Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[nat4900]

A senate who says "the people will tell us who they want in the seat based on who they elect as president, be that President a democrat or a republican"....

Look at Article two of the Constitution and you will see that the Founders stated that the PRESIDENT and NOT the people (as a referendum) nominates for a SC vacancy.

 

[hadit]

Yes, this President should do as the Constitution says he should do, and appoint a replacement for Scalia.

The next President will already have 3 justices to replace....4 is way too many for one sitting President, for the court to not be considered politically "stacked"....

I would like to see a Moderate, with no political allegiances as they are suppose to be...not too young so they are not on the court the next 50 years, and a female to get the court closer to gender even, but a good moderate male would be good as well...

Moderate from Obama..............LOL

Yes a Moderate, not right leaning, not left leaning, as a Justice is SUPPOSE TO BE.

We can only hope. Hey, didn't Obama promise us hope n change? Wonder if he means it.

 

[hadit]

Nominate? Yes. He swore to uphold the constitution. I support him nominating a candidate. But for him, or ANY elected official to criticize the senate for deeming it best for the people to be poart of this decision since the timing allows for it, I find a disturbing. No one can deny that it would be best for the appointee reflect the values of the current population and what better way to ensure that by allowing the upcoming election answer what the values of the current population is?

I mostly agree....

However, I believe that Obama's criticism of the senate is NOT based on what their likely decision will be (not confirming the nominee)...rather, his criticism was based on McConnell's assertion that the senate wouldn't even hold hearings on the nominee.

Further, we can also say that Obama was re-elected for FOUR full years and his reelection WAS the will of the people....therefore, for another 11 months, Obama should do what he swore to do.

It was also the will of the people that the Republicans control the Senate. They should exercise their constitutional authority to reject any nominee they find unsuitable.

 

[Boss]

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.

Poll does not say that 53% say Republicans shouldn't reject Obama's pick. The poll indicates it should be Obama's choice... I agree... it's in the Constitution. It's also in the Constitution that his choice is up to advice and consent of the Senate. I don't believe they should consent to any justice who isn't remarkably like Scalia.

So... Maybe Obama will nominate Ted Cruz? We'll have to see!

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Hey, Dumbfuck, I was one of you right Wing Republicans, until I figured out that the GOP only works for the rich.

Seems the only "gullible" one here is you...brain in a jar...

Nice language. And as for your claim to once be a GOPer.....sure you were.

And as for the GOP only working for the rich.......that's the spin I was talking about.

the conservative ideology overall....enables anyone to become rich if they are willing to sacrifice, take some chances and not have a sense of entitlement.

So yes, in a way, they work for the rich...because their goal is to ensure all have a chance....but to ALSO ensure that none feel it should be given to them.

Clean up your act. When you curse, it shows frustration and weakness.

 

[Jarhead]

A senate who says "the people will tell us who they want in the seat based on who they elect as president, be that President a democrat or a republican"....

Look at Article two of the Constitution and you will see that the Founders stated that the PRESIDENT and NOT the people (as a referendum) nominates for a SC vacancy.

you are just way too blinded by your ideology to get it.

So never mind.

 

[Jarhead]

Nominate? Yes. He swore to uphold the constitution. I support him nominating a candidate. But for him, or ANY elected official to criticize the senate for deeming it best for the people to be poart of this decision since the timing allows for it, I find a disturbing. No one can deny that it would be best for the appointee reflect the values of the current population and what better way to ensure that by allowing the upcoming election answer what the values of the current population is?

I mostly agree....

However, I believe that Obama's criticism of the senate is NOT based on what their likely decision will be (not confirming the nominee)...rather, his criticism was based on McConnell's assertion that the senate wouldn't even hold hearings on the nominee.

Further, we can also say that Obama was re-elected for FOUR full years and his reelection WAS the will of the people....therefore, for another 11 months, Obama should do what he swore to do.

he should do what the constitution says. No one....no one at all says otherwise.

As for the will of the people.....after several years in office, the people realized it best to have a republican congress to keep him in check. Not that they necessarily disagree with him as the president...but they knew he would over reach from a liberal standpoint....as he has tried with executive orders that were slammed sown by the court.

