Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[nat4900]

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

My friend, I VERY much doubt that McConnell has ever even read the Constitution....he just reads what his "donors" want.

 

[nat4900]

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

I think we've addressed this several times on this thread.....But for the comprehension-challenged......

NO ONE is stating that congress (the freakin' senate NOT the house, btw) has to confirm any nominee.....The issue here is that GOP candidates AND McConnell don't even want for Obama to offer a nominee.

 

[nat4900]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee in 2017.

 

[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.

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!

Republican obstructionism likely will be an issue.

 

[Faun]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee.

Absolutely. Or even if Republicans hold onto the Senate, according to these new Senate Rules, a Democrat president can refuse to name a nominee until 2019 when maybe we will have a Democrat Senate.

 

[nat4900]

Absolutely. Or even if Republicans hold onto the Senate, according to these new Senate Rules, a Democrat president can refuse to name a nominee until 2019 when maybe we will have a Democrat Senate

My friend, were THAT to happen, the Supreme Court would be irrelevant for the next 3 years.....probably NOT accepting to hear any new cases because they know that a 4-4 decision would be likely.......making the lower courts the final arbiters.

The sad fact is that we have the SCOTUS interpreting law (based on the Constitution) strictly along partisan lines......Lady Justice can aptly take off those blindfolds,

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

I think we've addressed this several times on this thread.....But for the comprehension-challenged......

NO ONE is stating that congress (the freakin' senate NOT the house, btw) has to confirm any nominee.....The issue here is that GOP candidates AND McConnell don't even want for Obama to offer a nominee.

And, There's no law that takes away their right to say they don't want him to.

What part of that don't you understand?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee.

Absolutely. Or even if Republicans hold onto the Senate, according to these new Senate Rules, a Democrat president can refuse to name a nominee until 2019 when maybe we will have a Democrat Senate.

Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?

 

[nat4900]

It is posters like WildBill here that help me remain a staunch democrat.....
In an ironic way, "thanks", WildBill.

 

[Boss]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee in 2017.

Fine... use your scare tactics, characterize this however you please, run it until you run it in the ground then stomp on is spitting and swearing in outrage. Beat the dead horse on one side, flip it over and beat it again on the other... change horses and bet another one to death... Everyone who is not a partisan left-wing hack or absolute moron (yes, I realize that's redundant), understands that if this were a liberal justice and a republican president, Harry Reid would literally stand on his ear to keep a republican nominee off the court.

 

[Faun]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee.

Absolutely. Or even if Republicans hold onto the Senate, according to these new Senate Rules, a Democrat president can refuse to name a nominee until 2019 when maybe we will have a Democrat Senate.

Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?

I am indeed. Just like the Senate is obligated to advise and consent. But since the Senate is shirking their Constitutional obligations, why can't the next president should a Democrat win?

 

[Faun]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee in 2017.

Fine... use your scare tactics, characterize this however you please, run it until you run it in the ground then stomp on is spitting and swearing in outrage. Beat the dead horse on one side, flip it over and beat it again on the other... change horses and bet another one to death... Everyone who is not a partisan left-wing hack or absolute moron (yes, I realize that's redundant), understands that if this were a liberal justice and a republican president, Harry Reid would literally stand on his ear to keep a republican nominee off the court.

Bullshit. A Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee in 1988.

 

[eagle1462010]

The next election will decide this..............

Get your bumper stickers before they run out.

 

[Boss]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee in 2017.

Fine... use your scare tactics, characterize this however you please, run it until you run it in the ground then stomp on is spitting and swearing in outrage. Beat the dead horse on one side, flip it over and beat it again on the other... change horses and bet another one to death... Everyone who is not a partisan left-wing hack or absolute moron (yes, I realize that's redundant), understands that if this were a liberal justice and a republican president, Harry Reid would literally stand on his ear to keep a republican nominee off the court.

Bullshit. A Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee in 1988.

Was Reagan replacing a liberal justice?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee in 2017.

Fine... use your scare tactics, characterize this however you please, run it until you run it in the ground then stomp on is spitting and swearing in outrage. Beat the dead horse on one side, flip it over and beat it again on the other... change horses and bet another one to death... Everyone who is not a partisan left-wing hack or absolute moron (yes, I realize that's redundant), understands that if this were a liberal justice and a republican president, Harry Reid would literally stand on his ear to keep a republican nominee off the court.

Bullshit. A Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee in 1988.

Was Reagan replacing a liberal justice?

No. A conservative swing (Powell) for a moderate swing.
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[Faun]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee in 2017.

Fine... use your scare tactics, characterize this however you please, run it until you run it in the ground then stomp on is spitting and swearing in outrage. Beat the dead horse on one side, flip it over and beat it again on the other... change horses and bet another one to death... Everyone who is not a partisan left-wing hack or absolute moron (yes, I realize that's redundant), understands that if this were a liberal justice and a republican president, Harry Reid would literally stand on his ear to keep a republican nominee off the court.

Bullshit. A Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee in 1988.

Was Reagan replacing a liberal justice?

A moderate-Conservative appointed by Nixon. Still there's nothing in the Constitution which allows one party to shirk their Constitutional responsibilities to increase their ideology in the Supreme Court.

 

[Boss]

Great...bottom line will be that Obama nominates someone and McConnell and his cohorts will stall, obfuscate and demagogue......

Now, if a democrat gets elected to the oval office (a pretty good chance of that and right wingers know this...) AND since it is very likely that democrats will regain a majority in the senate (remember that the VP of a democrat POTUS gets to vote)......republicans this year MAY reject an Obama moderate and will be faced with a possibility of a staunch liberal nominee in 2017.

Fine... use your scare tactics, characterize this however you please, run it until you run it in the ground then stomp on is spitting and swearing in outrage. Beat the dead horse on one side, flip it over and beat it again on the other... change horses and bet another one to death... Everyone who is not a partisan left-wing hack or absolute moron (yes, I realize that's redundant), understands that if this were a liberal justice and a republican president, Harry Reid would literally stand on his ear to keep a republican nominee off the court.

Bullshit. A Democrat Senate confirmed Reagan's nominee in 1988.

Was Reagan replacing a liberal justice?

No. A conservative swing (Powell) for a moderate swing.
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

So you have a Conservative president replacing a Conservative justice. That's not what I said, is it? If Reagan had attempted to nominate someone to replace a liberal justice he would have never gotten confirmation in an election year.

Can you imagine George W. Bush, in his final year in office, nominating a justice to replace Ginsberg? You think a Democrat senate would have confirmed ANYONE Bush nominated? Hell... they wouldn't even confirm his nominees in the off years!

 

[Boss]

A moderate-Conservative appointed by Nixon.

No... A registered Republican Conservative. And he replaced him with a moderate with advice and consent of the Senate. So run along now and find an example of a LIBERAL justice being replaced in an election year by a Conservative Republican president... then we'll talk!

 

[Faun]

A moderate-Conservative appointed by Nixon.

No... A registered Republican Conservative. And he replaced him with a moderate with advice and consent of the Senate. So run along now and find an example of a LIBERAL justice being replaced in an election year by a Conservative Republican president... then we'll talk!

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. You just make up your positions as you go along. Powell was considered a moderate-Conservative, just as I said. He ruled with the majority in Roe v. Wade and in an affirmative action case. Despite being appointed by Nixon, he was very much a swing vote; not unlike Kennedy.

 

[HenryBHough]

It's so nice to see Democrat panties all in a twist when Repbulicans use Democrat tactics!