Not dead a day and The Obamanation intends to nominate successor for Scalia on Supreme Court: CNN

[Camp]

We are seeing the same old routine. The Republicans will make threats and vow to obstruct and frustrate Obama, but he will outsmart and out maneuver them as they fight with each other in their fractured party influenced by not jobs and in the end he will get his nomination confirmed and that will be that.

 

[Nyvin]

There is no law or statue that says the Supreme Court must always have a conservative majority.....he's dead, and the Democrats hold the presidency. Get over it and confirm a moderate judge.

 

[paperview]

"saveliberty said: ↑
Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term. Unless you are going to allow Obama a third term...

... Yes, let's not go there. "

Yeah, you shouldn't cause you just made an even bigger fool of yourself.

Bork, denied by Congress, follow up nominee blocked, that caused Kennedy's nomination to go into the last year. All caused by...Democrats. You lose.

follow up nominee withdrew himself. try to be honest

She's a lying, dishonest hack, and can't even admit her fails.

saveliberty said: ↑
"Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term."

Thinks 1987 was part of Reagan's first term. ^

 

[saveliberty]

paperview lies and does not know whether I am female or male...

Claims no interest in engaging me, yet here we are again. Lies upon lies paperview.

 

[paperview]

See? No cojones to admit she / he / it is wrong, ***** avatar person.


And I've engaged you plenty -- it all there for the readers to see. I'm just sick now of dealing with a dishonest hack.

 

[ogibillm]

paperview lies and does not know whether I am female or male...

Claims no interest in engaging me, yet here we are again. Lies upon lies paperview.

ginsburg withdrew himself, correct?

 

[paperview]

As for the arbitrary "80 year" bullshit the GOP is spoonfeeding it's propaganda soldiers --

Makes you wonder, in a country with well over 200 years in it's history, why they stopped there. But never mind that...

Confirmed during election year :

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

1940 was it an an election year? Yup.

1932 :
On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

1932 - was it an an election year? Yup.

Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clark was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

1916 - was it an an election year? Yup.

We can go back further with numerous ones being appointed / confirmed during election years, but the GOP -dudn't want to count thems...

paperview lies and does not know whether I am female or male...

Claims no interest in engaging me, yet here we are again. Lies upon lies paperview.

ginsburg withdrew himself, correct?

Yep.

 

[Rustic]

A progressive Partisan Supreme Court Justice will do no good for America...

 

[eddiew]

President Barack Obama intends to nominate a Supreme Court justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy, CNN reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-intends-nominate-successor-scalia-supreme-court-cnn-003130180.html;_ylt=AwrC1C1Vy79WYCUAetrQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- ^

Scalia was in Texas to HUNT. Obviously mentally AND physically fit. In a very real sense, the Republic literally hangs and depends on this man. So how the hell does he die so suddenly? Not even suggesting foul play (well MAYBE!), just wondering what his doctors were doing/thinking.

You're right...79 year old men don't just drop dead for no reason...very suspicious!!!

smell the smoke ,,,he's burning in hell

 

[saveliberty]

See? No cojones to admit she / he / it is wrong, ***** avatar person.


And I've engaged you plenty -- it all there for the readers to see. I'm just sick now of dealing with a dishonest hack.

Yes, you have mentioned two or three times now you are going to stop dealing with me, yet here we are again and again. Layer upon layer of lies. So for the last 80 years presidents have not nominated a Justice during their final year in office. Reagan was closest to doing so, as he started a little over a year before with Bork, Democrats fought that appointment and by the time Kennedy was nominated days into the last year he was ultimately appointed. I am pretty sick of dealing with your dishonesty hack, but I will do what needs doing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure it has, no president that could serve another term has nominated a Justice in the last year of office in the last eighty years. Eighty years is a tradition. Not a soul has rebutted my reason for doing it either.

and this is why you should never listen to lying rightwing politicians.... per usual, rubio (who you got your rightwingnut talking point from) is wrong

"Rubio’s statement prompted several comments on Twitter from those who noted a specific exception to his claim: the nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The Senate confirmed Kennedy 97-0 on Feb. 4, 1988. That was about 28 years ago -- not 80.

