Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[PaintMyHouse]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee in 2017.

Fine... use your scare tactics, characterize this however you please, run it until you run it in the ground then stomp on is spitting and swearing in outrage. Beat the dead horse on one side, flip it over and beat it again on the other... change horses and bet another one to death... Everyone who is not a partisan left-wing hack or absolute moron (yes, I realize that's redundant), understands that if this were a liberal justice and a republican president, Harry Reid would literally stand on his ear to keep a republican nominee off the court.

Bullshit. A Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee in 1988.

Was Reagan replacing a liberal justice?

No. A conservative swing (Powell) for a moderate swing.
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

So you have a Conservative president replacing a Conservative justice. That's not what I said, is it? If Reagan had attempted to nominate someone to replace a liberal justice he would have never gotten confirmation in an election year.

Can you imagine George W. Bush, in his final year in office, nominating a justice to replace Ginsberg? You think a Democrat senate would have confirmed ANYONE Bush nominated? Hell... they wouldn't even confirm his nominees in the off years!

Learn history:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh don't worry.......the congress will most definitely confirm a makey-uppey judge like Ginsburg. Write it down.......anybody who still trusts in a Republican doing the right thing has a plate in their head. No longer a two party system s0ns................duh. The rigging is quite underway.
The real question becomes, when are people going to finally decide to take back their government? What the fuck is it going to take before people are aware that the NWO is now a locomotive?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh don't worry.......the congress will most definitely confirm a makey-uppey judge like Ginsburg. Write it down.......anybody who still trusts in a Republican doing the right thing has a plate in their head. No longer a two party system s0ns................duh. The rigging is quite underway.
The real question becomes, when are people going to finally decide to take back their government? What the fuck is it going to take before people are aware that the NWO is now a locomotive?

It was never their government, it was never meant to be...

 

[nat4900]

This entire thread makes me realize (even more so than before) that the Supreme Court is NO LONGER a place where "justice is blind", but a place where ideology and partisan hypocrisy rule.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

None have. Why start now?

 

[Boss]

A moderate-Conservative appointed by Nixon.

No... A registered Republican Conservative. And he replaced him with a moderate with advice and consent of the Senate. So run along now and find an example of a LIBERAL justice being replaced in an election year by a Conservative Republican president... then we'll talk!

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. You just make up your positions as you go along. Powell was considered a moderate-Conservative, just as I said. He ruled with the majority in Roe v. Wade and in an affirmative action case. Despite being appointed by Nixon, he was very much a swing vote; not unlike Kennedy.

Nope. Powell was a registered Republican and very much a conservative... NEO-conservative, to be exact....

Powell Memorandum[edit]
Based in part on his experiences as a corporate lawyer and as a representative for the tobacco industry with the Virginia legislature, he wrote the Powell Memorandum to a friend at the US Chamber of Commerce.[13] The memo called for corporate America to become more aggressive in molding politics and law in the US and may have sparked the formation of several influential right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), as well as inspiring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become far more politically active.[14][15]Marxist academic David Harvey traces the rise of neoliberalism in the US to this memo.[16][17]

On August 23, 1971, prior to accepting President Nixon's request to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Powell sent the "Confidential Memorandum" titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System." He argued, "The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism came from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians." In the memorandum, Powell advocated "constant surveillance" of textbook and television content, as well as a purge of left-wing elements. He named consumer advocate Ralph Nader as the chief antagonist of American business.[18]

This memo foreshadowed a number of Powell's court opinions, especially First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, which shifted the direction of First Amendment law by declaring that corporate financial influence of elections through independent expenditures should be protected with the same vigor as individual political speech. Much of the future Court opinion inCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission relied on the same arguments raised in Bellotti.
===================================================

And Kennedy has been anything BUT a conservative justice. He's usually the "swing" vote to the left and not the right. At best, Kennedy is a moderate. But the justice he replaced was a Republican neocon and that's why it was acceptable for a conservative Republican to replace him. Also... Kennedy was nominated in 1987, not 1988. He was nominated after the rejection (read: OBSTRUCTION) of Robert Borke, earlier in 1987. He sailed through the confirmation hearings with bipartisan support from both sides who viewed him as a fair and balanced judge.

 

[Boss]

Learn history:
"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

I know history. Kennedy was actually the third justice nominated to fill the vacated seat of Justice Powell. His nomination came in 1987, not 1988. And as I said, succeeded the nomination of Robert Borke earlier in 1987 who underwent a lengthy confirmation hearing which made his last name a verb in politics... Borking.

