Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[eagle1462010]

please explain it .
if republican refuse obama nominee in senate.then what can obama do ?

nominate someone else.

ok
and republican do it again
then what ?

Wash, Rinse, spin and repeat.

 

[bripat9643]

I beg to differ..............the precedent was Set during Reagan with the Dems...........

Well, no, it wasn't. If you are referring to Bork, the fact is, Bork got a hearing. Bork got a vote. And when he got a vote, SIX Republicans voted against him because his views were so extreme as to be out of the mainstream. Reagan learned a lesson, nominated Anthony Kennedy, and got him appointed, in an election year.

So, uh, no, the precedent you cite doesn't really apply.

Reagan learned the wrong lesson because Kennedy has been a disaster from day one.

 

[Redfish]

please explain it .
if republican refuse obama nominee in senate.then what can obama do ?

Luckily the Democrats can use this politically.

both parties will use it politically, don't be naïve.

sure both will use it politically red but who do you see looking like the bad guys there?

depends on which party you support. since 65% of the country doesn't support Obama, you decide who will benefit from this.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Why not Red? How long have republicans held the advantage for?? A new broom sweeps clean A dem on the SC will ""make America great again""

the court has been balanced with Kennedy as the swing vote. another lib will tilt it to the left and the country as a free democratic republic will be over. The GOP controls the senate, its an election year. Obozo will not be allowed to put another lib on the court.

he could recess appoint next January

The Senate will NEVER recess

Right, SCOTUS ruled that the senate must declare that it is in recess, the president can't do it.

Even if you don't let Obama nominate a justice that's great for us in November.

We dare you.

Thank you God. This proves gods a liberal

bank on it

 

[gipper]

RIP

44 needs to get a Prog replacement in there immediately!!!
CrusaderFrank

Remember, we don't have to follow unjust rulings

"Progressive Fools made they decision; now let them enforce it!"

=========
The Constitution ( that Republicans claim to LOVE ) says Obama has the right and duty to nominate replacement Supreme Court Justices.

There is no restriction on nominating during his last year in office and, in fact, Republican Presidents have nominated during their last year.

The Contitution DOES NOT GIVE REPUBLICANS A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT SUPREME COURT MAJORITY.

What are Republicans going to do if they lose the next election and we get another Democratic President?

Going to DEMAND that he wait 4 more years until Repubs get another shot at it?

correct, Obama can nominate someone during his last year, the senate can then confirm or deny the nomination. Obama is not a king, idiot.

The problem is he thinks he is a king and the Rs are more then welling to abide by his demands.

 

[eagle1462010]

How things will play out

Obama will nominate a moderate left judge
Republicans will block the nomination
Hillary will win and Dems will take the Senate
A lame duck Republican Senate will move to approve the moderate
Obama will withdraw the nomination and defer to Hillary
Hillary will name a young liberal judge who will sit on the court for 30 years

My crystal ball is fogged up.....yours is still working?

 

[Redfish]

RIP

44 needs to get a Prog replacement in there immediately!!!
CrusaderFrank

Remember, we don't have to follow unjust rulings

"Progressive Fools made they decision; now let them enforce it!"

=========
The Constitution ( that Republicans claim to LOVE ) says Obama has the right and duty to nominate replacement Supreme Court Justices.

There is no restriction on nominating during his last year in office and, in fact, Republican Presidents have nominated during their last year.

The Contitution DOES NOT GIVE REPUBLICANS A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT SUPREME COURT MAJORITY.

What are Republicans going to do if they lose the next election and we get another Democratic President?

Going to DEMAND that he wait 4 more years until Repubs get another shot at it?

correct, Obama can nominate someone during his last year, the senate can then confirm or deny the nomination. Obama is not a king, idiot.

The problem is he thinks he is a king and the Rs are more then welling to abide by his demands.

some of them are. the question is whether they are so scared of the media that they will not do their jobs.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Oh look, Mr. Unelected Tyrannical Judges suddenly falls in love with the Court.

not to mention the "we the people" losers forget that "we the people" elected this president twice and WANT him to nominate justices.

little maroons.

he can nominate all he wants

getting in though may be harder

--LOL

so "we the people" only matters when it's the winger brigade at the far right of the loony spectrum?

okie dokie, nut bar.

hey cry all you want but just because a prezbo picks one

does not mean they get the seat

it is a fact

============
Recess appointment if the Senate blocks voting on his nominee(s)

Republicans DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT SUPREME COURT MAJORITY

the senate controls the >>consent<< part of the deal

you want obamas nominee get the seat

make sure it is one that the republicans like

 

[Arizona Willie]

Two words

RECESS APPOINTMENT

not a damn thing Republicans can do about it.

IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND HAS PRECEDENT

One word:

WRONG

The Senate does not have to recess. Some minor matter can be found to keep the Senate in cession:

Fourth, strongly on the Senate’s side, the decision left it largely up to the Senate to decide when it does take a recess, allowing it to avoid the formality of a recess by taking some legislative action, however minor or inconsequential and however few senators actually take part in some action.

