Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Wry Catcher]

Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Democrats passed a resolution against SCOTUS appointments in an election year, so obviously it's the wrong thing to do.

 

[Faun]

The Democrats passed a resolution against SCOTUS appointments in an election year, so obviously it's the wrong thing to do.

In 1988, an election year, Democrats confirmed a Republican president's nominee.

Republicans love their party more than they love their country.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Democrats passed a resolution against SCOTUS appointments in an election year, so obviously it's the wrong thing to do.

They did? Post the "resolution" and then provide proof that it supersedes Art. II, Sec. 2 of COTUS!

 

[hazlnut]

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.

It's his job.

To no nominate someone would be not doing his job.

To no confirm a qualified nominee would be a violation of a Senator's oath of office.

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Democrats passed a resolution against SCOTUS appointments in an election year, so obviously it's the wrong thing to do.

In 1988, an election year, Democrats confirmed a Republican president's nominee.

Republicans love their party more than they love their country.

Since then the Democrats passed a resolution against doing so.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Let's face it, the Republican Party is fundamentally dishonest. It is clear they support only the well-to-do, tolerate (barely) the middle class and despise the working poor as lazy and entitled. They even despise their own when one of them votes on an issue or supports a policy which has not been sanctified as conservative enough.

There is no doubt in my mind that Mitch McConnell will violate his oath to support COTUS, proving once again that Country First was one more dishonest talking point. Party First is their singular focus and the means to garner the largess from the rich, support their anti democratic ideology and to perpetuate the devolution to plutocratic governance.

The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

It's his job.

To no nominate someone would be not doing his job.

To no confirm a qualified nominee would be a violation of a Senator's oath of office.

No it wouldn't.

 

[nat4900]

The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.

NO ONE on this thread has stated that the senate (NOT congress, by the way) has to accept any nominee...However, not "wanting" even a nominee to be brought forth by the president is a moronic statement by McConnell and the clown posse of candidates.

 

[nat4900]

Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?

Ironically, it could be MUCH worse for republicans based on two (very probable) IFs......

IF, a democrat sits in the oval office in January 2017...and
IF, as it is very likely that the senate switches majority to the democrats....

THEN, a much, much more liberal nominee could wind up in the SCOTUS.

 

[irosie91]

The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.

NO ONE on this thread has stated that the senate (NOT congress, by the way) has to accept any nominee...However, not "wanting" even a nominee to be brought forth by the president is a moronic statement by McConnell and the clown posse of candidates.

the senate is part of THE CONGRESS-----that which is called THE CONGRESS----is
The house of representatives plus the Senate------sheeesh you are picky. Whoever
said that he does not want an OBAMA candidate-----has a right to express his
OPINION ---------why beat around the bush?

 

[irosie91]

Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?

Ironically, it could be MUCH worse for republicans based on two (very probable) IFs......

IF, a democrat sits in the oval office in January 2017...and
IF, as it is very likely that the senate switches majority to the democrats....

THEN, a much, much more liberal nominee could wind up in the SCOTUS.

not likely to happen.------besides----I do not think the issue is LIBERAL VS
CONSERVATIVE----or "right" vs "left"-------I do believe that it is OBAMA
agenda vs sanity

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?

What a quandary for a member of the Senate who is not in a very Red State. Imagine being uncertain on what to do when their number one priority is to protect their job!

Consider the pressure put upon them from their major donors, their party and the opposition. The calculus may well be insoluble for many; it's easy for them to vote on issues which impact others, such as sending other peoples kids into harms way, or denying rights to gay and lesbian couples.

When it impacts their job security, a vote of this magnitude becomes vastly important, and thus will demonstrate which are worthy of the power they have been given, and which are not.

 

[irosie91]

Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?

What a quandary for a member of the Senate who is not in a very Red State. Imagine being uncertain on what to do when their number one priority is to protect their job!

Consider the pressure put upon them from their major donors, their party and the opposition. The calculus may well be insoluble for many; it's easy for them to vote on issues which impact others, such as sending other peoples kids into harms way, or denying rights to gay and lesbian couples.

