Scalia question

[Auld Phart]

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject Presidential appointments. Anyone who wants to whine about how unfair this is can take it up with James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and/or George Washington.

Absolutely, the Senate can go through hearings and bring them up on a vote, and reject them and the President can then nominate another Justice for them to vet....this can go on forever and a day...

Unless the President appoints them during a recess period of the Senate, then the appointee usually has a few years in the position, before the Senate has to vote on them.

Think the record was 9 before one finally passed Congress

 

[peach174]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

Sorry you don't like who the president is. Rules are rules. It's Obama's pick.

If they have no real objection the court just got a lot less conservative.

If rules are rules, give us the rules on when a Justice suddenly dies in office during an election year.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

What happens if a democrat gets elected president?

Then our Freedoms will be gone, particularly the 2nd Amendment and Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. (Liberals hate opposing opinions.). But that's how our system works. Thing is, will people willingly give up their guns to the liberal gestapo.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

There's no question the 2nd amendment would be in jeopardy. So would the first and a host of others. And yes, the Republicans could stop him but since the GOP leadership are all enablers, they most likely won't.

McConnell says he won't hold any hearings on Obama's nominees. He better hadn't.

 

[peach174]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

The next president will be making Supreme Court appointments reflecting the will of the people who voted in 2016; the Scalia vacancy is the responsibility of the current president, reflecting the will of the people who reelected him in 2012.

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

That is not partisan.
It's the Senates right to be able to hold up nominations that they don't approve.
It is called checks and balances so that either party can't do a total control of each others ideologies.
Now if the Senate was still the majority of Dems then it would be legal.
The people elected a Majority of Repubs into the house and Senate in order to block most of Obamas far left policies.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

You're under the mistaken impression that the President gets to singularly choose Supreme Court Justices. It don't work that way.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

You're under the mistaken impression that the President gets to singularly choose Supreme Court Justices. It don't work that way.

Ah so you are going to cry now? I love you conspiracy pirates who like to parse every single word anyone says so in your mind you can say 'gotcha'.

Yes dopey the entire world knows the Senate confirms nominees. The president is the only person to choose nominees though, see? Or are you going to give a new secret meaning for 'choose' and 'nominees' or maybe 'president', you know something you and your militia asshats sat around and debated and thought you really had solved the Unified Theory for the universe.

Shouldn't you be figuring out who smothered Scalia? Times a wastin and the aliens are gittin away.

 

[Care4all]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

The next president will be making Supreme Court appointments reflecting the will of the people who voted in 2016; the Scalia vacancy is the responsibility of the current president, reflecting the will of the people who reelected him in 2012.

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

That is not partisan.
It's the Senates right to be able to hold up nominations that they don't approve.
It is called checks and balances so that either party can't do a total control of each others ideologies.
Now if the Senate was still the majority of Dems then it would be legal.
The people elected a Majority of Repubs into the house and Senate in order to block most of Obamas far left policies.

actually Peach, it is very partisan in the way the republicans ANNOUNCED that they would not vet or vote on anyone that Obama appointed, BEFORE the Senate even knew who the nominee would be...

they showed their PARTISAN HAND, upfront....less than 12 hours of Scalia being dead...

pretty stupid of them...to show their 'partisan' cards upfront...they could have kept their mouths shut, seen who the nominee appointed was, vetted them, then deny the vote or vote them down.......

but nooooooooo, they had to make circus clowns out of themselves....such idiots as they are........

 

[JQPublic1]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment?

Yes. GOP controls the senate so if they choose not to hold confirmation hearings, then obozo's nomination goes nowhere.

There are currently 30 class 3 republican senators and 10 class 3 democrat senators. Class 3 stat means those senators are up for re-election in November..
That may be a significant factor in how much "stonewalling" takes place in the quest to replace Scalia.

 

[JQPublic1]

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution…

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.​

So, in short, the President gets to nominate a candidate to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court; but the candidate cannot actually be appointed to that position without the advice and consent of the Senate.


