Obama: Appoint Judge Jeffery Sutton of the 6th District: Ginsburg Should Approve

[Silhouette]

If Obama was a fair and reasonable president, he would admit that his close personal relationship with the farthest left Justice Ginsburg would at least mean he should honor her good friend Justice Scalia's wishes that an originalist Justice should be appointed to take his place:

Ginsburg would want to have Obama honor her dearly departed friend's intense preference to be replaced by a Justice who had his same views. An excellent interview to understand this man's dying wishes would be here:



It's my understanding that Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th District US federal court of appeals holds very close views to Justice Scalia. Obama should honor the newly-deceased man's wishes and the wishes undoubtedly of Scalia's good friend: Justice Ginsburg.

I'd like to see an interview with Ginsburg pressing her on this exact point. Will she urge her friend Obama to nominate Sutton or his true replica? Or will she turn on her dead friend and gush over Obama's wish to strip our country of the political balance necessary for its longevity?

Jeffrey S. Sutton. Jeffrey S. Sutton sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judge Sutton was a partner with the law firm of Jones Day Reavis & Pogue in Columbus, Ohio, and served as State Solicitor of the State of Ohio. He also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Ret.), the Honorable Antonin Scalia and the Honorable Thomas J. Meskill... Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton

In the Sixth Circuit, it was a George W. Bush–appointed disciple of Justice Scalia... Sutton is not just a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, an appointee of President George W. Bush and an active member of the Federalist Society. Until his nomination to the Sixth Circuit, he was the leading advocate before the Supreme Court on states’ rights. Judge Jeffrey Sutton, States’ Rights Advocate, Upholds Obamacare

Discuss.

 

[Silhouette]

Sutton upholding Obamacare should be the clincher. Though it may offend many of the GOP.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why would the President nominate a justice that he wouldn't agree with? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[SwimExpert]

 

[waltky]

Appoint Judge Jeffery Sutton of the 6th District

Uncle Ferd thinks dey oughta appoint Jeffrey Tambor...

... he was in dat movie, "An' Justice fer All".

 

[Silhouette]

Why would the President nominate a justice that he wouldn't agree with? That doesn't make any sense.

Out of a sense of duty to the country he professes to care about. This isn't a four-year ego trip for the Frat-Boy in Chief. It's his temporary stewardship of a country whose needs exist apart from his ephemeral whims...

The Court NEEDS to be balanced. And plus, Scalia's fervent wish was when he "retired" (died, same thing), he absolutely wanted himself to replace himself. You don't drive a car without brakes. Scalia was the brakes on "the living Constitution" which takes the original intent for it, to change at the pace an oak tree grows and turns it into a cheetah's pace instead. Rapid change in any society will spell its doom. Obama is too dumb to realize that. He will focus as he always did on his extreme leftist views and turning this country into a looney-utopia.

So when you look at the vital appointment of a life term Justice, it makes perfect sense to keep balance on the last stop of justice in this country. Because if the reverse scenario happened and Ginsburg died during a GOP administration, you'd urge the president to nominate someone like her in her place to have balanced out the extreme on the other end. Balance is good for a country. Imbalance isn't.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why would the President nominate a justice that he wouldn't agree with? That doesn't make any sense.

Out of a sense of duty to the country he professes to care about. This isn't a four-year ego trip for the Frat-Boy in Chief. It's his temporary stewardship of a country whose needs exist apart from his ephemeral whims...

The Court NEEDS to be balanced. And plus, Scalia's fervent wish was when he "retired" (died, same thing), he absolutely wanted himself to replace himself. You don't drive a car without brakes. Scalia was the brakes on "the living Constitution" which takes the original intent for it, to change at the pace an oak tree grows and turns it into a cheetah's pace instead. Rapid change in any society will spell its doom. Obama is too dumb to realize that. He will focus as he always did on his extreme leftist views and turning this country into a looney-utopia.

So when you look at the vital appointment of a life term Justice, it makes perfect sense to keep balance on the last stop of justice in this country. Because if the reverse scenario happened and Ginsburg died during a GOP administration, you'd urge the president to nominate someone like her in her place to have balanced out the extreme on the other end. Balance is good for a country. Imbalance isn't.

Out of duty? Out of duty the President should nominate someone to the Supreme Court he completely disagrees with? No, that's not duty, that's just stupid.