So... Democrats obstructed Reagan's nomination more than a year before the election and Kennedy was the third pick after Ginsburg withdrew his name from consideration. Yes, technically, he was not confirmed until February of 1988, the election year, but the process began back in JUNE of 1987. AND.. most importantly, it was a Conservative justice being replaced by a Conservative president. If Obama were charged with replacing one of the liberal justices, this wouldn't be a big deal.

 

[BluesLegend]

This entire thread makes me realize (even more so than before) that the Supreme Court is NO LONGER a place where "justice is blind", but a place where ideology and partisan hypocrisy rule.

That's because we have 4 puke liberal justices trying to make law instead of upholding the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

A moderate-Conservative appointed by Nixon.

No... A registered Republican Conservative. And he replaced him with a moderate with advice and consent of the Senate. So run along now and find an example of a LIBERAL justice being replaced in an election year by a Conservative Republican president... then we'll talk!

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. You just make up your positions as you go along. Powell was considered a moderate-Conservative, just as I said. He ruled with the majority in Roe v. Wade and in an affirmative action case. Despite being appointed by Nixon, he was very much a swing vote; not unlike Kennedy.

Nope. Powell was a registered Republican and very much a conservative... NEO-conservative, to be exact....

Powell Memorandum[edit]
Based in part on his experiences as a corporate lawyer and as a representative for the tobacco industry with the Virginia legislature, he wrote the Powell Memorandum to a friend at the US Chamber of Commerce.[13] The memo called for corporate America to become more aggressive in molding politics and law in the US and may have sparked the formation of several influential right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), as well as inspiring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become far more politically active.[14][15]Marxist academic David Harvey traces the rise of neoliberalism in the US to this memo.[16][17]

On August 23, 1971, prior to accepting President Nixon's request to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Powell sent the "Confidential Memorandum" titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System." He argued, "The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism came from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians." In the memorandum, Powell advocated "constant surveillance" of textbook and television content, as well as a purge of left-wing elements. He named consumer advocate Ralph Nader as the chief antagonist of American business.[18]

This memo foreshadowed a number of Powell's court opinions, especially First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, which shifted the direction of First Amendment law by declaring that corporate financial influence of elections through independent expenditures should be protected with the same vigor as individual political speech. Much of the future Court opinion inCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission relied on the same arguments raised in Bellotti.
===================================================

And Kennedy has been anything BUT a conservative justice. He's usually the "swing" vote to the left and not the right. At best, Kennedy is a moderate. But the justice he replaced was a Republican neocon and that's why it was acceptable for a conservative Republican to replace him. Also... Kennedy was nominated in 1987, not 1988. He was nominated after the rejection (read: OBSTRUCTION) of Robert Borke, earlier in 1987. He sailed through the confirmation hearings with bipartisan support from both sides who viewed him as a fair and balanced judge.

A Conservative who ruled in favor of abortion and affirmative action.



You're such an idiot.

 

[my2¢]

Of course he should. Anybody who says they wouldn't if in his place is a fool.

 

[Wildman]

congress has the authority to reduce or increase the number SCJ's, personally i believe there should be 13 SCJ's..., AND!! if they are not ruling strictly on Constitutional issues they should be replaced.., like having 3 SCJ's in reserve/standby mode.

 

[nat4900]

That's because we have 4 puke liberal justices trying to make law instead of upholding the Constitution.

"Brilliant analysis" ......That's why we've had lots of right-leaning 5-4 decisions.

 

[Kondor3]

That's because we have 4 puke liberal justices trying to make law instead of upholding the Constitution.

"Brilliant analysis" ......That's why we've had lots of right-leaning 5-4 decisions.

And we don't want a lot of Left-leaning 5-4 decisions now...

 

[Boss]

A moderate-Conservative appointed by Nixon.

No... A registered Republican Conservative. And he replaced him with a moderate with advice and consent of the Senate. So run along now and find an example of a LIBERAL justice being replaced in an election year by a Conservative Republican president... then we'll talk!

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. You just make up your positions as you go along. Powell was considered a moderate-Conservative, just as I said. He ruled with the majority in Roe v. Wade and in an affirmative action case. Despite being appointed by Nixon, he was very much a swing vote; not unlike Kennedy.

Nope. Powell was a registered Republican and very much a conservative... NEO-conservative, to be exact....