When it impacts their job security, a vote of this magnitude becomes vastly important, and thus will demonstrate which are worthy of the power they have been given, and which are not.

good point WRY-------I suspect lots of congressmen are HOPING that stalling
tactics KICK IN

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?

Ironically, it could be MUCH worse for republicans based on two (very probable) IFs......

IF, a democrat sits in the oval office in January 2017...and
IF, as it is very likely that the senate switches majority to the democrats....

THEN, a much, much more liberal nominee could wind up in the SCOTUS.

not likely to happen.------besides----I do not think the issue is LIBERAL VS
CONSERVATIVE----or "right" vs "left"-------I do believe that it is OBAMA
agenda vs sanity

Define "sanity", especially considerate the comments of late by Rubio, Cruz and Trump; plus recent comments by Obama.

An honest response is expected. Failure to elucidate on a statement leaves one no recourse but to chalk up your comment to be one more partisan statement based on bias or ignorance not facts.

 

[nat4900]

When it impacts their job security, a vote of this magnitude becomes vastly important, and thus will demonstrate which are worthy of the power they have been given, and which are not.

Nothing pleases me more than to shake by the proverbial lapels these senators who think that they're entitled to their jobs and a situation such as this one will shake their too cushy comfort level. Republican senators from PA to WI are, I'm sure, in a bit of panic.

 

[irosie91]

Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?

Ironically, it could be MUCH worse for republicans based on two (very probable) IFs......

IF, a democrat sits in the oval office in January 2017...and
IF, as it is very likely that the senate switches majority to the democrats....

THEN, a much, much more liberal nominee could wind up in the SCOTUS.

not likely to happen.------besides----I do not think the issue is LIBERAL VS
CONSERVATIVE----or "right" vs "left"-------I do believe that it is OBAMA
agenda vs sanity

Define "sanity", especially considerate the comments of late by Rubio, Cruz and Trump; plus recent comments by Obama.

An honest response is expected. Failure to elucidate on a statement leaves one no recourse but to chalk up your comment to be one more partisan statement based on bias or ignorance not facts.

oh !!!!! EXCUUUUSE MEEE!!!! I consider Obama's policies----sorta OFF on many levels-------but to simplify------his economic policy seems on the verge of
suicidal and his right to bear arms is a little screwy and his take on domestic
security.---(new York just took a hit ---loss of funds for homeland security programs)-----as does his foreign DO NOTHING policy. How does that connect
to THE SUPREME COURT?------all kinds of ways-------challenges to his
questionable health care program WOULD hit the supreme court ----challenges to
his war on a gun in the pocket would hit the supreme court------and challenges to
his immigration policies would also hit the supreme court--------when I come up with
more troubles, I will let you know

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?

Ironically, it could be MUCH worse for republicans based on two (very probable) IFs......

IF, a democrat sits in the oval office in January 2017...and
IF, as it is very likely that the senate switches majority to the democrats....

THEN, a much, much more liberal nominee could wind up in the SCOTUS.

not likely to happen.------besides----I do not think the issue is LIBERAL VS
CONSERVATIVE----or "right" vs "left"-------I do believe that it is OBAMA
agenda vs sanity

Define "sanity", especially considerate the comments of late by Rubio, Cruz and Trump; plus recent comments by Obama.

An honest response is expected. Failure to elucidate on a statement leaves one no recourse but to chalk up your comment to be one more partisan statement based on bias or ignorance not facts.

Here's a good article that helps explain the nuances of the coming fight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/u...nfirmation-fight-could-help-and-hurt-gop.html

 

[Faun]

Of course he should and will. He should nominate someone who has been confirmed by the GOP before. Then let the whining begin. How many GOP Senate seats are up for grabs out of the 24 up for re-election in 2016?

34 seats are up -- 24 are GOP. Most are expected to remain with the same party as of now but some flips are expected. Democrats need to win 5 seats if a Republican wins the presidency or 4 seats if a Democrat wins. So far, Republicans look like they may lose 2 seats with another 3 being a 'toss up', one being a Democrat seat.