Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.

I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....

You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?

It's their constitutional perogative to do so.

It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.

Not the point, they took an oath and McConnell breached it immediately.

I'm that case, every senator that voted to reject Robert Bork's nomination violated their oath. That number includes How Biden.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

The Constitution doesn't require Congress to accept any swinging sick that the president nominates.

I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....

You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?

It's their constitutional perogative to do so.

It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.

There's nothing which permits them to deny the president his obligation to pick a replacement.

No one said he cant, but let's not forget the resolution democrats passed in 1960.

 

[Faun]

I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....

You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?

It's their constitutional perogative to do so.

It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.

Not the point, they took an oath and McConnell breached it immediately.

I'm that case, every senator that voted to reject Robert Bork's nomination violated their oath. That number includes How Biden.

I don't understand how you cannot grasp the distinction between denying a nominee whose positions you disagree with; and denying any nominee because you want a president from your own party to pick the nominees?

 

[Faun]

I can't get anyone to answer this question. Perhaps you will be the first....

You're ok then if a Republican wins the presidency and Democrats win the Senate, with Democrats announcing they will not approve whomever the Republican president nominates until a Democrat is back in the White House?

It's their constitutional perogative to do so.

It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.

There's nothing which permits them to deny the president his obligation to pick a replacement.

No one said he cant, but let's not forget the resolution democrats passed in 1960.

By announcing they are effectively shutting down the confirmation process, they are effectively denying Obama of his Constitutional authority. And nothing Democrats passed in 1960 speaks to this.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Save it, for later, much.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

It's their constitutional perogative to do so.

It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.

There's nothing which permits them to deny the president his obligation to pick a replacement.

No one said he cant, but let's not forget the resolution democrats passed in 1960.

By announcing they are effectively shutting down the confirmation process, they are effectively denying Obama of his Constitutional authority. And nothing Democrats passed in 1960 speaks to this.

Nothing about that prevents Obama from nominating a new Supreme Court justice.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

It's their constitutional perogative to do so.

It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.

Not the point, they took an oath and McConnell breached it immediately.

I'm that case, every senator that voted to reject Robert Bork's nomination violated their oath. That number includes How Biden.

I don't understand how you cannot grasp the distinction between denying a nominee whose positions you disagree with; and denying any nominee because you want a president from your own party to pick the nominees?

I certainly understand the difference.

Either way, it's a senator's legal perogotive to reject a nominee.

 

[eagle1462010]

Suddenly the Dems love the Constitution..........Defending the Pen and a Phone man...........and EO's that violate the existing laws on immigration.....................

Here's a song for you ...............Suddenly........I actually like the song Olivia is hot.

 

[eagle1462010]

Chuck Schumer opens can of whoop-ass on Ted Cruz for threatening to block Obama court appointment

“This kind of obstructionism isn’t going to last. And you know, we Democrats didn’t do this. We voted 97-0 for Justice Kennedy in the last year of Reagan’s term. I think first the American people don’t like this obstruction. When you go right off the bat and say, ‘I don’t care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,’ that’s not going to fly.” the New York senator concluded.

 

[eagle1462010]

I agree...................

 

[Faun]

It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.

There's nothing which permits them to deny the president his obligation to pick a replacement.

No one said he cant, but let's not forget the resolution democrats passed in 1960.

By announcing they are effectively shutting down the confirmation process, they are effectively denying Obama of his Constitutional authority. And nothing Democrats passed in 1960 speaks to this.

Nothing about that prevents Obama from nominating a new Supreme Court justice.

Again, by refusing to use the confirmation process, they are effectively denying Obama his Constitutional obligation to pick a replacement. Because he can throw a name at them is meaningless if they're not going to consider whomever he puts up.

Here's an idea. Let's outlaw ammunition. Sure, you can have your guns but they would be meaningless because you wouldn't be able to use them.

 

[Rustic]

There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.

There's nothing which permits them to deny the president his obligation to pick a replacement.

No one said he cant, but let's not forget the resolution democrats passed in 1960.

By announcing they are effectively shutting down the confirmation process, they are effectively denying Obama of his Constitutional authority. And nothing Democrats passed in 1960 speaks to this.

Nothing about that prevents Obama from nominating a new Supreme Court justice.

Again, by refusing to use the confirmation process, they are effectively denying Obama his Constitutional obligation to pick a replacement. Because he can throw a name at them is meaningless if they're not going to consider whomever he puts up.

Here's an idea. Let's outlaw ammunition. Sure, you can have your guns but they would be meaningless because you wouldn't be able to use them.

 

[Boss]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat?

I think the question is a bit fatuous. Of course he should, that is written in the Constitution and the president's obligation to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Therefore, it would be patently idiotic for him NOT to make a nomination.

