Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[Faun]

No, then it is not obstruction. But of course, that is not the same shutting down the confirmation process until there's a new president, which is what Republicans say they are going to do.

Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing. WTF is wrong with you?

Name the Democrats who went along with Schumer.....

doesn't matter, we are pointing our HIS personal hypocrisy.

But since you asked for names, tell us the dems who were willing to compromise on Bork.

Of course it matters since you made the claim. You said, and I quote (with emphasis added) ...

"Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing."​

I call bullshit and you prove I'm right by not being able to name the "Dems" you claim went along with Schumer.

OK, since you seem to know, give us a list of the dems who did not go along with Schumer. I really don't know or care. The point is that Schumer said that no Bush nominee would receive a hearing and now he is demanding that any Obama nominee be given one. Its called hypocrisy, dingleberry.

You made the claim.

You can't name one who went along with Schumer.

You are a proven liar.

 

[Redfish]

That's all well and good but the issue isn't really a "moderate" either. Lets say that the Democrats served up another Kennedy in every respect who you feel is a moderate (and trust me to Barrack Obama he is no moderate -- Sonia Sotomaior is). That would change the current balance on the court. Maybe not as much as another Sotomaior would but it definitely would. It is the current balance that Obama wants to change and the Republicans are defending and have every political reason to do so. The reality that a "moderate" who would be appointed by Obama would just be a liberal judge who does not have much of a track record to shoot at.

And approving an Obama nominee hands the nomination to Trump (perhaps unfairly to Cruz and the others, but it does ) and they still are hoping they can stop him

And Obama would never take up your suggestion in the first place. Hes looking to turn the court left for generations and insure that his so called legacy doesn't get wrecked in the court which another Kennedy might do. He would clearly make the calculus that if the choice were a new Kennedy or taking his chances on the next election he would clearly take his chances on the next election s well. There is nothing in it for him to pick a moderate like Kennedy.

What this does illustrate is how absurd it is that in this democracy such important questions depend on who happens to die when whoever is in office. This shouldn't be such a crap shoot

Nothing in the Constitution allows for one party to hold the other party hostage in order to get their ideology onto the Supreme Court. Nothing in it instructs a conservative just must be replaced with another conservative judge.

That said, there is nothing which forces either party to accept what the other party wants. Obama can't force the Republican Senate to confirm a Liberal and the Republican Senate can't force Obama to nominate a conservative. But nothing in the Constitution allows for either party to abdicate their responsibility entirely in selecting a replacement justice. The Senate can no more shutdown the confirmation process than the president could shut down the nomination process.

The only plausible solution is for both sides to compromise. Obama doesn't get a Liberal and the Republicans don't get a conservative. They each get a moderate.

do you really think that Obama will nominate a moderate? If so, I want some of what you are smoking.

Irrelevant since the dumbass Republicans already declared they will not perform their Constitutional duties of advising and consenting even if Obama does.

their constitutional duty is to review any nominee and either call for a vote or do nothing on that nominee. Kinda like Reid sitting on 300 house passed bills when the dems controlled the senate.

Great, so even you agree they are shirking their Constitutional duties by not reviewing Obama's nominees as even you understand that is their job.

are you really that stupid? "review" does not mean a formal vote. Obozo could nominate Whoopi Goldberg, McConnel could just say "no way we are going to waste time on that *****" There is no requirement that they hold formal hearings or votes.

 

[Faun]

Nothing in the Constitution allows for one party to hold the other party hostage in order to get their ideology onto the Supreme Court. Nothing in it instructs a conservative just must be replaced with another conservative judge.

That said, there is nothing which forces either party to accept what the other party wants. Obama can't force the Republican Senate to confirm a Liberal and the Republican Senate can't force Obama to nominate a conservative. But nothing in the Constitution allows for either party to abdicate their responsibility entirely in selecting a replacement justice. The Senate can no more shutdown the confirmation process than the president could shut down the nomination process.

The only plausible solution is for both sides to compromise. Obama doesn't get a Liberal and the Republicans don't get a conservative. They each get a moderate.

do you really think that Obama will nominate a moderate? If so, I want some of what you are smoking.

Irrelevant since the dumbass Republicans already declared they will not perform their Constitutional duties of advising and consenting even if Obama does.

their constitutional duty is to review any nominee and either call for a vote or do nothing on that nominee. Kinda like Reid sitting on 300 house passed bills when the dems controlled the senate.

Great, so even you agree they are shirking their Constitutional duties by not reviewing Obama's nominees as even you understand that is their job.

are you really that stupid? "review" does not mean a formal vote. Obozo could nominate Whoopi Goldberg, McConnel could just say "no way we are going to waste time on that *****" There is no requirement that they hold formal hearings or votes.

I didn't say "formal vote."

You're a liar AND an idiot.