Powell Memorandum[edit]
Based in part on his experiences as a corporate lawyer and as a representative for the tobacco industry with the Virginia legislature, he wrote the Powell Memorandum to a friend at the US Chamber of Commerce.[13] The memo called for corporate America to become more aggressive in molding politics and law in the US and may have sparked the formation of several influential right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), as well as inspiring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become far more politically active.[14][15]Marxist academic David Harvey traces the rise of neoliberalism in the US to this memo.[16][17]

On August 23, 1971, prior to accepting President Nixon's request to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Powell sent the "Confidential Memorandum" titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System." He argued, "The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism came from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians." In the memorandum, Powell advocated "constant surveillance" of textbook and television content, as well as a purge of left-wing elements. He named consumer advocate Ralph Nader as the chief antagonist of American business.[18]

This memo foreshadowed a number of Powell's court opinions, especially First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, which shifted the direction of First Amendment law by declaring that corporate financial influence of elections through independent expenditures should be protected with the same vigor as individual political speech. Much of the future Court opinion inCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission relied on the same arguments raised in Bellotti.
===================================================

And Kennedy has been anything BUT a conservative justice. He's usually the "swing" vote to the left and not the right. At best, Kennedy is a moderate. But the justice he replaced was a Republican neocon and that's why it was acceptable for a conservative Republican to replace him. Also... Kennedy was nominated in 1987, not 1988. He was nominated after the rejection (read: OBSTRUCTION) of Robert Borke, earlier in 1987. He sailed through the confirmation hearings with bipartisan support from both sides who viewed him as a fair and balanced judge.

A Conservative who ruled in favor of abortion and affirmative action.



You're such an idiot.

I'm sorry, where in the Conservative Handbook does it state all Conservatives are opposed to Affirmative Action and favor outlawing all abortions? ....Just because you've bought into some stereotype meme of what a Conservative is, doesn't mean you have brains.

Powell: Registered Republican... Neo-Conservative... Non-Liberal-wackadoodle.
Stepped down in 1987... not 1988. Non sequitur straw man. Find a LIBERAL justice replaced by a CONSERVATIVE president in an election year, then we'll talk. If you can't, just admit that you can't and let's move on.

 

[candycorn]

Yes. His duty is to nominate a replacement

 

[Boss]

Yes. His duty is to nominate a replacement

And it's the Republican's duty to reject his nomination. Thanks

 

[Seawytch]

Yes. His duty is to nominate a replacement

And it's the Republican's duty to reject his nomination. Thanks

Really? The powers of the President to appoint a nominee are in the Constitution. Where is it written in that same document that Republicans are duty bound to reject his nominations?

 

[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.

None have. Why start now?

You're the one who wants him to do so, so answer your own question.

 

[Boss]

Yes. His duty is to nominate a replacement

And it's the Republican's duty to reject his nomination. Thanks

Really? The powers of the President to appoint a nominee are in the Constitution. Where is it written in that same document that Republicans are duty bound to reject his nominations?

Fuck you. Since when do you libtards give a shit about the constitution?

It has been precedent since Eisenhower not to approve presidential nominations during an election year. Before you run to the Kennedy nomination, that happened in 1987, not 1988... he was confirmed in 1988 after a lengthy process in which two other candidates fell by the wayside.

So this is what is going to happen.... Obama will nominate someone... The Republican-led confirmation hearings will take place and the nominee will eventually be rejected. The next president, elected in November, will nominate the justice to succeed Scalia. Whine and cry.. .wave the constitution around like you care... bluster and bitch... moan and writhe in anguish... that's what is going down. Get used to the idea.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes. His duty is to nominate a replacement

And it's the Republican's duty to reject his nomination. Thanks

Really? The powers of the President to appoint a nominee are in the Constitution. Where is it written in that same document that Republicans are duty bound to reject his nominations?

Fuck you. Since when do you libtards give a shit about the constitution?

It has been precedent since Eisenhower not to approve presidential nominations during an election year. Before you run to the Kennedy nomination, that happened in 1987, not 1988... he was confirmed in 1988 after a lengthy process in which two other candidates fell by the wayside.

So this is what is going to happen.... Obama will nominate someone... The Republican-led confirmation hearings will take place and the nominee will eventually be rejected. The next president, elected in November, will nominate the justice to succeed Scalia. Whine and cry.. .wave the constitution around like you care... bluster and bitch... moan and writhe in anguish... that's what is going down. Get used to the idea.

It has not been the precedent to block Supreme Court nominees because it is an election year. Saint Raygun got Kennedy in during his last year with less time left than President Obama has. The President will nominate someone and the Senate is obligated to advise and consent to it.

And as for when have I given a shit about the Constituition? Every job I've held since I turned 18 required I swore an oath on it. You?