Who should name Scalias replacement? Obama or Hillary?

[rightwinger]

Hard to say really. Given that he was president when Scalia died, it should probably be Obama. But Hillary is more likely to name a young, liberal judge

So I think we would be better off with Hillary's choice

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Obviously your post is tongue and cheek, but as discussed in the several other threads already on this subject, Obama should be choosing a nominee and the Senate should be giving them an up or down vote. Refusing to vote until next year is an abdication of their duties.

 

[imawhosure]

Hard to say really. Given that he was president when Scalia died, it should probably be Obama. But Hillary is more likely to name a young, liberal judge

So I think we would be better off with Hillary's choice

Hillary, or Bernie, if they are elected. It will be the next Presidents administration, so they, whomever it is, should take the top priority.

Nice we can agree Jake. Good thread for GOPers to jump in. Thanks for creating it-)

 

[rightwinger]

I personally think Obamas hands are tied. He has to go with a moderate to bait the Republicans into confirming
Hillary will be free to name a young liberal that Obama can't at this point in his term

Republicans may sit on their hands until things shake out and then jump to Obamas pick when the election looks bad

Too late then

 

[Nyvin]

It's a gamble...with Hillary the justice would likely be much more liberal than anything Obama could put forward. But then again there is the 3% chance Trump wins the White House in November.

 

[Zander]

Obviously your post is tongue and cheek, but as discussed in the several other threads already on this subject, Obama should be choosing a nominee and the Senate should be giving them an up or down vote. Refusing to vote until next year is an abdication of their duties.

Nope. The Senate has the right and the obligation to "Bork" any Obama nominee. Elections have consequences.

Now if Obama nominates a pregnant, transgender dwarf, that is part American Indian or Eskimo.....all bets are off!

 

[Old Rocks]

Obviously your post is tongue and cheek, but as discussed in the several other threads already on this subject, Obama should be choosing a nominee and the Senate should be giving them an up or down vote. Refusing to vote until next year is an abdication of their duties.

That has been the pattern for this Senate.

 

[the_human_being]

I've already sent President-Elect Donald Trump an email informing him that he should appoint either Ted Cruz or Mark Levine. Both men are Conservatives and Constitutional authorities.

 

[saveliberty]

I personally think Obamas hands are tied. He has to go with a moderate to bait the Republicans into confirming
Hillary will be free to name a young liberal that Obama can't at this point in his term

Republicans may sit on their hands until things shake out and then jump to Obamas pick when the election looks bad

Too late then

Plus with Hillary making the appointment it will cement her presidency and set the tone for her policies. This is why the appointments have been made by incoming presidents.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Mr. Trump

 

[the_human_being]

I personally think Obamas hands are tied. He has to go with a moderate to bait the Republicans into confirming
Hillary will be free to name a young liberal that Obama can't at this point in his term

Republicans may sit on their hands until things shake out and then jump to Obamas pick when the election looks bad

Too late then

Plus with Hillary making the appointment it will cement her presidency and set the tone for her policies. This is why the appointments have been made by incoming presidents.

Hillary will be too busy trying to plea bargain her sentence down to worry about appointing a Justice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hard to say really. Given that he was president when Scalia died, it should probably be Obama. But Hillary is more likely to name a young, liberal judge

So I think we would be better off with Hillary's choice

Actually it's very easy to say – the current president should make the nomination, reflecting the will of the majority of the American people who voted to reelect him, with the understanding and intent that the president should act in his official capacity until the end of his second term in 2017, as the voters are entitled to those full four years – the American people did not vote to reelect the president for three years and 24 days.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obviously your post is tongue and cheek, but as discussed in the several other threads already on this subject, Obama should be choosing a nominee and the Senate should be giving them an up or down vote. Refusing to vote until next year is an abdication of their duties.

No. They have the role of advise and consent. If they don't consent, they dont consent. The Senate is under no obligation to act on the president's crappy nominees.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hard to say really. Given that he was president when Scalia died, it should probably be Obama. But Hillary is more likely to name a young, liberal judge

So I think we would be better off with Hillary's choice

Actually it's very easy to say – the current president should make the nomination, reflecting the will of the majority of the American people who voted to reelect him, with the understanding and intent that the president should act in his official capacity until the end of his second term in 2017, as the voters are entitled to those full four years – the American people did not vote to reelect the president for three years and 24 days.

With a major election looming Obama should defer the decision to his successor, who will represent the will of the people. Obama's election was over 3 years ago so no telling if he would be re-elected today.

 

[Silhouette]

Hard to say really. Given that he was president when Scalia died, it should probably be Obama. But Hillary is more likely to name a young, liberal judge

So I think we would be better off with Hillary's choice

Neither Obama nor Hillary will replace Scalia.

 

[tyroneweaver]

obama will nominate a non white and then use it as a wedge issue.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Obviously your post is tongue and cheek, but as discussed in the several other threads already on this subject, Obama should be choosing a nominee and the Senate should be giving them an up or down vote. Refusing to vote until next year is an abdication of their duties.

Nope. The Senate has the right and the obligation to "Bork" any Obama nominee.

And how is that different from what I said?

 

[Nyvin]

Obviously your post is tongue and cheek, but as discussed in the several other threads already on this subject, Obama should be choosing a nominee and the Senate should be giving them an up or down vote. Refusing to vote until next year is an abdication of their duties.

No. They have the role of advise and consent. If they don't consent, they dont consent. The Senate is under no obligation to act on the president's crappy nominees.

And explain how it's only acceptable to confirm a hardcore conservative judge to the Supreme Court instead of a moderate one that's already been confirmed to the DC circuit?

 

[The Rabbi]

Obviously your post is tongue and cheek, but as discussed in the several other threads already on this subject, Obama should be choosing a nominee and the Senate should be giving them an up or down vote. Refusing to vote until next year is an abdication of their duties.

No. They have the role of advise and consent. If they don't consent, they dont consent. The Senate is under no obligation to act on the president's crappy nominees.

And explain how it's only acceptable to confirm a hardcore conservative judge to the Supreme Court instead of a moderate one that's already been confirmed to the DC circuit?

I dont recall where "moderate"and "hard core" are mentioned in the Constitution. Please remind me.

 

[Zander]

Obviously your post is tongue and cheek, but as discussed in the several other threads already on this subject, Obama should be choosing a nominee and the Senate should be giving them an up or down vote. Refusing to vote until next year is an abdication of their duties.

Nope. The Senate has the right and the obligation to "Bork" any Obama nominee.

And how is that different from what I said?

You said Republicans have an obligation to give an up or down vote. They don't. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearing and questions nominees to determine their suitability. At the close of confirmation hearings, the Committee votes on whether the nomination should go to the Senate.