 

[Redfish]

Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing. WTF is wrong with you?

Name the Democrats who went along with Schumer.....

doesn't matter, we are pointing our HIS personal hypocrisy.

But since you asked for names, tell us the dems who were willing to compromise on Bork.

Of course it matters since you made the claim. You said, and I quote (with emphasis added) ...

"Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing."​

I call bullshit and you prove I'm right by not being able to name the "Dems" you claim went along with Schumer.

OK, since you seem to know, give us a list of the dems who did not go along with Schumer. I really don't know or care. The point is that Schumer said that no Bush nominee would receive a hearing and now he is demanding that any Obama nominee be given one. Its called hypocrisy, dingleberry.

You made the claim.

You can't name one who went along with Schumer.

You are a proven liar.

are you claiming that not one dem went along with Schumer? I am quite sure that was not the case, so my statement is correct.

 

[Redfish]

do you really think that Obama will nominate a moderate? If so, I want some of what you are smoking.

Irrelevant since the dumbass Republicans already declared they will not perform their Constitutional duties of advising and consenting even if Obama does.

their constitutional duty is to review any nominee and either call for a vote or do nothing on that nominee. Kinda like Reid sitting on 300 house passed bills when the dems controlled the senate.

Great, so even you agree they are shirking their Constitutional duties by not reviewing Obama's nominees as even you understand that is their job.

are you really that stupid? "review" does not mean a formal vote. Obozo could nominate Whoopi Goldberg, McConnel could just say "no way we are going to waste time on that *****" There is no requirement that they hold formal hearings or votes.

I didn't say "formal vote."

You're a liar AND an idiot.

ok dipshit, what exactly do you think the constitutional duties of the senate are regarding a presidential nominee to the SC? Maybe you can quote the language from the constitution so you don't look like such a fool

 

[bodecea]

Name the Democrats who went along with Schumer.....

doesn't matter, we are pointing our HIS personal hypocrisy.

But since you asked for names, tell us the dems who were willing to compromise on Bork.

Of course it matters since you made the claim. You said, and I quote (with emphasis added) ...

"Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing."​

I call bullshit and you prove I'm right by not being able to name the "Dems" you claim went along with Schumer.

OK, since you seem to know, give us a list of the dems who did not go along with Schumer. I really don't know or care. The point is that Schumer said that no Bush nominee would receive a hearing and now he is demanding that any Obama nominee be given one. Its called hypocrisy, dingleberry.

You made the claim.

You can't name one who went along with Schumer.

You are a proven liar.

are you claiming that not one dem went along with Schumer? I am quite sure that was not the case, so my statement is correct.

Name any dem who went along with Schumer. It will be public record.

 

[Faun]

The control of the WH is depending on what the GOP controlled Senate does. PLEASE OBSTRUCT!

so if they vote on a nominee and the nays prevail, is that obstruction? If they Bork a nominee, is that obstruction? Was what the dems did to Bork obstruction in your small mind?

No, then it is not obstruction. But of course, that is not the same shutting down the confirmation process until there's a new president, which is what Republicans say they are going to do.

Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing. WTF is wrong with you?

C'mon, be a man and own up to your own words...

You claim there were "Dems" who went along with Schumer.

Seems you can't name one single "Dem," no less "Dems."

You're once again caught in your own lies.

 

[Faun]

Irrelevant since the dumbass Republicans already declared they will not perform their Constitutional duties of advising and consenting even if Obama does.

their constitutional duty is to review any nominee and either call for a vote or do nothing on that nominee. Kinda like Reid sitting on 300 house passed bills when the dems controlled the senate.

Great, so even you agree they are shirking their Constitutional duties by not reviewing Obama's nominees as even you understand that is their job.

are you really that stupid? "review" does not mean a formal vote. Obozo could nominate Whoopi Goldberg, McConnel could just say "no way we are going to waste time on that *****" There is no requirement that they hold formal hearings or votes.

I didn't say "formal vote."

You're a liar AND an idiot.

ok dipshit, what exactly do you think the constitutional duties of the senate are regarding a presidential nominee to the SC? Maybe you can quote the language from the constitution so you don't look like such a fool

To consider every nominee a president offers up.

 

[Faun]

doesn't matter, we are pointing our HIS personal hypocrisy.

But since you asked for names, tell us the dems who were willing to compromise on Bork.

Of course it matters since you made the claim. You said, and I quote (with emphasis added) ...

"Schumer and the dems did exactly the same thing."​

I call bullshit and you prove I'm right by not being able to name the "Dems" you claim went along with Schumer.

OK, since you seem to know, give us a list of the dems who did not go along with Schumer. I really don't know or care. The point is that Schumer said that no Bush nominee would receive a hearing and now he is demanding that any Obama nominee be given one. Its called hypocrisy, dingleberry.

You made the claim.