The current President, Barack Obama, certainly has the authority and the duty to make such a nomination at this point. The Senate is under no obligation to approve that nomination. I know that a few Senators have expressed the opinion that the next President should be the one to pick the person to fill the vacancy left by Mr. Scalia, and if a majority of the Senate agrees, then it is entirely within the Senate's authority to refuse to approve any new Justice nominated by the current President.

I know this sounds strange but I don't see anything that you posted above that gives the Senate the right to deny a confirmation that includes all of the above guidelines. If Obama confers with the Senate and asks for a list of candidates
recommended by them. A nomination from such list could not be denied confirmation. This may require a vote among the senators and the concurrence of 2/3rds of that body, which would include both democrats AND republicans. I think Obama would be happy to nominate a candidate vested by that means.

 

[Papageorgio]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

Sorry you don't like who the president is. Rules are rules. It's Obama's pick.

If they have no real objection the court just got a lot less conservative.

And if the Senate fails to confirm the the nominee, and it is after the new President's inauguration, the the new President makes the pick. That the rules.

 

[Papageorgio]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

The next president will be making Supreme Court appointments reflecting the will of the people who voted in 2016; the Scalia vacancy is the responsibility of the current president, reflecting the will of the people who reelected him in 2012.

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

What about the Americans that elected the Senate, should their votes be respected?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There's no question the 2nd amendment would be in jeopardy.

With over 100,000,000 armed and climbing, the jeopardy would be thin and short-lived.

And whatever makes you think that the majority of those people are with you? We see people like you are deranged individuals.

What makes you think they are not, and that they do not see people like you as deranged individuals?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

yep. Everyone knows that obama's second term is void, as he is a lame duck. The speaker should select scalia's replacement. Or maybe trump.

 

[strollingbones]

sillie me....isnt obama still our president? so he should be doing the presidential duties....

 

[L.K.Eder]

sillie me....isnt obama still our president? so he should be doing the presidential duties....

nah. obama cannot be elected again. that's why he has not authority to do what a president does. actually, even during his first term, he was not authorized, as it was not sure that he would be reelected. there was also the possibility that he would be impeached and imprisoned. any irrationale is valid to explain why obama should not nominate a replacement for scalia.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Unfortunately, as always, the pick will be based on political sides rather than merit.
Obama will pick either a Latino or Black candidate that is especially liberal and probably a woman.
He will do this to help Hillary's campaign. When the republicans refuse her - Hillary get's to use that to show how racist and sexist the republicans are.
Wait and see.

 

[sealybobo]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

You're under the mistaken impression that the President gets to singularly choose Supreme Court Justices. It don't work that way.

Ah so you are going to cry now? I love you conspiracy pirates who like to parse every single word anyone says so in your mind you can say 'gotcha'.

Yes dopey the entire world knows the Senate confirms nominees. The president is the only person to choose nominees though, see? Or are you going to give a new secret meaning for 'choose' and 'nominees' or maybe 'president', you know something you and your militia asshats sat around and debated and thought you really had solved the Unified Theory for the universe.

Shouldn't you be figuring out who smothered Scalia? Times a wastin and the aliens are gittin away.

Republicans are going to have to give a good reason if they reject Obama's pick. And they don't get to demand the pick is one of there's.

This reminds me when the GOP shut down the government trying to force Obama to do what they wanted. Not going to help them at the polls.

 

[sealybobo]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

Sorry you don't like who the president is. Rules are rules. It's Obama's pick.

If they have no real objection the court just got a lot less conservative.

If rules are rules, give us the rules on when a Justice suddenly dies in office during an election year.

When a supreme dies the sitting president gets to nominate his replacement. Doesn't matter if its year 1 or 4

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

sillie me....isnt obama still our president? so he should be doing the presidential duties....

Why? He hasn't done them yet, in seven years.