Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

[emilynghiem]

The Constitution ALSO does not say we need to select a Justice based on legal experience and years on the bench as a judge, etc. The Constitution is silent on the qualifications for a judge.

I would go by the CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVT SERVICE
ethics-commission.net
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

If the President and Senate can find a candidate who recognizes political beliefs and will not approve any law or ruling that favors one political belief or faith based bias over another, but puts the Constitution first and remains neutral where ALL people of ALL beliefs, creeds, and parties are included and represented equally, then that would be a fair person to fill the tiebreaking position.

If it's going to be more rightsided or leftsided politics, I would say NO to any such candidate who can't either resolve such beliefs or separate them from govt and keep the conflicts to the individuals and parties to work out.

Personally I think former prosecutor Chris Christie fits that bill. As a republican governor of a Blue state he seems to be responsive to the needs and desires of his democrat constituency.. But is Christie moderate enough to support Obama's crowing achievement, Obamacare? Maintaining Obamacare would be the central consideration for any one nominated by the President. But he is wise enough to understand that someone like Christie is the only viable chance he has to get his nominee approved by the top heavy republican Senate. If Christie's apparent affinity for the democrat base of his home state plays any part of any future role as a USSC Justice, I would definitely put him near the top of my short list of people who could have any chance of confirmation such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and John Kasich!

Dear JQPublic1
I would like to see concerned citizens from all parties put together a Constitutional forum to discuss
these things. We need to pick a Justice and/or expand the Justice system to allow more conflict resolution
and equal input from all sides to RESOLVE issues and not put the decisions in the hands of Judges to decide any issue of BELIEFS for the entire nation which is not what they are supposed to do. Technically anything that isn't for govt to decide, the Justices and Judges should kick that out of court and back to the legislatures to fix in writing. They aren't supposed to rule in ways that use the Judiciary to "create laws from the bench" due to failure of the legislatures to resolve conflicts and establish policies that reflect the consent of the people.

The representation of the people is supposed to be on the Congressional and legislative level.
but when that is lost to bipartisan politics, then it gets kicked to the Judiciary to make rulings
or gets so lost in bureaucracy, the President takes to issues Executive Order to bypass the deadlock or backlog.

No -- we need Constitutional Justices who will kick back biased or bad laws back to the legislators and make them do their job instead of trying to rewrite or adjudicate for them and for the people.

If we need to have open dialogue on this process to get it shifted back to the legislatures and the states, and quit pushing conflicts up to courts and judges to legislate that way, that's why I would like to see a Constitutional type conference system set up to address issues of beliefs that are tying up legislation in 50/50 deadlocks BECAUSE beliefs are involved that neither side will or should compromise, much less be forced to by govt. No more!

BTW with Christie he lost me on his campaign to ban conversion therapy WITHOUT making a distinction with the voluntary and effective reparative/healing therapy.

If he doesn't recognize spiritual healing and the impact this has on major issues, from health care to the prison system and how we treat criminal illness as a curable diseases,
then his judgment is lacking.

I would want to see what he does with this information, and how that changes his outlook,
before assessing his judgment. If people don't have equal knowledge about how spiritual healing works,
it isn't fair to judge how they respond to conflicts and their vision of public policy and justice
that could totally change if they knew the extent to which people can completely change, and relations as well.

Maybe he would be a fair person.
But for him to go off and take the side of banning without considering all the information and knowledge out there, that showed to me he might be reactionary to the point of leaving out key factors critical to making a fully informed decision. So I'd have to see what kind of response and decisions he'd make GIVEN complete information first.

Thanks, JQPublic1
I think I will suggest to my Tea Party, Constitutionalist and Christian / Veteran Party contacts
that we go ahead and call to set up Constitutional conference and networks state by state, party by party,
to discuss ALL concerns about issues that normally end up in the hands of Judges and Supreme Court Justices.

Try to work these out ourselves, and in that process, we can assess which leaders among us can moderate and mediate conflict resolution, which ones are fair enough to serve as Judges who WON'T impose their opinions
but will seek consensus and/or separation on issues of beliefs that otherwise divide the nation by creed instead of including, representing and protecting the creeds, interests and consent of all people equally regardless of party or religious affiliation, and certainly not imposing one belief/creed over others by manipulating majority rule.

