Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Meathead]

This is a silly thread. No one is going to be confirmed by the senate until the next president is sworn in. I't just not going to happen folks. The senate is not going to allow some liberal dingbat to take Scalia's seat.

Elections have consequences.

 

[Redfish]

This is a silly thread. No one is going to be confirmed by the senate until the next president is sworn in. I't just not going to happen folks. The senate is not going to allow some liberal dingbat to take Scalia's seat.

Elections have consequences.

Very true, but watch the dems and media begin using terms like "obstructionists" "haters" and "unconstitutional" when describing republicans.

A biased media can destroy a country, and we are watching it happen.

 

[Faun]

Of course you haven't. You struggle with English. The Senate does not have to consent but they can't consent if they shut down the confirmation process. If they paint themselves into a corner where they can't consent, then they are violating the Constitution which states their responsibility is to advise and consent.

No one has suggested shutting down the process. I think they should USE the process. Run that clock! Take as much time as humanly possible to vet his nominee.... then... reject them and start the process over.

In all honesty, who gives a flying **** what you think they should do? I care about what they say they are going to do. And Republicans have already declared they will not allow Obama to appoint a replacement for Scalia's seat.

A political manuever, by the way, which doesn't get a whole lot of support. Rasmussen, a conservative pollster, reflects respondents are against Republicans not allowing any Obama nominee to even be considered by a margin of 53% to 35%.

Should Scalia’s Replacement Be Obama’s Choice? - Rasmussen Reports™

Hey, I am with the 53%... it should be his choice! I haven't said he shouldn't get to make a choice. If it were a Republican, I would say the same thing. But Obama will have to select someone in the mold of Scalia which he's not very likely to do. If he doesn't, his selection needs to be rejected.

You're too ******* deranged. You say you're with the 53% who say Republicans should not reject considering Obama's nominees while you're arguing here how that is what they should do.

 

[Redfish]

Of course you haven't. You struggle with English. The Senate does not have to consent but they can't consent if they shut down the confirmation process. If they paint themselves into a corner where they can't consent, then they are violating the Constitution which states their responsibility is to advise and consent.

No one has suggested shutting down the process. I think they should USE the process. Run that clock! Take as much time as humanly possible to vet his nominee.... then... reject them and start the process over.

In all honesty, who gives a flying **** what you think they should do? I care about what they say they are going to do. And Republicans have already declared they will not allow Obama to appoint a replacement for Scalia's seat.

A political manuever, by the way, which doesn't get a whole lot of support. Rasmussen, a conservative pollster, reflects respondents are against Republicans not allowing any Obama nominee to even be considered by a margin of 53% to 35%.

Should Scalia’s Replacement Be Obama’s Choice? - Rasmussen Reports™

Hey, I am with the 53%... it should be his choice! I haven't said he shouldn't get to make a choice. If it were a Republican, I would say the same thing. But Obama will have to select someone in the mold of Scalia which he's not very likely to do. If he doesn't, his selection needs to be rejected.

You're too ******* deranged. You say you're with the 53% who say Republicans should not reject considering Obama's nominees while you're arguing here how that is what they should do.

Obama can nominate whoever he wants, the senate can have a vote or do nothing. that's what the constitution says.

this is nothing but political bantering at this point, each side trying to use it for advantage.

 

[nat4900]

There is nothing that says a SCOTUS judge can't be appointed during an election year. Republicans simply don't want to see the court with a Democratic majority.

Which then shoots a BIG hole on the notion that the SC is Apolitical and unbiased, doesn't it?

 

[nat4900]

Social justice is not justice of any kind and must be stopped on all levels.

I think that the above statement was once uttered by Hitler and maybe even Stalin.

 

[nat4900]

Obama can nominate whoever he wants, the senate can have a vote or do nothing. that's what the constitution says.

Wrong on the last part......The Constitution does NOT state that the senate should "do nothing"....They're elected to do something including voting to NOT confirm a nominee....

McConnell and the other nitwits, just don't want the spectacle of shooting down a perfectly eligible Obama nominee...especially in an election year where 24 GOP senate seats need to be defended.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is nothing that says a SCOTUS judge can't be appointed during an election year. Republicans simply don't want to see the court with a Democratic majority.

Which then shoots a BIG hole on the notion that the SC is Apolitical and unbiased, doesn't it?

Who ever claimed that?

 

[deaddogseye]

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.

I think he should if he wants to. I wont like a nominee from him and hope the Senate has a backbone and just says no - but from Obama's perspective it makes sense if only to try to gain partisan advantage. Whether he succeeds or not is another issue - I could see either side gaining from this. Hard to tell

 

[nat4900]

Who ever claimed that?

Well, if NOT that, then justices would have to be elected and not appointed.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Who ever claimed that?

Well, if NOT that, then justices would have to be elected and not appointed.

Why would they have to?

 

[deaddogseye]

There is nothing that says a SCOTUS judge can't be appointed during an election year. Republicans simply don't want to see the court with a Democratic majority.

Which then shoots a BIG hole on the notion that the SC is Apolitical and unbiased, doesn't it?

Who ever claimed that?

Excellent point. The idea that the Supreme Court is apolitical may have passed the laugh test at one point but those days are long long gone. The ONLY reason everyone is so focused on this issue is that the Supreme Court has become - with respect to anything anyone cares about - a body politic. The legislature of last resort for issues that you couldn't win in the real legislature. It is now forever totally political and people should stop kidding themselves about this.