Also, A justice does not get to "replace himself with himself", what kind of crap is that? When has that ever happened before?

How about if Obama nominates whoever he wants and then let the Senate sort it out?

 

[Silhouette]

Out of duty? Out of duty the President should nominate someone to the Supreme Court he completely disagrees with? No, that's not duty, that's just stupid.

Also, A justice does not get to "replace himself with himself", what kind of crap is that? When has that ever happened before?

How about if Obama nominates whoever he wants and then let the Senate sort it out?

Yes, duty to country. I know the idea is foreign to you. Study up on ancient civilizations and rapid change and get back to me when you're done. Justice Scalia doesn't "get to" replace himself with his ideological likeness. But it's what Scalia wanted for the good of the Court and Country. Ask his good friend Justice Ginsburg. She'd agree with me. I can't wait to see her interviewed on the "should we honor Scalia or Obama" on this question...can't wait...

 

[HappyJoy]

Out of duty? Out of duty the President should nominate someone to the Supreme Court he completely disagrees with? No, that's not duty, that's just stupid.

Also, A justice does not get to "replace himself with himself", what kind of crap is that? When has that ever happened before?

How about if Obama nominates whoever he wants and then let the Senate sort it out?

Yes, duty to country. I know the idea is foreign to you. Study up on ancient civilizations and rapid change and get back to me when you're done. Justice Scalia doesn't "get to" replace himself with his ideological likeness. But it's what Scalia wanted for the good of the Court and Country. Ask his good friend Justice Ginsburg. She'd agree with me. I can't wait to see her interviewed on the "should we honor Scalia or Obama" on this question...can't wait...

Let's see, Obama was elected by the American people fully knowing that he will replace Supreme Court Justices, but no...Scalia has an opinion about his replacement so let's just ignore the consequence of elections. There is absolutely not one reason Obama should even think for a moment to nominate someone like Scalia. Just like if a Republican is in the White House when Ginsburg leaves the court would I expect them to replace her with another liberal, it makes no sense.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would the President nominate a justice that he wouldn't agree with? That doesn't make any sense.

Out of a sense of duty to the country he professes to care about. .

Out of a sense of duty to the United States- President Obama should nominate the candidate he thinks will be the best Justice- not who you think is best.

 

[Syriusly]

Why does Silhouette think Sutton would be a good candidate?

Because she has 'gay' on her mind all the time- Sutton was one of the few judges to uphold same sex marriage bans. Obama, correctly, will not be considering the very conservative Sutton.

Judge Sutton has been recognized as the intellectual engine behind a conservative movement of the jurisprudence of the Sixth Circuit as the author of many

In November 2014, Sutton authored the 2-1 opinion ruling upholding same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee in the Sixth Circuit reversing six previous federal district court rulings. The ruling was the second federal court ruling and the only Federal Court of Appeals ruling[6] to uphold same-sex marriage bans after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor in June 2013. This ran counter to rulings by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits, which then led the U.S. Supreme Court to grant writ of certiorari to review same-sex marriage bans when it previously declined to do so.[7][8] In Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Sixth Circuit.

 

[konradv]

The Court NEEDS to be balanced. And plus, Scalia's fervent wish was when he "retired" (died, same thing), he absolutely wanted himself to replace himself. You don't drive a car without brakes. Scalia was the brakes on "the living Constitution" which takes the original intent for it, to change at the pace an oak tree grows and turns it into a cheetah's pace instead. Rapid change in any society will spell its doom. Obama is too dumb to realize that. He will focus as he always did on his extreme leftist views and turning this country into a looney-utopia.

That's ridiculous. Obama owes it to the people that voted for him to pick someone they'd like, NOT the choice of someone that didn't vote for him. No Republican president would do what you suggested, unless he wanted to wear a flak jacket for the rest of his life.

 

[Borillar]

Why would the President nominate a justice that he wouldn't agree with? That doesn't make any sense.

Out of a sense of duty to the country he professes to care about. This isn't a four-year ego trip for the Frat-Boy in Chief. It's his temporary stewardship of a country whose needs exist apart from his ephemeral whims...