We could end up restructuring a more interactive Peace and Justice Department,
similar to what the progressives are pushing with their idea of creating a Cabinet level Peace Department.
I suggested to expand the Justice Dept to provide conflict resolution assistance, training and services instead of creating a new position, just add more mediation and access to help with a consensus based decision process as an equal alternative under the Justice system.

So why not set up a model and use this issue as the focus of discussion and conferencing
to address grievances, concerns and conflicts over what we want or don't want coming out of the Justice system with the current political division over beliefs.

Let's do it. Let's find out what it really does take to settle these issues.
Resolve as much as we can, then take our solutions and talking points of agreement,
and feed that to the govt officials on all levels and in all branches of govt to end the deadlocks
that occur when these issues aren't resolved in advance but get fed through the system
in the form of contested and biased laws and rulings (garbage in, garbage out).

 

[ninja007]

the muslim pos can nominate till his hearts content but the repulicans don't have to confirm.

 

[peach174]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

If the republicans somehow manage to grow a spine and a pair they can stop him...if they can do that remains to be seen

The court can't go a year without a justice.

It's not even a year it's just a few months.
The have the rest of this month, March and April.
Then they come back in June to give out the rulings or what ever it's called and get things in order.
Then they don't start again until Oct.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Actually, there is nothing that can actually make the congress do anything in the constitution. I think if Obama can not enforce immigration laws then the congress not approve any of Obama nominations. Wait...The congress has to approve of one so the congress can reject every single one until election day.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Constitution ALSO does not say we need to select a Justice based on legal experience and years on the bench as a judge, etc. The Constitution is silent on the qualifications for a judge.

I would go by the CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVT SERVICE
ethics-commission.net
http://www.isocracytx.net/ec/ethicscode.doc

If the President and Senate can find a candidate who recognizes political beliefs and will not approve any law or ruling that favors one political belief or faith based bias over another, but puts the Constitution first and remains neutral where ALL people of ALL beliefs, creeds, and parties are included and represented equally, then that would be a fair person to fill the tiebreaking position.

If it's going to be more rightsided or leftsided politics, I would say NO to any such candidate who can't either resolve such beliefs or separate them from govt and keep the conflicts to the individuals and parties to work out.

Personally I think former prosecutor Chris Christie fits that bill. As a republican governor of a Blue state he seems to be responsive to the needs and desires of his democrat constituency.. But is Christie moderate enough to support Obama's crowing achievement, Obamacare? Maintaining Obamacare would be the central consideration for any one nominated by the President. But he is wise enough to understand that someone like Christie is the only viable chance he has to get his nominee approved by the top heavy republican Senate. If Christie's apparent affinity for the democrat base of his home state plays any part of any future role as a USSC Justice, I would definitely put him near the top of my short list of people who could have any chance of confirmation such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and John Kasich!

Dear JQPublic1
I would like to see concerned citizens from all parties put together a Constitutional forum to discuss
these things. We need to pick a Justice and/or expand the Justice system to allow more conflict resolution
and equal input from all sides to RESOLVE issues and not put the decisions in the hands of Judges to decide any issue of BELIEFS for the entire nation which is not what they are supposed to do. Technically anything that isn't for govt to decide, the Justices and Judges should kick that out of court and back to the legislatures to fix in writing. They aren't supposed to rule in ways that use the Judiciary to "create laws from the bench" due to failure of the legislatures to resolve conflicts and establish policies that reflect the consent of the people.

The representation of the people is supposed to be on the Congressional and legislative level.
but when that is lost to bipartisan politics, then it gets kicked to the Judiciary to make rulings
or gets so lost in bureaucracy, the President takes to issues Executive Order to bypass the deadlock or backlog.

No -- we need Constitutional Justices who will kick back biased or bad laws back to the legislators and make them do their job instead of trying to rewrite or adjudicate for them and for the people.

If we need to have open dialogue on this process to get it shifted back to the legislatures and the states, and quit pushing conflicts up to courts and judges to legislate that way, that's why I would like to see a Constitutional type conference system set up to address issues of beliefs that are tying up legislation in 50/50 deadlocks BECAUSE beliefs are involved that neither side will or should compromise, much less be forced to by govt. No more!

