Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Yep Obama loves the process when he gets to make the rules...

Silly attempt to get some attention, right Kosh?......

NO ONE is stating that the senate's republicans are forbidden from filibustering, stomping their feet or running around the senate floor wailing.......

The ISSUE here is that your party does not even want for a nominee to be brought forth by Obama....so they can avoid the embarrassment of being the ultra partisan ideologues, due-nothing party.

(BTW, Alito is a total dud as justice.)

Another far left drone post fail!!

Reid applied the nuclear option, do not cry now when others do it..

Silly far left drone!

I always think of a parrot bobbing his head up and down and squawking the same phrase over and over again ("....far left drone....far left drone.....braaack....far left drone") every time I see one of your posts.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Let me say as a Irish-English and 1/8th Mescalero Apache female born and raised in rural southern New Mexico, the 47th state to enter the Union, Scalia was bad for women and minorities.

Obama needs to spend the next 11 months shoving the most liberal, free-thinking, open-minded female minority member into Scalia's seat.

Let me say as a mulatto - 50% white - 50% Afro-American - that the most basic right is the one to bear arms - no nominee is a free thinker unless he recognizes my right to bear arms

Since the early 1900's - ALL Supreme Court justices have referred to Puerto Ricans as stump jumpers who like to marry Negroes -

but

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

 

[Faun]

But Republicans have totally painted themselves into a corner. The only way they win this is if they win the presidency AND the Senate in November. Anything short of that and a diehard Liberal will be replacing Scalia.

Nah... doesn't matter who wins it won't be a die hard liberal... but nice attempt at a scare tactic... might actually work on McConnell.

Not true at all. If Democrats win either the presidency or the Senate, the next justice is almost guaranteed to be a Liberal. Thanks to this new procedure by Repuplicans.

 

[Faun]

Well, I see the DailyKos and ThinkProgress have their talking points in order as all the typical drones are here today denying the Senate rule about election year justices. But it really doesn't matter because there will be no Republican support for any judicial nominee made by this president. If you tards want to fantasize there isn't a rule, that's fine... you're still not getting your liberal justice to replace Scalia. The next president will pick the next Supreme Court justice.

This election just became about that.

That's because there is no such rule. Evidence of that is that you couldn't even post it when you were challenged.

 

[nat4900]

... you're still not getting your liberal justice to replace Scalia. The next president will pick the next Supreme Court justice.

This election just became about that.

This right wing poster tries to come off as "fair-n-balanced"....YET, the above points out that after more than two decades of the supreme court leaning right wing by a 5-4 voting bloc.........ANY possibility of that 5-4 majority switching, sends these ultra partisans in a frenzy.

And I.....much more than this right wing poster......will certainly hope that the last sentence is indeed true (for different outcomes, of course.)

 

[SwimExpert]

The Republican Senate has done away with recess appointments.

The Senate cannot "do away" with recess appointments. They are a constitutionally granted power of the Presidency. What you are talking about is the fact that Obama has at times tried to make recess appointments in times when the Senate was not in recess. Where he has done so, the Supreme Court has found the appointments to be unlawful.

So no, Obama will not get a recess appointment.

The decision to use recess appointment powers is the President's, and his alone. The President does not "get" recess appointments. He creates recess appointments, when lawful to do so, if he chooses to do so. The Senate is in recess at this very moment and is scheduled to remain in recess until the 22nd of this month. Obama could create a recess appointment right now if he wanted to do so.

But Republicans have totally painted themselves into a corner. The only way they win this is if they win the presidency AND the Senate in November. Anything short of that and a diehard Liberal will be replacing Scalia.

It's not so simple as that. But based on everything else you've said, I don't expect you to understand.

 

[SwimExpert]

There is a Senate RULE... do you under-fucking-stand what a RULE is?

The power to appoint is given to the President by the constitution. The Senate has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the President's appointment power. Their constitutional role is to either confirm or deny the appointment. If the Senate chooses to deny the appointment, that is their constitutional prerogative. But I do not believe there is any rule that would obligate them to deny any appointment in the President's final year in office.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Obama: ‘The Constitution Is Pretty Clear’ On SCOTUS Noms

President Obama fired back at Republicans who have said a nomination to the Supreme Court to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia should wait for the next president.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Is it my imagination or is Donald Trump looking more Orange than usual...does he have "John Boehner Syndrome".....

 

[Vigilante]

THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF SCALIA'S QUOTE!!!!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Reid's Graveyard is full of GOP legislation.............So you will have to park your Hypocrisy in another place....................

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[nat4900]

Beagle...why do you even bother with these stupid cartoons???

 

[eagle1462010]

Beagle...why do you even bother with these stupid cartoons???

The cartoon has a point to it........................but since it was said to the GOP you didn't care.........

So now.........Obama...........Back of the Bus..............Karma.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

I think that most Pubs prefer to take their cue from the Popular Vote, in November.

If the Dems win, you're right.

If the Pubs win, you're wrong.

We'll know soon enough, as history measures time.

 

[Kondor3]

Why bother?

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

Does that mean that we can save some money on the salaries of the entire senate since (especially Rubio) this "illustrious" chamber has NO intention of doing any work for this entire year?

Nahhhhh... just stuff that matters to Liberals...

Oh, so you think government office holders should get free pay and stuff? Hmmmm.....

Whatever in the world are you babbling about?

 

[Political Junky]

Of course he should do his constitutional duty. I'm sure The Right agrees.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

I really want to kick McConnell in the face right about now. If this is the game he's going to play, Obama could end up making a recess appointment immediately, and then renew it in January. That would get us someone in there for two whole years, which at that point becomes alot more difficult to not be willing to confirm without blatantly acknowledging you're doing it for purely partisan reasons. But the even bigger risk is that right now there is a very real chance that we have a President Sanders come next January 21. And I really shudder to think who he might nominate.

The Republican Senate has done away with recess appointments. Yet another example where they shit on the Constitution. So no, Obama will not get a recess appointment.

But Republicans have totally painted themselves into a corner. The only way they win this is if they win the presidency AND the Senate in November. Anything short of that and a diehard Liberal will be replacing Scalia.

A recess appointment is only good until the next session starts, at which time the nominee could be voted out.