Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The next president, elected in November, will nominate the justice to succeed Scalia.
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?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.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.
Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?
Page #38. Where it states anyone not following every single tenant is not a true conservative.A Conservative who ruled in favor of abortion and affirmative action.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.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!
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.
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.
They say they are. Why would I believe you over them?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?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.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.
Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?
The Senate hasn't shirked anything.
They say they are. Why would I believe you over them?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?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.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.
Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?
The Senate hasn't shirked anything.
McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under ObamaThey say they are. Why would I believe you over them?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?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?
The Senate hasn't shirked anything.
Link?
McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under ObamaThey say they are. Why would I believe you over them?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?Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?
The Senate hasn't shirked anything.
Link?
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.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.
It actually says advise & consent. How convenient for you to leave out parts that interfere with your nonsense.McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under ObamaThey say they are. Why would I believe you over them?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.
Link?
The Constitution says advise. McConnell is advising that there won't be a replacement.
It says advice and consent, not advise and consent.It actually says advise & consent. How convenient for you to leave out parts that interfere with your nonsense.McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under ObamaThey say they are. Why would I believe you over them?The Senate hasn't shirked anything.
Link?
The Constitution says advise. McConnell is advising that there won't be a replacement.
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?
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...
There is no legal precedent which prevents the President from appointing a Supreme Court judge in his last year of office.