Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[nat4900]

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

Another way of stating that the Supreme court is really NOT a court, but another partisan bunch of hacks like we have in congress.

 

[nat4900]

The next president, elected in November, will nominate the justice to succeed Scalia.

Here's a right wing nitwit who is gambling that a) a member of the GOP clown posse gets elected, and b) that the senate (very unlikely) will remain in GOP hands........Lots of luck,

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

Absolutely. Or even if Republicans hold onto the Senate, according to these new Senate Rules, a Democrat president can refuse to name a nominee until 2019 when maybe we will have a Democrat Senate.

Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?

I am indeed. Just like the Senate is obligated to advise and consent. But since the Senate is shirking their Constitutional obligations, why can't the next president should a Democrat win?

The Senate hasn't shirked anything.

 

[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.

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.

Page #38. Where it states anyone not following every single tenant is not a true conservative.

Your derangement aside...

washingtonpost

Retired Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., a voice of moderation on the Supreme Court for much of the 1970s and 1980s and the decisive vote during years of ideological turmoil, died yesterday at the age of 90.

http://www.biography.com/people/lewis-f-powell-jr-38967?page=2

Born on September 19, 1907, in Suffolk, Virginia, Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. is remembered for being a moderate conservative during his time on the nation's highest court. He enjoyed a comfortable upbringing as the son of a successful businessman.

 

[Faun]

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.

Absolutely. Or even if Republicans hold onto the Senate, according to these new Senate Rules, a Democrat president can refuse to name a nominee until 2019 when maybe we will have a Democrat Senate.

Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?

I am indeed. Just like the Senate is obligated to advise and consent. But since the Senate is shirking their Constitutional obligations, why can't the next president should a Democrat win?

The Senate hasn't shirked anything.

They say they are. Why would I believe you over them?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

Absolutely. Or even if Republicans hold onto the Senate, according to these new Senate Rules, a Democrat president can refuse to name a nominee until 2019 when maybe we will have a Democrat Senate.

Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?

I am indeed. Just like the Senate is obligated to advise and consent. But since the Senate is shirking their Constitutional obligations, why can't the next president should a Democrat win?

The Senate hasn't shirked anything.

They say they are. Why would I believe you over them?

Link?

 

[candycorn]

I guess if the Senate is controlled by Democrats and there is a GOP president, rejecting nominees for the next 2 years based on nothing but politics is okay??? If the GOP opens the door to such, the Dems have every right to walk through it.

 

[Faun]

Absolutely. Or even if Republicans hold onto the Senate, according to these new Senate Rules, a Democrat president can refuse to name a nominee until 2019 when maybe we will have a Democrat Senate.

Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?

I am indeed. Just like the Senate is obligated to advise and consent. But since the Senate is shirking their Constitutional obligations, why can't the next president should a Democrat win?

The Senate hasn't shirked anything.

They say they are. Why would I believe you over them?

Link?

McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?

I am indeed. Just like the Senate is obligated to advise and consent. But since the Senate is shirking their Constitutional obligations, why can't the next president should a Democrat win?

The Senate hasn't shirked anything.

They say they are. Why would I believe you over them?

Link?

McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama

The Constitution says advise. McConnell is advising that there won't be a replacement.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

I guess if the Senate is controlled by Democrats and there is a GOP president, rejecting nominees for the next 2 years based on nothing but politics is okay??? If the GOP opens the door to such, the Dems have every right to walk through it.

The Dems are just pussy because the show is on the other foot.

 

[Faun]

I guess if the Senate is controlled by Democrats and there is a GOP president, rejecting nominees for the next 2 years based on nothing but politics is okay??? If the GOP opens the door to such, the Dems have every right to walk through it.

Or if the next president is a Democrat but Republicans maintain control of the Senate, the Democrat president can hold off on nominating Supreme Court justices until Democrats take over the Senate. These are the new rules according to Republicans. No longer does the president and Senate work together to replace vacancies ... now they each wait until the other is the same party so they can install the most Liberal or most Conservative justice they can find.

