Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[mudwhistle]

I think Obama deserves several kicks in the balls on national television.

.....and we all know how "well" that little threat about kicking Obama worked out for you guys in the past. LOL

Things are different now. Obama has removed the mask and shown us who he really is. He's a racist. A Muslim sympathizer. His friends like Beyonce' support Blacklivesmatters and the Black Panthers......showed it during the Super Bowl. Cop haters, anti-Semites, gun-grabbing assholes. Obama isn't held in high regard like before. Trump winning states during the primary process pretty much spells that out.

 

[mudwhistle]

That's not how I read it. The primary reason was his stance on Rove v. Wade.

You can "read it" any way you want, but Bork was a catastrophe.

For who?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only reason Clarence Thomas got a floor vote and a confirmation was because Democrats didn't want to look like racists.

And now we'll look like idiots.

Gee, that's going to work out well.


>>>>

 

[mudwhistle]

The only reason Clarence Thomas got a floor vote and a confirmation was because Democrats didn't want to look like racists.

And now we'll look like idiots.

Gee, that's going to work out well.


>>>>

Please explain.......or do you hate black people?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Please explain.......or do you hate black people?

The Dem's will ride this into the dirt during the election cycle where 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection vs. only 10 Democrat Senators and with us having only a 4 vote majority in the Senate.


Why would I hate black people?

I don't even hate Obama because he's black.


>>>>

 

[Arizona Willie]

Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")

I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.

Obama doesn't know moderation.

========
If Republicans were in his position they WOULD nominate an Ultra - Conservative and you know it.

So why shouldn't Dems follow our ideology just as you would like to follow yours?

 

[Arizona Willie]

It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.

Well, no. In reality, the average time it takes to appoint a judge is little more than 2 months. So there is still plenty of time for Obama to get a judge on the bench.

========
Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

Knock yourself out. A fight is what we want.

I think Obama deserves several kicks in the balls on national television.

========
Fortunately, no one gives a **** what you think.

You don't have to agree with me ----- you just have to admit I'm right

 

[mudwhistle]

Please explain.......or do you hate black people?

The Dem's will ride this into the dirt during the election cycle where 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection vs. only 10 Democrat Senators and with us having only a 4 vote majority in the Senate.


Why would I hate black people?

I don't even hate Obama because he's black.


>>>>

If he was a Republican you'd hate em.

 

[nat4900]

If he was a Republican you'd hate em.

You see, YOU operate on hate...and assume that everyone else does. Take some laxatives.

 

[hadit]

Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")

I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.

Obama doesn't know moderation.

========
If Republicans were in his position they WOULD nominate an Ultra - Conservative and you know it.

So why shouldn't Dems follow our ideology just as you would like to follow yours?

What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.

 

[nat4900]

What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.

How did Kennedy get confirmed?
How many democrats voted against Scalia?

Learn some history and do get back to us.

 

[hadit]

What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.

How did Kennedy get confirmed?
How many democrats voted against Scalia?

Learn some history and do get back to us.

Read about what dems did to Bush's minority picks. Next.

 

[nat4900]

Read about what dems did to Bush's minority picks. Next.

Answer my questions...or have another drink.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Please explain.......or do you hate black people?

The Dem's will ride this into the dirt during the election cycle where 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection vs. only 10 Democrat Senators and with us having only a 4 vote majority in the Senate.


Why would I hate black people?

I don't even hate Obama because he's black.


>>>>

If he was a Republican you'd hate em.

I am a Republican and I don't hate'em. I don't agree with his politics, but that doesn't mean I need to hate him because of the color of his skin.

Now some people might be racist and hate him for the color of his skin, but I'm not in that group.


>>>>

 

[Arizona Willie]

Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")

I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.

Obama doesn't know moderation.

========
If Republicans were in his position they WOULD nominate an Ultra - Conservative and you know it.

So why shouldn't Dems follow our ideology just as you would like to follow yours?

What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.

=====

You talk about rigid ideology as though it is a bad thing but I bet you would let someone cut off your left nut before you would vote for a Democrat.

You think refusing to compromise in Congress is a good thing and then you yell about someone else having " rigid ideology ".

 

[Faun]

We're talking about the Supreme Court. Even Bush's nominees averaged about two months.

Plenty of time.

My guess, is that Obama will have 1 or 2 nominees by the end of April...then the fun will begin with the senate judiciary committee....Bear in mind that the GOPers in the judiciary committee are all from red states therefore pretty safe in getting reelected....HOWEVER, their right wing colleagues in the senate will be in a frenzy to get the nominee out of the committee for a floor vote.

I wouldn't waste that much time if I were Obama. I'd have a nominee in the Senate by the end of this week.

 

[Faun]

Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")

I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.

A nominee for a district court or appellate court will not do as much damage as one for SCOTUS , specially one which will disrupt the 5-4 balance.


.

This is the Republicans chance to get a moderate to replace Scalia. If they pass on this opportunity hoping to get another Conservative, they might, if the election goes their way. If it doesn't, a Liberal will take that seat.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Faun]

It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.

Well, no. In reality, the average time it takes to appoint a judge is little more than 2 months. So there is still plenty of time for Obama to get a judge on the bench.

Not with Republican presidents. Dingy Harry had many Bush nominees waiting for years. Many appointments stayed vacant.

We're talking about the Supreme Court. Even Bush's nominees averaged about two months.

Plenty of time.

Bush never nominated extremists either, as Obama has.

Reagan was a totally different story. Robert Bork for example. Bork was suggested before the process began. Democrats said no. Reagan nominated him anyway. They rejected him. Most of the time, presidents just want to fill the position, not have a long drawn out fight.
The Clarence Thomas hearings turned into a sexual-harassment circus. A total disgrace chaired by Sen Joe Biden. That was abnormal. I would love to see Obama's nominees stand up to that kind of harassment by Republicans. But I don't expect them to act so shitty.

However, since Obama doesn't like working with Congress, and regularly goes around them, I don't see why we need to keep with the average time, maybe a rejection or two are in order.. He deserves the same consideration he used to force Obamacare down our throats. None.

Not sure what any of that has to do with the current situation. Again, the average time to fill a seat is little over two months.

Plenty of time left in Obama's term for that. I think it will be a grave error for Republicans to try and stall for that long.

 

[Faun]

The shameful treatment that conservative judges got at the hands of Democrats (Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas) only illustrates the depths that liberals are willing to sink to.

Bork got a floor vote.

So did Thomas.


The Senate leadership is saying they don't want to allow that for a Dem President.



>>>>

Well, tough-shit.

LOL

Let's see if the voting public is as callous as you over the Senate snubbing their nose at their Constitutional obligations.