that would be a nice change.

 

[nat4900]

soto is such a far left nutbar that another nutbar would be the end of the Constitution, so if he could find someone reasonable, that would be a nice change.

Agreed......No one should (or could) argue that the SC has been "right leaning" with a 5-4 majority for many, many years....With the exception of Roberts' ruling on the ACA, we all pretty much knew how the majority of decisions facing the SC would go,

To switch to a 5-4 majority to the left, would be just as divisive....Ergo a moderate (like Kennedy) who could be the surprising "swing voter" would be best.

 

[nat4900]

It may be over the top, but do you deny BO would love to confiscate guns as would most pols in the D party and some in the R party?

Please bear in mind that, currently, Hillary is bashing Bernie over his "pro-gun" past votes.

 

[SwimExpert]

Obama needs to nominate a black or hispanic female. Let's see the Repubs try stopping that....

Why should the President discriminate based on race and gender? The President should maintain a higher standard than that.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, come on. It is hard work keeping the Senate "in session" while no one is there, lest a recess appointment might slip through.

As I've posted before, it'll be rather "fun" to watch a republican senator (24 of them) up for re-election telling whomever would listen, "re-elect me for having done nothing since I've mastered the art of obstructionism..."

The problem is that for many of those Republicans, obstruction is what their base wants. Sure, the majority of the country wants cooperation and compromise...

You'll note that the Tea Baggers are the only group who think it's more important to stick to beliefs than to compromise. (although Republicans as a whole aren't far behind).

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Pic via .

 

[Wry Catcher]

COTUS is clear, POTUS nominates and the Senate advises and consents to the nomination.

President Obama will do his duty and nominate a replacement for Justice Saclia, and the Senate Republicans, even before said nomination, will begin to assassinate the character of the unknown person as liberal, and one who will allow abortion up to the birth, the confiscation of all firearms from our citizens and the suppression of voting by anyone who has not given their DNA to a government agent.

It's clear, Sen. Cruz said so and he never lies. In fact the Republican's will once again vote in lockstop to deny President Obama his choice, even if Jesus Christ himself appeared with The President in the Rose Garden as his nominee,.

Have you forgotten what the Ds did to Bork and Thomas?

Or was what they did to those two justices, fair and just in your mind?

Fair? Funny that would be a concern of yous. But I digress, see Bork and the Saturday Night Massacre. One could never consider him to be of open mind or non partisan.

Thomas, a token since he was nominated by a Republican (remember the BIG TENT lie) was qualified but not highly by the ABA, and was challenged for sexual harassment by a black women attorney, yet still confirmed by the Senate.

That said, if the President Obama nominates an individual with an impeccable record on the bench and in his or her personal life, and the Republican Senate assassinates his or her character based on "what if's" (see Cruz's comments from the most recent debate, as well as other comments by members of the clown car) we can once again point to the hypocrisy of the Republican's, and their propensity to put politics before their duty and the United States of America.

You silly partisans are so easily fooled.

Let me summarize your point...when the Rs dislike a D president nominee for SC and attack the choice, it is politics.

When the Ds do it to an R president nominee, it is fair and just.

CRAZY!!!

You're a lunatic (i.e. challenged by reality) and I'll explain why as I might to a child.

• The two named were named (Bork & Thomas) and were vetted
• None have been named thus far and already have been vetted

Do you understand the difference?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Pic via .

Maybe too moderate, someone needs to provide a balance to Alito and Thomas, two ideologues who put their ideology first (or the ideology of those who own them) over any argument.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Pic via .

Maybe too moderate, someone needs to provide a balance to Alito and Thomas, two ideologues who put their ideology first (or the ideology of those who own them) over any argument.

they will not even consider the dude...its all about Obama ...

 

[nat4900]

Oh, come on. It is hard work keeping the Senate "in session" while no one is there, lest a recess appointment might slip through.

As I've posted before, it'll be rather "fun" to watch a republican senator (24 of them) up for re-election telling whomever would listen, "re-elect me for having done nothing since I've mastered the art of obstructionism..."

The problem is that for many of those Republicans, obstruction is what their base wants. Sure, the majority of the country wants cooperation and compromise...

You'll note that the Tea Baggers are the only group who think it's more important to stick to beliefs than to compromise. (although Republicans as a whole aren't far behind).

Good post and informative......Please note that, as always, the deciding votes seem to come from independents and they're somewhat rejecting the "tea sippers'" inflexible stances.

 

[Rustic]

Oh, come on. It is hard work keeping the Senate "in session" while no one is there, lest a recess appointment might slip through.

As I've posted before, it'll be rather "fun" to watch a republican senator (24 of them) up for re-election telling whomever would listen, "re-elect me for having done nothing since I've mastered the art of obstructionism..."

The problem is that for many of those Republicans, obstruction is what their base wants. Sure, the majority of the country wants cooperation and compromise...

You'll note that the Tea Baggers are the only group who think it's more important to stick to beliefs than to compromise. (although Republicans as a whole aren't far behind).

Getting along is way over rated, no reason for it.
Rodney King was full of shit...

 

[Rustic]

I could see Barry nominating Louis Farrakhan