The Court NEEDS to be balanced. And plus, Scalia's fervent wish was when he "retired" (died, same thing), he absolutely wanted himself to replace himself. You don't drive a car without brakes. Scalia was the brakes on "the living Constitution" which takes the original intent for it, to change at the pace an oak tree grows and turns it into a cheetah's pace instead. Rapid change in any society will spell its doom. Obama is too dumb to realize that. He will focus as he always did on his extreme leftist views and turning this country into a looney-utopia.

So when you look at the vital appointment of a life term Justice, it makes perfect sense to keep balance on the last stop of justice in this country. Because if the reverse scenario happened and Ginsburg died during a GOP administration, you'd urge the president to nominate someone like her in her place to have balanced out the extreme on the other end. Balance is good for a country. Imbalance isn't.

Who did the GOP put in place to succeed legendary justice Thurgood Marshall? Uncle Thomas. Why should Obama appoint another wingnut like Scalia who is diametrically opposed to his beliefs? That's just f'n crazy talk. The GOP wouldn't do it. Why should the dems?

 

[Agit8r]

problem solved

 

[Silhouette]

Who did the GOP put in place to succeed legendary justice Thurgood Marshall? Uncle Thomas. Why should Obama appoint another wingnut like Scalia who is diametrically opposed to his beliefs? That's just f'n crazy talk. The GOP wouldn't do it. Why should the dems?

You have a point. Which is why Donald Trump is going to disrupt this election. The thing he keeps saying that resonates with his followers is that patriotism and sanity is lacking in both party leadership.

Of course those are just talking points. Trump himself isn't playing with a full deck. The situation is very difficult because the average person just is so blind with agitation towards both Hillary and the right's selling our country down the river for cash...that they can't see that their guru made his fortune by selling good souls down the river for cash. It's...ironic...and very worrisome because you can't teach the Trumpsters to think independently about their Guru this far gone into their spooked state..

This is why I keep repeating that Chris Christie is the one to run this country. He is a patriot first and foremost. He has his flaws, but he is the best pick of the bunch for all the things that will be needed of this next Administration. Of course the left doesn't want him because he could and would defeat their candidate and cause them to compromise many of their whacked out agendas. The right doesn't want him because he would cause them to compromise many of their whacked out agendas. But the fact remains that he is Trump's sane twin who can lead this country back to her moorings and unite us.

So, naturally, he was nudged out early by Fox News (Cheney/Rove mouthpiece) constantly acting dismissive towards both him and his campaign while giving more air time and discussion to completely unelectable candidates like Ben Carson, Jeb Bush and the manic boy-wonder Rubio...oh...and Canadian Cruz.. Which is ironic because the RNC's main ear-whisperer, the head of that snake, advising them on strategy is a 5 time draft dodger, wifey and he raised by democrat parents, pro-LGBT agendas and praised Obama & the Bin Laden ruse..

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why would the President nominate a justice that he wouldn't agree with? That doesn't make any sense.

Obama will just send up unacceptable nominees in hopes that he can stall until Hillary gets elected so she can appoint him in 2017.

 

[mdk]

Sil only likes Sutton b/c he ruled against gay marriage.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Court NEEDS to be balanced.

We are approaching a time when as soon as a party h as control of the white house and Congress, they will try to impeach the SCOTUS justices that the other party has approved ASAP and the fill it with their own partisans.

Might as well start with this in January 2017.

 

[9aces]

Why would the President nominate a justice that he wouldn't agree with? That doesn't make any sense.

Out of a sense of duty to the country he professes to care about. .

Out of a sense of duty to the United States- President Obama should nominate the candidate he thinks will be the best Justice- not who you think is best.

And if Congress thinks that's a bad choice, they have the duty to reject them. Given Barrack Hussein Obama's decision making in the past, telling him not to bother really just saves everyone time.

Although he might get something right by accident, he's due.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's ridiculous. Obama owes it to the people that voted for him to pick someone they'd like, NOT the choice of someone that didn't vote for him. No Republican president would do what you suggested, unless he wanted to wear a flak jacket for the rest of his life.

No, you are being ridiculous. There is no 'right' to stack the SCOTUS with partisan hacks. The Senate should fight this with every step, but McConnell is a fool and a fraud and will cave in on the first opportunity or else he has already selected what kind of pratfall he will have to allow Obama to make his appointment so McConnell can look like he is fighting Obama while he truly is not.