 

[Faun]

I am indeed. Just like the Senate is obligated to advise and consent. But since the Senate is shirking their Constitutional obligations, why can't the next president should a Democrat win?

The Senate hasn't shirked anything.

They say they are. Why would I believe you over them?

Link?

McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama

The Constitution says advise. McConnell is advising that there won't be a replacement.

It actually says advise & consent. How convenient for you to leave out parts that interfere with your nonsense.

 

[nat4900]

The Dems are just pussy because the show is on the other foot.

Yes, but the SHOW must go on.....

 

[g5000]

I've read the Constitution. It says the term of office for President of the United States is four years, not three.

No, really!

And the President has the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court during his entire term of office.

Don't believe me? See for yourselves: Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

 

[g5000]

The Senate hasn't shirked anything.

They say they are. Why would I believe you over them?

Link?

McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama

The Constitution says advise. McConnell is advising that there won't be a replacement.

It actually says advise & consent. How convenient for you to leave out parts that interfere with your nonsense.

It says advice and consent, not advise and consent.

 

[g5000]

Everyone is blabbing and blabbing about "precedent" these days. But what they really mean is "tradition". There is no legal precedent which prevents the President from appointing a Supreme Court judge in his last year of office.

Speaking of "precedents", there is no precedent for a Senate Majority leader to stop an up or down vote on a Supreme Court appointment.

So put that in your pipes and smoke it for a while.

 

[bendog]

I think even Shumer wanted to limit W's, and Obama voted to filibuster Alito. So, .... politics.

But consider, if Obama nominated Sri Srinivasan,there's a guy who clerked for O'Connor and another "conservative" judge. And, by what I've read he's a moderate and decent guy ... plus he's Hindi. A first there. LOL

But, if Hillary manages to win .... she will possibly nominate someone farther to the left. And both Kennedy and Ginsburg are not spring chickens.

 

[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.

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?

As I said when I made the statement... Kennedy was appointed in 1987 and confirmed in Feb 1988. Kennedy was the third nominee in a process which began in June 1987 when Powell stepped down. Is this June 2015? Has Obama already appointed two justices who were rejected and/or took their name out of contention before a third was nominated in 2015 and his confirmation hearing concluded last week? That's what you need to have an equivalent scenario.

I realize you libtards are like little puppies with a bone and you think this is the "gotchya" example but it's just fucking not. The Senate adopted a rule after Ike appointed a justice right before the 1960 election of JFK. But liberals are always this way... they want republicans to follow the rules and they get to break the rules.

As for the constitution, if you think "advise and consent" means they are obligated to approve whatever the president presents, you're an idiot. That's not what it means and everyone with half a brain knows that.... Including Obama who twice rejected Bush's appointments to the court on that very basis.

 

[JoeB131]

Why bother?

The Senate does not seem in a mood to ratify anyone that His Imperial Majesty is likely to offer up as a nominee...

So, make them have the hearings and the votes.

You know what, when Reagan nominated noted Crazy Person Robert Bork to SCOTUS, the Democrats gave him a hearing and they questioned every ridiculous thing he ever said. And at the end of it, even Republicans voted against the guy because he was unacceptable.

The real problem you guys have is that the person who Obama is likely to nominated would probably be in sync with where most of the country is at on immigration reform, campaign finance reform, gay rights, gun control, etc.

But if you think otherwise, have the hearings and give the nominee an up or down vote.

 

[Boss]

There is no legal precedent which prevents the President from appointing a Supreme Court judge in his last year of office.

No one is claiming that is a precedent. There is a Senate RULE... do you under-fucking-stand what a RULE is? It was put in place back in 1960 following an election year appointment by Eisenhower. This RULE does not say there is a legal precedent for the president not to make an appointment.... he can make an appointment and he will. The RULE covers confirmation of his appointment (made in an election year) during an election campaign.