Kennedy replaced Justice Lewis Powell, who retired, and was Reagan’s third nomination for the opening, after Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg. Powell announced his retirement in June 1987.

Reagan, who was in his second term, nominated Kennedy in November 1987. Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988. In November 1988, Reagan’s vice president George H.W. Bush won the presidency.

"The nomination actually wasn't in the election year, although the confirmation vote was," said Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet."

Rubio exaggerates in saying it's been 80 years since a 'lame duck' made a Supreme Court nomination

thanks for playing. we'll all have to let anthony kennedy know he wasn't really appointed by a second term president.

i love all you pretend constitutionalists . do tell us where a president can't nominate a justice to fill a vacancy in his second term.

dolts.

The seat to be filled became vacant long before the last year of the POTUS' tenure. Kennedy was nominated in Nov. 87, only after the first two nominations went kaput.

So, to clarify, it's been a looooooong time since a POTUS had to make a nomination within the last year of his office.

distinction without a difference. the right has tried to keep this president from doing his job for seven years. he was elected by a majority of the electorate twice. it's time for the obstructionist right to get out of the way.

if this were done to a republican the right would be in meltdown.

Just as Obama can nominate, it's the Senate who decides.

Suck it up, Jillian.

He's the president. The right should suck it up.

And teh Senate is controlled by the GOP. Obama should suck it up.

 

[Jroc]

reading the responses here only confirms my suspicions that the vast majority here do not have a clue how our government is supposed to work.
can anyone tell me why the justices are not able to be fired by the president?
(actually there is a way for them to be removed but its pretty hard)
What is the purpose of the supreme court? is it to work with the other branches? is it to agree with the other branches or is it to protect the integrity of the constitution by ruling on cases that may or may not violate that same constitution.
If it is the last, then how can anyone agree that appointing a justice based on his/her personal view on various things, or by their affiliation to party can be a good thing. It cant. It wouldn't be good if the right did it, and its no good when the left does it either.

the integrity of the constitution is protected by the senate doing it's job and appointing the president's nominee so long as he or she is qualified. not because you are terrified that a judge will be put on the bench who isn't a theocrat.

"integrity of the constitution" and you support Obama ...LOL..What the hell did you learn in the leftist indoctrinating law School?

 

[The Rabbi]

Your admission of defeat here is acknowledged and accepted.

Acknowledging your predictions are crap is not deflecting...it's stating a fact...

It is deflecting when we are discussing Scalia. You have lost because you are a low information moron with nothing but received opinions you spout back but cannot defend.

 

[The Rabbi]

reading the responses here only confirms my suspicions that the vast majority here do not have a clue how our government is supposed to work.
can anyone tell me why the justices are not able to be fired by the president?
(actually there is a way for them to be removed but its pretty hard)
What is the purpose of the supreme court? is it to work with the other branches? is it to agree with the other branches or is it to protect the integrity of the constitution by ruling on cases that may or may not violate that same constitution.
If it is the last, then how can anyone agree that appointing a justice based on his/her personal view on various things, or by their affiliation to party can be a good thing. It cant. It wouldn't be good if the right did it, and its no good when the left does it either.

the integrity of the constitution is protected by the senate doing it's job and appointing the president's nominee so long as he or she is qualified. not because you are terrified that a judge will be put on the bench who isn't a theocrat.

"integrity of the constitution" and you support Obama ...LOL..What the hell did you learn in the leftist indoctrinating law School?

She went to law school the same place as OnePercenter went to business school. In their minds.

 

[Jroc]

reading the responses here only confirms my suspicions that the vast majority here do not have a clue how our government is supposed to work.
can anyone tell me why the justices are not able to be fired by the president?
(actually there is a way for them to be removed but its pretty hard)
What is the purpose of the supreme court? is it to work with the other branches? is it to agree with the other branches or is it to protect the integrity of the constitution by ruling on cases that may or may not violate that same constitution.
If it is the last, then how can anyone agree that appointing a justice based on his/her personal view on various things, or by their affiliation to party can be a good thing. It cant. It wouldn't be good if the right did it, and its no good when the left does it either.

the integrity of the constitution is protected by the senate doing it's job and appointing the president's nominee so long as he or she is qualified. not because you are terrified that a judge will be put on the bench who isn't a theocrat.