You can't name one who went along with Schumer.

You are a proven liar.

are you claiming that not one dem went along with Schumer? I am quite sure that was not the case, so my statement is correct.

Name any dem who went along with Schumer. It will be public record.

He can't name any because he lied. Now he's throwing a hissy fit because he got caught.

 

[bodecea]

Irrelevant since the dumbass Republicans already declared they will not perform their Constitutional duties of advising and consenting even if Obama does.

their constitutional duty is to review any nominee and either call for a vote or do nothing on that nominee. Kinda like Reid sitting on 300 house passed bills when the dems controlled the senate.

Great, so even you agree they are shirking their Constitutional duties by not reviewing Obama's nominees as even you understand that is their job.

are you really that stupid? "review" does not mean a formal vote. Obozo could nominate Whoopi Goldberg, McConnel could just say "no way we are going to waste time on that *****" There is no requirement that they hold formal hearings or votes.

I didn't say "formal vote."

You're a liar AND an idiot.

ok dipshit, what exactly do you think the constitutional duties of the senate are regarding a presidential nominee to the SC? Maybe you can quote the language from the constitution so you don't look like such a fool

Look to Article II, Section 2.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

It took Senate Republicans a couple of days to realize that swearing ahead of time that they’d refuse to even consider any Supreme Court nomination from President Obama didn’t look good,

the situation is Republicans keeping a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year—against all historical precedent.

 

[bendog]

RIP Scalia

 

[Redfish]

their constitutional duty is to review any nominee and either call for a vote or do nothing on that nominee. Kinda like Reid sitting on 300 house passed bills when the dems controlled the senate.

Great, so even you agree they are shirking their Constitutional duties by not reviewing Obama's nominees as even you understand that is their job.

are you really that stupid? "review" does not mean a formal vote. Obozo could nominate Whoopi Goldberg, McConnel could just say "no way we are going to waste time on that *****" There is no requirement that they hold formal hearings or votes.

I didn't say "formal vote."

You're a liar AND an idiot.

ok dipshit, what exactly do you think the constitutional duties of the senate are regarding a presidential nominee to the SC? Maybe you can quote the language from the constitution so you don't look like such a fool

To consider every nominee a president offers up.

Ok, what does "consider" mean in that context?

 

[deaddogseye]

both abolishing slavery slavery and womens suffrage were the result of constitutional amendments - in other words the specific language of the constitution was changed to produce both results - it wasn't the result of 5 unelected judges issuing a decree. This is entirely consistent with Scalia's approach and what is intended by the constitution. and yes he might well have said if asked as a judge, the constitution doesn't prohibit slavery (if anything it was expressly permitted until expressly abolished), no matter how wrong it is. If you want to end it go to the legislature where the people's elected representatives can do it if they want and the people can then judge them for it and hold them accountable if they don't like it. your point is totally misplaced.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

both abolishing slavery slavery and womens suffrage were the result of constitutional amendments - in other words the specific language of the constitution was changed to produce both results - it wasn't the result of 5 unelected judges issuing a decree. This is entirely consistent with Scalia's approach and what is intended by the constitution. and yes he might well have said if asked as a judge, the constitution doesn't prohibit slavery (if anything it was expressly permitted until expressly abolished), no matter how wrong it is. If you want to end it go to the legislature where the people's elected representatives can do it if they want and the people can then judge them for it and hold them accountable if they don't like it. your point is totally misplaced.

what change in the basic language of the Constitution allowed the installation of Failure 43 as President ?

 

[deaddogseye]

to those who want to be technical about the "obligations" or "duties" of the president and the Senate under the constitution I say the following.

The constitution makes the mandatory statement -- shall - that the President shall appoint supreme court judges. so if you want to say the constitution requires him to do it, that's fine. and regardless of an obligation he certainly can do it if he chooses. of course if a vacancy occurred on January 10, 2017 would the president be in violation of the constitution if he did not nominate? Of course not that is silly but that's what this technical argument is saying.

there is no such even arguably mandatory language in the constitution about the need for the Senate to hold hearings or vote. NONE. it says only that the nominee takes office if he or she obtains the consent of the Senate. From a technical constitutional perspective the Senate can do as it pleases and let the voters react if they don't like it. So if Obama nominates say Sri Srivasan and he is not confirmed whatever the process Hilary can say if im elected he'll be my nominee and the voters can cause it to happen including by delivering the senate to the democrats (of course its never a big voting issue and those who would care are already on one side or the other plus some people may well agree with the GOP on this, but I digress).

also if you insist on arguing the Senate must consider nowhere does it say that the advise and consent is limited to the attributes of the nominee. NOWHERE. it can be based on circumstances such as proximity to the next election and the ideological effect on the balance of the court of a nominee from a sitting president. and no senate is bound in any way by what another senate did or did not do in arguably similar or analogous circumstances. so from a technical standpoint to insist that there is a constitutional obligation for the senate to hold hearings and vote is just silly (not to mention Obama joining in a filabuster as a senator tp prevent the vote on alito he now claims is required constitutionally