However... that said, it is also in order for the Republicans to obstruct and block any nomination during a political campaign for the presidency. Again, it would be idiocy for them NOT to do this.

So the answer is, YES he should nominate someone and YES, the Republicans should block his nomination. I predict this is exactly what will unfold in the coming weeks and months. Partisans will make of this what they will, that is what is going to happen.

The Republicans control the Senate, therefore, they can utilize the filibuster to force a supermajority vote on confirmation, and this is what they SHOULD do. Justice Scalia was the only true Constitutional originalist on the court and there is no way a lame duck liberal president should get to pick his replacement... doesn't matter who he picks. If it were Ruth Bader Nutbag who croaked, it might be a different matter, but Scalia should be replaced by a similar Constitutionalist. Obama is never going to nominate someone like Scalia.

Now, people will protest that if Republicans try to obstruct, it will result in a backlash... I disagree... It will be a backlash if they DON'T try to obstruct in this case. The nature of our highest court should not be changed for the next 30 years on the basis of an untimely passing such as this. I would say, even in an off year, the Republicans would have an obligation to see that Scalia is replaced by someone with close to his views... which incidentally, once was the template for ALL justices to the Supreme Court. Someone who is going to abide by the letter of the Constitution's original intent without regard for left-right politics.

Republicans can do this without much effort because the confirmation process can be a very time consuming ordeal. Any nominee must first undergo a confirmation hearing... Republicans could drag that out for months and the more "moderate" the candidate Obama tries to go with, the longer they can mull over the choice. After months of hearings, they can simply reject the nominee and the whole process restarts with a new nominee. So I think this is what they will do. Run the clock, have the long protracted hearings, drag it out as long as possible, then reject the nominee without allowing a Senate vote. Start over, do the same thing again if necessary. Every time a Democrat cries "obstruction" simply point out how important this nomination is and the process must be followed, the nominee must be thoroughly vetted.

I mean... look, let's be honest here... no matter what Republicans do, Democrats aren't going to suddenly start liking Republicans. If they rubber stamped Obama's pick without much ado... the Democrats would chortle "suckers!" and politics as usual keeps marching on. So there is no winning over the hearts and minds of the liberal wackadoodles here. So you may as well go to the mat with this and reject whoever this yahoo nominates, stand your ground, don't back down. That said, I can already see the mealy-mouth GOPers laying the groundwork for approving an Obama pick if they're not "too liberal" because they don't want to confront this president.

 

[Faun]

It is not. They have taken this oath, violated by McConnell almost immediately after the notification of the death of Justice Scalia:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

There's nothing that forces Congres to confirm a presidential nominee.

Not the point, they took an oath and McConnell breached it immediately.

I'm that case, every senator that voted to reject Robert Bork's nomination violated their oath. That number includes How Biden.

I don't understand how you cannot grasp the distinction between denying a nominee whose positions you disagree with; and denying any nominee because you want a president from your own party to pick the nominees?

I certainly understand the difference.

Either way, it's a senator's legal perogotive to reject a nominee.

They're not rejecting nominees -- they're rejecting the process. So no, I don't believe you actually do understand the difference.

 

[Faun]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat?

I think the question is a bit fatuous. Of course he should, that is written in the Constitution and the president's obligation to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Therefore, it would be patently idiotic for him NOT to make a nomination.

However... that said, it is also in order for the Republicans to obstruct and block any nomination during a political campaign for the presidency. Again, it would be idiocy for them NOT to do this.

So the answer is, YES he should nominate someone and YES, the Republicans should block his nomination. I predict this is exactly what will unfold in the coming weeks and months. Partisans will make of this what they will, that is what is going to happen.

The Republicans control the Senate, therefore, they can utilize the filibuster to force a supermajority vote on confirmation, and this is what they SHOULD do. Justice Scalia was the only true Constitutional originalist on the court and there is no way a lame duck liberal president should get to pick his replacement... doesn't matter who he picks. If it were Ruth Bader Nutbag who croaked, it might be a different matter, but Scalia should be replaced by a similar Constitutionalist. Obama is never going to nominate someone like Scalia.

Now, people will protest that if Republicans try to obstruct, it will result in a backlash... I disagree... It will be a backlash if they DON'T try to obstruct in this case. The nature of our highest court should not be changed for the next 30 years on the basis of an untimely passing such as this. I would say, even in an off year, the Republicans would have an obligation to see that Scalia is replaced by someone with close to his views... which incidentally, once was the template for ALL justices to the Supreme Court. Someone who is going to abide by the letter of the Constitution's original intent without regard for left-right politics.