"integrity of the constitution" and you support Obama ...LOL..What the hell did you learn in the leftist indoctrinating law School?

She went to law school the same place as OnePercenter went to business school. In their minds.

I've looked into the law school she said she went to. A bunch of radical, leftist, nutjobs . So she could have went there

 

[Jroc]

Maybe it's time for Term limits on these people? Isn't it nice to know you can have a job until you freaking DIE in office AND then leave us in this MESS now with Obama?

That would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Not gonnah happen.

Convention of States

 

[Jroc]

11 months left in a 48 month term and Republicans act like it is over

No house no senate it should be over

 

[Camp]

and this is why you should never listen to lying rightwing politicians.... per usual, rubio (who you got your rightwingnut talking point from) is wrong

"Rubio’s statement prompted several comments on Twitter from those who noted a specific exception to his claim: the nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The Senate confirmed Kennedy 97-0 on Feb. 4, 1988. That was about 28 years ago -- not 80.

Kennedy replaced Justice Lewis Powell, who retired, and was Reagan’s third nomination for the opening, after Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg. Powell announced his retirement in June 1987.

Reagan, who was in his second term, nominated Kennedy in November 1987. Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988. In November 1988, Reagan’s vice president George H.W. Bush won the presidency.

"The nomination actually wasn't in the election year, although the confirmation vote was," said Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet."

Rubio exaggerates in saying it's been 80 years since a 'lame duck' made a Supreme Court nomination

thanks for playing. we'll all have to let anthony kennedy know he wasn't really appointed by a second term president.

i love all you pretend constitutionalists . do tell us where a president can't nominate a justice to fill a vacancy in his second term.

dolts.

The seat to be filled became vacant long before the last year of the POTUS' tenure. Kennedy was nominated in Nov. 87, only after the first two nominations went kaput.

So, to clarify, it's been a looooooong time since a POTUS had to make a nomination within the last year of his office.

distinction without a difference. the right has tried to keep this president from doing his job for seven years. he was elected by a majority of the electorate twice. it's time for the obstructionist right to get out of the way.

if this were done to a republican the right would be in meltdown.

Just as Obama can nominate, it's the Senate who decides.

Suck it up, Jillian.

He's the president. The right should suck it up.

And teh Senate is controlled by the GOP. Obama should suck it up.

There are at least eight to ten Republican Senators who face tough reelections in blue states. That is enough to swing the Senate back to Democratic control. More importantly, if those Republicans support blocking a Presidential nomination to the Supreme Court they face strong odds of not getting reelected. Hence, lots of openings for Republicans to distance themselves from Republican obfuscation.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are at least eight to ten Republican Senators who face tough reelections in blue states. That is enough to swing the Senate back to Democratic control. More importantly, if those Republicans support blocking a Presidential nomination to the Supreme Court they face strong odds of not getting reelected. Hence, lots of openings for Republicans to distance themselves from Republican obfuscation.

Wont happen.

 

[ogibillm]

See? No cojones to admit she / he / it is wrong, ***** avatar person.


And I've engaged you plenty -- it all there for the readers to see. I'm just sick now of dealing with a dishonest hack.

Yes, you have mentioned two or three times now you are going to stop dealing with me, yet here we are again and again. Layer upon layer of lies. So for the last 80 years presidents have not nominated a Justice during their final year in office. Reagan was closest to doing so, as he started a little over a year before with Bork, Democrats fought that appointment and by the time Kennedy was nominated days into the last year he was ultimately appointed. I am pretty sick of dealing with your dishonesty hack, but I will do what needs doing.

for the past 80 years how many opportunities have there been for a president to nominate a justice in their final year of office?