 

[deaddogseye]

both abolishing slavery slavery and womens suffrage were the result of constitutional amendments - in other words the specific language of the constitution was changed to produce both results - it wasn't the result of 5 unelected judges issuing a decree. This is entirely consistent with Scalia's approach and what is intended by the constitution. and yes he might well have said if asked as a judge, the constitution doesn't prohibit slavery (if anything it was expressly permitted until expressly abolished), no matter how wrong it is. If you want to end it go to the legislature where the people's elected representatives can do it if they want and the people can then judge them for it and hold them accountable if they don't like it. your point is totally misplaced.

what change in the basic language of the Constitution allowed the installation of Failure 43 as President ?

well to answer your question since you are clearly challenged on the constitution that would be Article 2, Clauses 2-4 and amendments 12,14,15,19,23,24,and 26 which in the aggregate provide for the election of the President, both the good ones and the bad ones which each person can determine for himself. There was no change required to Article 2 and it was part of the original text. It also provided for his reelection as it did for the election of Obama. You really should read it sometime, although it can be a bit complicated and intimidating to some.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

intimidating to some.

Yeah sophistry intimidates the weak of Intellect ...me I know that when no one signs the decision to inflict horror43 on a hapless Nation and they go to pain to state "this decision does not set a precedent" that someone "just pooped" ............

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

When have the libs ever done anything for the good of the country?

when we gave women the vote....

 

[eddiew]

The Republicans clearly do not have to confirm an Obama nominee and it would be nuts for them to do so. The Supreme Court is never a big voting issue - especially with the Democrats - and there is really very little in it for the GOP. Your going to hear a lot of arguments from the left about how the republicans really risk a lot by not confirming someone -- just like they did with immigration reform where they tried to sell the nonsense that the republicans had to cave because they could never win again with out the Hispanic vote. the country isn't going to care that there are 8 on the supreme court and that 4-4 ties go with the lower court decision and lack precedental value. It just isn't.

on the other hand approving ANY Obama nominee means TRump is the presidential nominee. Game over.

No one is suggesting they approve "ANY" Obama nominee. Many are finding fault with the Republicans who are saying they won't approve any Obama nominee.

They are basically gambling with the Supreme Court to get a conservative to replace Scalia. They could work with Obama now on a replacement and get a moderate, just as Democrats did with Reagan in 1988 to confirm Kennedy. But that's not good enough for them. They are going for all or nothing. They are banking on winning the presidency and the Senate so they can install a conservative.

It could work out that way for them.

Or it could back fire on them and Democrats could win the presidency and the Senate and install a Liberal, making the court 5-3 Liberal with 1 swing vote.

That's all well and good but the issue isn't really a "moderate" either. Lets say that the Democrats served up another Kennedy in every respect who you feel is a moderate (and trust me to Barrack Obama he is no moderate -- Sonia Sotomaior is). That would change the current balance on the court. Maybe not as much as another Sotomaior would but it definitely would. It is the current balance that Obama wants to change and the Republicans are defending and have every political reason to do so. The reality that a "moderate" who would be appointed by Obama would just be a liberal judge who does not have much of a track record to shoot at.

And approving an Obama nominee hands the nomination to Trump (perhaps unfairly to Cruz and the others, but it does ) and they still are hoping they can stop him

And Obama would never take up your suggestion in the first place. Hes looking to turn the court left for generations and insure that his so called legacy doesn't get wrecked in the court which another Kennedy might do. He would clearly make the calculus that if the choice were a new Kennedy or taking his chances on the next election he would clearly take his chances on the next election s well. There is nothing in it for him to pick a moderate like Kennedy.

What this does illustrate is how absurd it is that in this democracy such important questions depend on who happens to die when whoever is in office. This shouldn't be such a crap shoot

Nothing in the Constitution allows for one party to hold the other party hostage in order to get their ideology onto the Supreme Court. Nothing in it instructs a conservative just must be replaced with another conservative judge.

That said, there is nothing which forces either party to accept what the other party wants. Obama can't force the Republican Senate to confirm a Liberal and the Republican Senate can't force Obama to nominate a conservative. But nothing in the Constitution allows for either party to abdicate their responsibility entirely in selecting a replacement justice. The Senate can no more shutdown the confirmation process than the president could shut down the nomination process.

The only plausible solution is for both sides to compromise. Obama doesn't get a Liberal and the Republicans don't get a conservative. They each get a moderate.

do you really think that Obama will nominate a moderate? If so, I want some of what you are smoking.

that's his best chance if anyone will be seated before hillary is president