BTW with Christie he lost me on his campaign to ban conversion therapy WITHOUT making a distinction with the voluntary and effective reparative/healing therapy.

If he doesn't recognize spiritual healing and the impact this has on major issues, from health care to the prison system and how we treat criminal illness as a curable diseases,
then his judgment is lacking.

I would want to see what he does with this information, and how that changes his outlook,
before assessing his judgment. If people don't have equal knowledge about how spiritual healing works,
it isn't fair to judge how they respond to conflicts and their vision of public policy and justice
that could totally change if they knew the extent to which people can completely change, and relations as well.

Maybe he would be a fair person.
But for him to go off and take the side of banning without considering all the information and knowledge out there, that showed to me he might be reactionary to the point of leaving out key factors critical to making a fully informed decision. So I'd have to see what kind of response and decisions he'd make GIVEN complete information first.

Thanks, JQPublic1
I think I will suggest to my Tea Party, Constitutionalist and Christian / Veteran Party contacts
that we go ahead and call to set up Constitutional conference and networks state by state, party by party,
to discuss ALL concerns about issues that normally end up in the hands of Judges and Supreme Court Justices.

Try to work these out ourselves, and in that process, we can assess which leaders among us can moderate and mediate conflict resolution, which ones are fair enough to serve as Judges who WON'T impose their opinions
but will seek consensus and/or separation on issues of beliefs that otherwise divide the nation by creed instead of including, representing and protecting the creeds, interests and consent of all people equally regardless of party or religious affiliation, and certainly not imposing one belief/creed over others by manipulating majority rule.

We could end up restructuring a more interactive Peace and Justice Department,
similar to what the progressives are pushing with their idea of creating a Cabinet level Peace Department.
I suggested to expand the Justice Dept to provide conflict resolution assistance, training and services instead of creating a new position, just add more mediation and access to help with a consensus based decision process as an equal alternative under the Justice system.

So why not set up a model and use this issue as the focus of discussion and conferencing
to address grievances, concerns and conflicts over what we want or don't want coming out of the Justice system with the current political division over beliefs.

Let's do it. Let's find out what it really does take to settle these issues.
Resolve as much as we can, then take our solutions and talking points of agreement,
and feed that to the govt officials on all levels and in all branches of govt to end the deadlocks
that occur when these issues aren't resolved in advance but get fed through the system
in the form of contested and biased laws and rulings (garbage in, garbage out).

Just an observation, I'm glad you weren't writing the Bill of Rights. Would be longer than war and peace.

Edit a little and I will read.

 

[candycorn]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

When he is feeling down he should come here and look at the "strict constitutionalist" here; the same ones who never read it.

He'd be on the floor in seconds rolling in laughter.

 

[2aguy]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

No...obama is not a Professor of the constitution....he got his teaching gig because he was a black guy with a book coming out at the time they hired him...and then his first book contract fell through.......

 

[2aguy]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

He is wrong...the duty of the Senate is to "Advise and Consent"...they are advising him they will not consent to any judge he nominates....their duty is now done. They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution...since any judge he nominates will be attacking the Constitution and trying to undermine and destroy it....they are doing their duty when they refuse to let his judge get a hearing.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Somebody should put together a short film of all the times Obama has mocked the Constitution, quoted it wrong tried to say it doesnt mean what it says or has to be worked around and broadcast it nationwide.....end of discussion real quick.......with most honest people

 

[2aguy]

Here is the truth....obama was a law professor the same way Ryan Reynolds is the character DeadPool...

Blog: Here's what 'constitutional scholar' Obama really taught at law school

Lie one: Obama was never a professor; he was a lecturer. He did not have the qualifications to be a professor. Obama never published a single law paper. He was hired by the University of Chicago when they learned he had been given a book contract on race and law directly after graduating from Harvard. There was no book – just the contract, which he later reneged on. This is not the normal level of accomplishment for a University of Chicago professor or even lecturer.

Obama was not capable of writing, and eventually, after failing to deliver, he changed it to a memoir, which he also struggled with. Finally, he asked Bill Ayers to write his memoir for him, using tapes that Michelle dropped off at the Ayerses'.