And choosing a THIRD justice to the supreme court is NOT what the majority of the people want.....so he is to do what he is expected to do....choose a nominee...but the senate should do what the people want......ensure the nominee is not far left.

 

[nat4900]

It was also the will of the people that the Republicans control the Senate. They should exercise their constitutional authority to reject any nominee they find unsuitable.

Of course they should......The tough part for them is to define who is "unsuitable."

 

[hadit]

It was also the will of the people that the Republicans control the Senate. They should exercise their constitutional authority to reject any nominee they find unsuitable.

Of course they should......The tough part for them is to define who is "unsuitable."

Not really. They can use any criteria they want, since the Constitution doesn't specify any. One would hope, however, that they would look for a solid, in-depth, respectful understanding of the Constitution combined with a judicial temperament and respect from the legal community, nothing more. IOW, any nominee sent up solely because they have the right skin color, sexual equipment, or cultural background should be rejected.

 

[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.

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.

The Senate cannot "do nothing." The Constitution stipulates they advise and consent.

 

[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.

Poll does not say that 53% say Republicans shouldn't reject Obama's pick. The poll indicates it should be Obama's choice... I agree... it's in the Constitution. It's also in the Constitution that his choice is up to advice and consent of the Senate. I don't believe they should consent to any justice who isn't remarkably like Scalia.

So... Maybe Obama will nominate Ted Cruz? We'll have to see!

You are so ******* deranged, it's scary.

Yes, the poll does indeed say 53% feel Republicans should not reject considering Obama's nominees.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? Can't you read???

"If the president does nominate someone, 53% say the Republican-led Senate should not reject or refuse to consider the nomination."​

 

[Boss]

Yes, the poll does indeed say 53% feel Republicans should not reject considering Obama's nominees.

LMAO... I am with the majority. I don't think they should (or could) reject considering his nominee. But I think they will ultimately REJECT his nominee after rather lengthy consideration.

 

[eagle1462010]

Yes, this President should do as the Constitution says he should do, and appoint a replacement for Scalia.

The next President will already have 3 justices to replace....4 is way too many for one sitting President, for the court to not be considered politically "stacked"....

I would like to see a Moderate, with no political allegiances as they are suppose to be...not too young so they are not on the court the next 50 years, and a female to get the court closer to gender even, but a good moderate male would be good as well...

Moderate from Obama..............LOL

I hope Obama nominates someone as liberal as Scalia was conservative. Kind of like the GOP did when they replaced Thurgood Marshall with Uncle Thomas.

I'm sure you do..............

 

[Faun]

Yes, the poll does indeed say 53% feel Republicans should not reject considering Obama's nominees.

LMAO... I am with the majority. I don't think they should (or could) reject considering his nominee. But I think they will ultimately REJECT his nominee after rather lengthy consideration.

Again... No one gives a flying **** what you think Republicans should do. This isn't about you... No one gives a shit about you. This is about what the Republicans in the Senate want to do. They stated they will not consider any nominee Obama puts up. I don't care what you think, the majority of those polled are against what the Republicans are proposing.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Boss]

Again... No one gives a flying **** what you think Republicans should do. This isn't about you... No one gives a shit about you. This is about what the Republicans in the Senate want to do. They stated they will not consider any nominee Obama puts up. I don't care what you think, the majority of those polled are against what the Republicans are proposing.

Well again. only the 20 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee really matter here. Various members of the Senate can say any damn thing they please... it's not up to them.

No... what's happening is, you're twisting the words around and taking a poll out of context to make some inane point that also doesn't matter. Obama will nominate... doesn't matter how many threads there are asking whether he should... The SJC will consider.... doesn't matter how many Senators or polls say what... and Republicans will ultimately reject Obama's nominee.

This also isn't about YOU or your liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
The next president will pick the justice to replace Scalia.

 

[nat4900]

Those 11 republican senators in the judiciary committee members are pretty lucky since they are from deep red states...except, of course, Grassley

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Until people wake up and stop taking the media seriously... as seems to be happening this election season.

 

[Kondor3]

Those 11 republican senators in the judiciary committee members are pretty lucky since they are from deep red states...except, of course, Grassley

Fun, ain't it?

 

[nat4900]

Fun, ain't it?

I actually LOVE IT........Upped a LOT the chances of democrats regaining the senate....