Is a recess appointment to the Court an option? (UPDATED)

HA HA. You lose!

=============
And if Republicans tried that the American people would repopulate the Senate with Democrats.

Every Republican Senator and Representative up for re-election would lose.

Because the American people will not stand for any more Republican Obstructionism and they see right through the demands to wait until the Republicans get another shot at it.

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE REPUBLICANS A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT SUPREME COURT MAJORITY

 

[paulitician]

And on a side note, shame on all you Democrats celebrating the man's passing. It says everything about your own character. Bad Karma for sure.

 

[Faun]

I smell a rat. Scalia got Fostered perhaps.

-Geaux

You smell a rat? Who's in the room with you?

But you run with that conspiracy nonsense. Entertain us...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Scalia's seat will collect dust.

He won't be happy if it does. That would go against the Constitution...

 

[bripat9643]

Note to the GOP, ask yourselves if you are honoring Justice Scalia by disabling the court he served for 30 years because you refuse to do your job of Advise and Consent, the original intent of the Constitution?

Refusing to confirm a Leftwing Obama appointee is doing their jobs, numskull.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Two words

RECESS APPOINTMENT

not a damn thing Republicans can do about it.

IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND HAS PRECEDENT

One word:

WRONG

The Senate does not have to recess. Some minor matter can be found to keep the Senate in cession:

Fourth, strongly on the Senate’s side, the decision left it largely up to the Senate to decide when it does take a recess, allowing it to avoid the formality of a recess by taking some legislative action, however minor or inconsequential and however few senators actually take part in some action.

Is a recess appointment to the Court an option? (UPDATED)

HA HA. You lose!

=============
And if Republicans tried that the American people would repopulate the Senate with Democrats.

Every Republican Senator and Representative up for re-election would lose.

Because the American people will not stand for any more Republican Obstructionism and they see right through the demands to wait until the Republicans get another shot at it.

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE REPUBLICANS A RIGHT TO A PERMANENT SUPREME COURT MAJORITY

You keep forgetting the fact the Dems continue to get shellacked in elections. Perhaps you should be figuring out why that is

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And on a side note, shame on all you Democrats celebrating the man's passing. It says everything about your own character. Bad Karma for sure.

No one should be celebrating. That would be him retiring, not passing away.

 

[eddiew]

please explain it .
if republican refuse obama nominee in senate.then what can obama do ?

Luckily the Democrats can use this politically.

both parties will use it politically, don't be naïve.

sure both will use it politically red but who do you see looking like the bad guys there?

depends on which party you support. since 65% of the country doesn't support Obama, you decide who will benefit from this.

I don't believe that 65% stuff Red and even if it was so I'd bet more don't support republicans In any case if repubs turn down 4,5 of obamas choices imho it will only look worse for repubs

 

[WorldWatcher]

wrong, a tie makes the lower court ruling stand and become precedent. there is no second bite at the apple.

Wrong. The lower court ruling stands but it does not set precedent.


This Is What Happens When the Supreme Court Is Tied
A huge upcoming Supreme Court case could lead to an incredibly rare phenomenon


>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Note to the GOP, ask yourselves if you are honoring Justice Scalia by disabling the court he served for 30 years because you refuse to do your job of Advise and Consent, the original intent of the Constitution?

Refusing to confirm a Leftwing Obama appointee is doing their jobs, numskull.

They are refusing to even vote. That's not the same thing, dumbass.

 

[Arizona Willie]

And that was what the Founders Envisioned.............and exactly why the President needs confirmation by the Senate....................Checks and Balances............No free ride................and they will use this check to block any nomination before next year.

They can vote yes or no

That is their job. Stalling a nomination indefinitely is not constitutional. Neither is leaving an eight judge court for 16 months

Perhaps you can take that up with the Supreme Court with only 8 Justices sitting.........Perhaps.........and that process can be drawn out for a couple of years.

Yes it can

And what stops the Democrats who will take the Senate in 2017 from refusing to consider a Republican Presidents nominee?

What makes you think Dems will win any Senate seats this fall?

How?

Republicans have to protect 34 seats in a Presidential election year. Many in blue states

==========
If Republican Senators and Representatives who are up for re-election participate in more REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTIONISM they will be VOTED OUT.

The American people are sick to death of Republican Obstructionism.

 

[rightwinger]

How things will play out

Obama will nominate a moderate left judge
Republicans will block the nomination
Hillary will win and Dems will take the Senate
A lame duck Republican Senate will move to approve the moderate
Obama will withdraw the nomination and defer to Hillary
Hillary will name a young liberal judge who will sit on the court for 30 years

My crystal ball is fogged up.....yours is still working?

It is the risk Republicans are running

Accept the moderate left judge Obama will nominate or risk the liberal judge Hillary would nominate

Choose your poison