Lie two: Obama did not specialize in the Constitution. Obama cared about and taught only one subject: race. One course was about race in the Constitution. It is on this flimsy basis that he attempts to pawn himself off as a constitutional scholar.

As the New York Times explains, Obama the lecturer taught three subjects only: "race, rights and gender."

His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. …His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law…

[In] one class on race, he imitated the way clueless white people talked. "Why are your friends at the housing projects shooting each other?" he asked in a mock-innocent voice. ...

Mr. Obama was especially eager for his charges to understand the horrors of the past, students say. He assigned a 1919 catalog of lynching victims, including some who were first raped or stripped of their ears and fingers, others who were pregnant or lynched with their children, and some whose charred bodies were sold off, bone fragment by bone fragment, to gawkers. … "Are there legal remedies that alleviate not just existing racism, but racism from the past?" Adam Gross, now a public interest lawyer in Chicago, wrote in his class notes in April 1994.

In what even some fans saw as self-absorption, Mr. Obama's hypothetical cases occasionally featured himself. "Take Barack Obama, there's a good-looking guy," he would introduce a twisty legal case.

Liberals flocked to his classes[.] … After all, the professor was a progressive politician[.]

Lie three: Obama calls himself a constitutional law prof to imply that he loves the Constitution. Obama gives the lie to this himself. He is on record – literally, a radio interview done when he was a lecturer – slamming the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution because they never tried to invent a right to "redistribute wealth" – a failing he describes as a "tragedy of the civil rights movement."



Read more: Blog: Here's what 'constitutional scholar' Obama really taught at law school
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[IsaacNewton]

Ronald Reagan, worst criminal to ever hold high office. His corpse should be jailed.

 

[Agit8r]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

More than 90%. The Supreme Court has never practiced strict constructionism. Most of the framers never entertained the idea.

' A member of a majority of the legislature would say to these defamers – "Your politics originate in immorality, in a disregard of the maxims of good faith and the rights of property, and if they could prevail must end in national disgrace and confusion. Your rules of construction for the authorities vested in the Government of the Union would arrest all its essential movements and bring it back in practice to the same state of imbecility which rendered the old confederation contemptible. Your principles of liberty are principles of licentiousness incompatible with all government. You sacrifice everything that is venerable and substantial in society to the vain reveries of a false and new fangled philosophy" '
-- Alexander Hamilton; from letter to George Washington (Aug 18, 1792)

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

He is wrong...the duty of the Senate is to "Advise and Consent"...they are advising him they will not consent to any judge he nominates

Bingo.

 

[JQPublic1]

Certain factions among us have combed the Internet looking for anything to marginalize the talents, qualifications and ethics of President Obama. Don't worry, I am not going to write long boring rebuttals to the long boring written harangues deposited here to disparage a successful two term president.

Instead,I will call upon people who actually saw and commented on Obama's intelligence and his abilities. Here is an excerpt and link to comments from one of his academic mentors.

Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, author of a comprehensive new book, Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, says Barack Obama was an amazing law student.

During a broad discussion on Tuesday with The Fiscal Times about some of the most significant cases to come before the Roberts court and how those decisions may profoundly alter American life, Tribe reflected on the president as a young man.

Obama was his research assistant for two-and-a-half years at Harvard Law School where Tribe has taught for four decades.

How Barack Obama Amazed His Harvard Law Professor

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

Case law history does not amend the Constitution. Except where amended by the mandated process, it means what it meant when written.

No one said it does. It simply rules as to the constitutionality of a law.

Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution; the status of a law, a procedure, or an act's accordance with the laws or guidelines set forth in the applicable constitution.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

No, I'm pretty sure it is yet another example of how repubs work for themselves and have no interest at all in governing for the American people.

 

[OKTexas]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

You and your dear leader are always befuddled by anything dealing with the Constitution. The dear leader can nominate anyone he wants, then the Senate can schedule hearings at their leisure, there are no time limits placed on either constitutionally. So he can play all the word games he pleases, it means nothing.

No, I'm pretty sure it is yet another example of how repubs work for themselves and have no interest at all in governing for the American people.

That's one opinion, I don't happen to share it. They're doing exactly what I want them to do.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

the president SHALL nominate and the senate SHALL ADVISE AND CONSENT

it doesn't say... if he feels like

it doesn't say... if he's in the last year in office

it doesn't say if there's a divided government

it says SHALL NOMINATE.

i think that's pretty clear.

is that what you wanted to know?

or should we talk about the other areas where the right is selective?