 

[nat4900]

I think he should if he wants to. I wont like a nominee from him and hope the Senate has a backbone and just says no - but from Obama's perspective it makes sense if only to try to gain partisan advantage. Whether he succeeds or not is another issue - I could see either side gaining from this. Hard to tell

Well, look at it this way.....

If Obama nominates a judge that was previously overwhelmingly and bipartisan approved by the senate, it will be rather embarrassing to reject a nominee simply because Obama made the nomination.

 

[nat4900]

Excellent point. The idea that the Supreme Court is apolitical may have passed the laugh test at one point but those days are long long gone. The ONLY reason everyone is so focused on this issue is that the Supreme Court has become - with respect to anything anyone cares about - a body politic. The legislature of last resort for issues that you couldn't win in the real legislature. It is now forever totally political and people should stop kidding themselves about this.

Then you can take the BLINDFOLD OFF of Lady Justice, and let Justices wear a D or an R on their robes.

 

[Jarhead]

There is nothing that says a SCOTUS judge can't be appointed during an election year. Republicans simply don't want to see the court with a Democratic majority.

Which then shoots a BIG hole on the notion that the SC is Apolitical and unbiased, doesn't it?

Who ever claimed that?

Excellent point. The idea that the Supreme Court is apolitical may have passed the laugh test at one point but those days are long long gone. The ONLY reason everyone is so focused on this issue is that the Supreme Court has become - with respect to anything anyone cares about - a body politic. The legislature of last resort for issues that you couldn't win in the real legislature. It is now forever totally political and people should stop kidding themselves about this.

No one who has any intelligence has EVER seen the supreme court as apolitical. Heck, the process of appointing one is clear designed to include the ideological leaning of the president as well as the ideological leaning of the senate. It is designed so that the sitting senate, be it right or left, makes the final decision....and invariably, the sitting senate is a representation of the people and the ideology the majority leans.
As the ideology of choice fluctuates back and forth, so does the ideology of the nominees.
That being said, The President has a constitutional responsibility to nominate an appointee ad the senate has the responsibility to determine if the ideology of such nominee meets the preferences of the majority of the people.
Now, in this case, where the people will be making that choice for President in 8 months, it is not so far fetched to allow the people make that choice seeing as who they choose as president will pretty much determine the ideology of the next justice.

 

[Jarhead]

I agree with you 100% ... I hope he nominates the biggest left-wing loon he can find! The Senate Judiciary Committee includes Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions... and they will hold said liberal in committee for months and months, going over every ruling and every aspect of that loon's life... They will insist on a lengthy drawn out hearing where they can ask all sorts of questions to expose just how radical the loon is, and after running months and months of clock... summarily reject them. I think that is the best case scenario.

You're right. They'll talk about all those crazy views.
Like women should control their own bodies.
And crazy people shouldn't be able to buy guns.
And rich people shouldn't be able to buy politicians
And we shouldn't execute people when proof emerges that they didn't do it.

You know, all those "sane" views of Tony the Big Tuna Scalia, who is thankfully taking that well-deserved dirt nap right now.

I see you are one of those folks that is unable to discern between fact and spin.

What is it like to support party that sees you as a gullible fool?

No need to answer. Your post alone has eliminated any credibility you may have had in my eyes.

 

[deaddogseye]

Excellent point. The idea that the Supreme Court is apolitical may have passed the laugh test at one point but those days are long long gone. The ONLY reason everyone is so focused on this issue is that the Supreme Court has become - with respect to anything anyone cares about - a body politic. The legislature of last resort for issues that you couldn't win in the real legislature. It is now forever totally political and people should stop kidding themselves about this.

Then you can take the BLINDFOLD OFF of Lady Justice, and let Justices wear a D or an R on their robes.

Agreed - and my point is the blindfold was taken off a long time ago - for better or for worse

 

[Jarhead]

I think he should if he wants to. I wont like a nominee from him and hope the Senate has a backbone and just says no - but from Obama's perspective it makes sense if only to try to gain partisan advantage. Whether he succeeds or not is another issue - I could see either side gaining from this. Hard to tell

Well, look at it this way.....

If Obama nominates a judge that was previously overwhelmingly and bipartisan approved by the senate, it will be rather embarrassing to reject a nominee simply because Obama made the nomination.

In other words, you do not know he difference between choosing a judge that will oversee the law and a judge who will have the responsibility interpret the law.

 

[Jarhead]

There is nothing that says a SCOTUS judge can't be appointed during an election year. Republicans simply don't want to see the court with a Democratic majority.

Which then shoots a BIG hole on the notion that the SC is Apolitical and unbiased, doesn't it?

Who ever claimed that?

no one

 

[deaddogseye]

I think he should if he wants to. I wont like a nominee from him and hope the Senate has a backbone and just says no - but from Obama's perspective it makes sense if only to try to gain partisan advantage. Whether he succeeds or not is another issue - I could see either side gaining from this. Hard to tell

Well, look at it this way.....

If Obama nominates a judge that was previously overwhelmingly and bipartisan approved by the senate, it will be rather embarrassing to reject a nominee simply because Obama made the nomination.

Certainly that is an argument that will be made but I don't think (and its just my opinion) its all that compelling or that tough for the GOP to swallow. The response is that approving someone for a lower court is totally different that approving him or her for the Supreme Court if for no other reason than that person has the Supreme Court over him. The standards for lower court judges are a lot looser and they just dont get the scrutiny. Sri Srivassan is used as an example of someone who was approved 97 - 0 - but they will say that was too recent. There haven't been enough decisions by him to evaluate him for the Supreme Court. Again -- it will be argued politically but I don't see it as a big problem for the republicans.