Republicans can do this without much effort because the confirmation process can be a very time consuming ordeal. Any nominee must first undergo a confirmation hearing... Republicans could drag that out for months and the more "moderate" the candidate Obama tries to go with, the longer they can mull over the choice. After months of hearings, they can simply reject the nominee and the whole process restarts with a new nominee. So I think this is what they will do. Run the clock, have the long protracted hearings, drag it out as long as possible, then reject the nominee without allowing a Senate vote. Start over, do the same thing again if necessary. Every time a Democrat cries "obstruction" simply point out how important this nomination is and the process must be followed, the nominee must be thoroughly vetted.

I mean... look, let's be honest here... no matter what Republicans do, Democrats aren't going to suddenly start liking Republicans. If they rubber stamped Obama's pick without much ado... the Democrats would chortle "suckers!" and politics as usual keeps marching on. So there is no winning over the hearts and minds of the liberal wackadoodles here. So you may as well go to the mat with this and reject whoever this yahoo nominates, stand your ground, don't back down. That said, I can already see the mealy-mouth GOPers laying the groundwork for approving an Obama pick if they're not "too liberal" because they don't want to confront this president.

Yes, people will protest Republicans pulling a political stunt like this. Only this year, they get to protest with a ballot.

 

[nat4900]

Barry deserves no such thing, he's a fuck up.
Fuck ups have shitty judgement...

Ahhh, I can see you've been reading Shakespearean love sonnets; you have a way with such lovely prose.

 

[Boss]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat?

I think the question is a bit fatuous. Of course he should, that is written in the Constitution and the president's obligation to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Therefore, it would be patently idiotic for him NOT to make a nomination.

However... that said, it is also in order for the Republicans to obstruct and block any nomination during a political campaign for the presidency. Again, it would be idiocy for them NOT to do this.

So the answer is, YES he should nominate someone and YES, the Republicans should block his nomination. I predict this is exactly what will unfold in the coming weeks and months. Partisans will make of this what they will, that is what is going to happen.

The Republicans control the Senate, therefore, they can utilize the filibuster to force a supermajority vote on confirmation, and this is what they SHOULD do. Justice Scalia was the only true Constitutional originalist on the court and there is no way a lame duck liberal president should get to pick his replacement... doesn't matter who he picks. If it were Ruth Bader Nutbag who croaked, it might be a different matter, but Scalia should be replaced by a similar Constitutionalist. Obama is never going to nominate someone like Scalia.

Now, people will protest that if Republicans try to obstruct, it will result in a backlash... I disagree... It will be a backlash if they DON'T try to obstruct in this case. The nature of our highest court should not be changed for the next 30 years on the basis of an untimely passing such as this. I would say, even in an off year, the Republicans would have an obligation to see that Scalia is replaced by someone with close to his views... which incidentally, once was the template for ALL justices to the Supreme Court. Someone who is going to abide by the letter of the Constitution's original intent without regard for left-right politics.

Republicans can do this without much effort because the confirmation process can be a very time consuming ordeal. Any nominee must first undergo a confirmation hearing... Republicans could drag that out for months and the more "moderate" the candidate Obama tries to go with, the longer they can mull over the choice. After months of hearings, they can simply reject the nominee and the whole process restarts with a new nominee. So I think this is what they will do. Run the clock, have the long protracted hearings, drag it out as long as possible, then reject the nominee without allowing a Senate vote. Start over, do the same thing again if necessary. Every time a Democrat cries "obstruction" simply point out how important this nomination is and the process must be followed, the nominee must be thoroughly vetted.

I mean... look, let's be honest here... no matter what Republicans do, Democrats aren't going to suddenly start liking Republicans. If they rubber stamped Obama's pick without much ado... the Democrats would chortle "suckers!" and politics as usual keeps marching on. So there is no winning over the hearts and minds of the liberal wackadoodles here. So you may as well go to the mat with this and reject whoever this yahoo nominates, stand your ground, don't back down. That said, I can already see the mealy-mouth GOPers laying the groundwork for approving an Obama pick if they're not "too liberal" because they don't want to confront this president.

Yes, people will protest Republicans pulling a political stunt like this. Only this year, they get to protest with a ballot.

GOOD! Make it your primary campaign issue! Right along side repealing the 2nd Amendment like you advocate with whichever Socialists you're going to run with. I'm all for that idea!

 

[Desperado]

He can and he is entitled too just, as the Senate is entitled to shoot down or ignore is selection.

 

[HenryBHough]

Chuck Schumer opens can of whoop-ass on Ted Cruz for threatening to block Obama court appointment

“This kind of obstructionism isn’t going to last. And you know, we Democrats didn’t do this. We voted 97-0 for Justice Kennedy in the last year of Reagan’s term. I think first the American people don’t like this obstruction. When you go right off the bat and say, ‘I don’t care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,’ that’s not going to fly.” the New York senator concluded.

Such blatant memory failure suggests advanced Alzheimer's and demands resignation. Or at least a Democrat Party run for president.....