What do you think “consent” means, in this context?

Can consent mean anything without the right or authority to withhold that consent?

 

[emilynghiem]

Let him nominate and let the Senate vote....see how it plays out. Obungles is as much a Constitutional expert as I am an astronaut

I'm afraid once it gets to the senate floor for debate its over
Like I keep saying. Liberalism marches forward no matter what. Obama will get his 3rd scotus before the end of the year, is my prediction
Sad but true.

What is so bad about it? The only thing you seem to care about is the rich taking all the wealth in this country and your bible morality being forced on everyone.

^ Dear Matthew:
RE: "rich taking all the wealth in this country"
(A) Are you talking about "rich PEOPLE" who generate business revenue and want to KEEP more of the money they created?
Are you talking about corrupt CORPORATE abusers who run their companies at a loss to write off taxes, but in practice keep and spend more money themselves? If you are talking about CORPORATE WELFARE that is draining money off taxpayers, then PLEASE be specific. Otherwise you sound like you are complaining about law abiding taxpayers who DO generate and give a lot of money to govt, and don't deserve to be "treated and blamed as criminals" just because of the corporate abuses committed by OTHER people.

Do you understand the difference, Matthew?
Between corporate abusers who run off with taxpayers money by fraud?
Versus honest taxpayers and business people who GENERATE THEIR OWN INCOME that they use to pay taxes to govt.
Do you get the important distinction here?
Not to treat people as slaves who "owe our income and labor to govt"
but going after the REAL corporate crooks siphoning money they DON'T EARN off taxpayers through illicit govt dealings and conflicts of interest.

Do you see why it is important to distinguish these two
and not assume "all rich people are part of the crooked corporations
with conflicts of interest with govt, campaign financing, etc."

(B) as for "forcing bible morality" on everyone, are you also faulting all other parties for pushing THEIR beliefs on others THROUGH GOVT. Last I checked it was the LIBERAL LEFT pushing transgender bathroom policies against the beliefs of others; and health care mandates that FINED people for not complying with beliefs in govt health care as a right. When the rightwing right to life advocates push to regulate abortion through govt, they get stopped. But when the leftwing right to health care advocates push to regulate health care choices through govt, they PASS MANDATES FINING CITIZENS if they don't comply and purchase PRIVATE insurance meeting set conditions.

Matthew if the rightwing imposed the same TAX FINES on citizens who didn't pay into their "right to life" policies, the LIBERALS would have shouted them down and any officials who voted for that out of office.

Why are you complaining about people pushing bible beliefs on others?
When it is the LIBERAL agenda that is being PUSHED THROUGH
FEDERAL GOVT UNDER PENALTY OF TAX LAWS.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replacement

Obama is 100% right! Obama is a professor in the constitution and my reading of it tells me that he is right! The idea that we need to go back 1780's is pure idiocy. Pretty much we'd have to throw away 90% of all the court cases of the past 230 years if this was even close to be true. bs.

of course he's right. but wingers are always selective in their "strict interpretation" anyway.

And would you site for me what part of the constitution I don't follow; since I'm president of the rwnj's on this forum????

the president SHALL nominate and the senate SHALL ADVISE AND CONSENT

it doesn't say... if he feels like

it doesn't say... if he's in the last year in office

it doesn't say if there's a divided government

it says SHALL NOMINATE.

i think that's pretty clear.

is that what you wanted to know?

or should we talk about the other areas where the right is selective?

If both the President and the various members of Congress did their jobs and put the Constitution before party, nobody would have any issues with this.

But if either the President keeps pushing a partisan agenda (in denial that he has already pushed biased policies, from immigration to health care),
and/or the opposition continues to strike down anything he does from such a one-sided partisan position, then they will both distract from picking candidates who respect beliefs, biases, and faith-based values on BOTH sides.

Sadly they both want the other to back off politics while continuing to push their own. Thus, both are pushing their politics, and are equally responsible for any deadlock and mutual blame they are too busy projecting on each other.

If we need to form a consensus, we aren't going to get there from this approach. If we can accept the fact we don't agree, we start from there.