Who should name Scalias replacement? Obama or Hillary?

[the_human_being]

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

 

[rightwinger]

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!

Then let the Senate make a stand and vote up or down. Republicans plan to take no action

 

[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

Neither Obama nor Hillary will replace Scalia.

No, but they will name someone to replace him and Republicans will not be happy

Hillary will have a Democratic Senate to approve her liberal pick

 

[NYcarbineer]

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

Irrelevant.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Who should name Scalias replacement?

The POTUS, per the Constitution.

 

[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.

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!

Then let the Senate make a stand and vote up or down. Republicans plan to take no action

Taking no action is taking action. The Republicans are under no obligation to give an up or down vote.

 

[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

Neither Obama nor Hillary will replace Scalia.

No, but they will name someone to replace him and Republicans will not be happy

Hillary will have a Democratic Senate to approve her liberal pick

lol.

 

[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!

Then let the Senate make a stand and vote up or down. Republicans plan to take no action

Tough shit. Elections have consequences. Democrats lost the Senate.

 

[rightwinger]

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!

Then let the Senate make a stand and vote up or down. Republicans plan to take no action

Taking no action is taking action. The Republicans are under no obligation to give an up or down vote.

No they are not....that is today's Republican Party
Do nothing

But the game they are playing assumes both a Republican President and Republican Senate gets elected

Little chance of that happening

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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!

Then let the Senate make a stand and vote up or down. Republicans plan to take no action

Tough shit. Elections have consequences. Democrats lost the Senate.

Tough shit the Constitution still requires them to do their job. That's what Scalia would have said.

 

[rightwinger]

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!

Then let the Senate make a stand and vote up or down. Republicans plan to take no action

Tough shit. Elections have consequences. Democrats lost the Senate.

And the Senates role is to vote on the Supreme Court nominee

 

[rightwinger]

Obama will name a moderate

Waiting for Hillary to be President will result in a liberal being selected

 

[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!

Then let the Senate make a stand and vote up or down. Republicans plan to take no action

Tough shit. Elections have consequences. Democrats lost the Senate.

And the Senates role is to vote on the Supreme Court nominee

Nope. The Senate's role is to hold hearings and interview the nominee in the Senate Judiciary committee. Then decide if the nominee is worthy of a vote. That is what they'll do. Since the committee has a solid GOP majority, I don't see any nominee getting past the "vetting" process. Elections have consequences.

 

[hazlnut]

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

Hilary will Nominate Obama to SCOTUS with RBG steps down.

 

[HenryBHough]

Mrs. Rodham-Clinton/Lewinsky cannot be both president and supreme court justice at the same time.

Sorry, Obama.

Most fun would be to see Him nominate Her and let the hearings begin!

 

[Eaglewings]

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

Either way the republican congress is screwed...If Obama picks anyone and they try to delay, they will lose votes people are pissed about the delays and not working when we pay them....

Makes me laugh to see Ted Cruz, and Mitch pee their pants.........

What Obama is doing today~

 

[rightwinger]

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!

Then let the Senate make a stand and vote up or down. Republicans plan to take no action

Tough shit. Elections have consequences. Democrats lost the Senate.

And the Senates role is to vote on the Supreme Court nominee

Nope. The Senate's role is to hold hearings and interview the nominee in the Senate Judiciary committee. Then decide if the nominee is worthy of a vote. That is what they'll do. Since the committee has a solid GOP majority, I don't see any nominee getting past the "vetting" process. Elections have consequences.

Let's see them stand up and actually take a position on the Obama nominee
Let's see them state a reason they are voting him down
Let them run on that position

You know, as well as I do, that they don't have the balls

 

[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

Either way the republican congress is screwed...If Obama picks anyone and they try to delay, they will lose votes people are pissed about the delays and not working when we pay them....

Makes me laugh to see Ted Cruz, and Mitch pee their pants.........

What Obama is doing today~

That's the purpose of this thread...to show that Republicans lose either way

Block Obamas moderate candidate and end up with Hillary's liberal nominee

 

[Zander]

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

Either way the republican congress is screwed...If Obama picks anyone and they try to delay, they will lose votes people are pissed about the delays and not working when we pay them....

Makes me laugh to see Ted Cruz, and Mitch pee their pants.........

What Obama is doing today~

I don't think you understand the process.

Obama has not even made a nomination yet. Once he does, Republicans will schedule hearings for the Judiciary Committee. It will take at least 3-4 months to get on the calendar- so figure sometime in June or July. Then after a few months of hearings they can can (and will) vote against allowing a vote in the full Senate for that candidate. They will ask Obama to nominate another candidate. Those hearings will be scheduled to begin after the election, maybe February...

 

[rightwinger]

Once again, Republicans are gambling on an all or nothing strategy

A strategy built on Republicans taking both the White House and the Senate

When that fails to happen, they will wish they had taken Obamas choice