Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Faun]

It was said at the beginning of the debate on CBS by Kasich and Rubio just hours after Scalia's death was announced.

The CBS News Republican debate transcript, annotated

I don't want to hear any more whining from Obama or his sheep.

"During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito."

Imbecile, those seats were filled by Bush.

Do you even know what the issue is? It appears not.

What issue has your tit in a wringer?

Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?

I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.

The issue is ... Republican leadership has stated they will deny Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice, no matter who he puts up. That grossly violates the Constitution which states it's their job to work with the president to fill such vacancies. That doesn't mean they have to confirm whomever he puts up, but it does mean at the very least, they have to consider whomever he nominates. If they had said nothing at all but gave every nominee a hearing and an up/down vote and rejected every single one because they don't want him appointing a justice, there would be no issue. Regrettably, they chose to go down the unprecedented road of unconstitutionally telling a president they will not be allowed to fulfill their own Constitutional obligations of appointing a replacement.

 

[nat4900]

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.

Yes, but the bad press that the senate republicans are currently getting, may be worth the wait as GOP senators get ready for their campaign to get reelected..

 

[mudwhistle]

If he was a Republican you'd hate em.

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

What you're doing is called projecting.

 

[nat4900]

What you're doing is called projecting.

Of course you don't have to believe me.....but I have voted republican many, many times in my long life; that is, when republicans were not insane ideologues.

 

[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.

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.


>>>>

You must be another one of those fake-Republicans like Jake Snarkey. He spouts lib talking-points yet claims to be a Republican voter.

No real Republican feels that Clarence Thomas is a bad Supreme Court Justice.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Sounds like a threat.
Actually, it would be even worse if the Republicans just rolled over again and let him have yet another far left activist judge.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Scalia has been on the court since 1986, before the Democrats went communist. Back then there was common ground. Now, there is none.

 

[nat4900]

You must be another one of those fake-Republicans like Jake Snarkey. He spouts lib talking-points yet claims to be a Republican voter.

No real Republican feels that Clarence Thomas is a bad Supreme Court Justice.

Oh no, I am NOT now a republican....the insane party left me a long time ago......and, Thomas is indeed not a "bad judge" he is basically NOTHING, just a puppet to the now gone Scalia...Check out how many questions Thomas ever asked during a hearing, check out how many opinions he has written, and check out if Thomas EVER voted differently from Scalia.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You must be another one of those fake-Republicans like Jake Snarkey. He spouts lib talking-points yet claims to be a Republican voter.

No real Republican feels that Clarence Thomas is a bad Supreme Court Justice.

Feel free to quote where I've said Thomas is a bad Supreme Court Justice...

You can search this board, the Hannity Board, and Debate Politics - I'm active on all three.

You are free to waste your time if you want.

BTW - I've been a registered Republican since 1978.

I voted for Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, Bush II, McCain, and Romney. The only Democrat I've ever voted for in a federal election was Senator Mark Warner from Virginia.


>>>>

 

[Faun]

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.

Sounds like a threat.
Actually, it would be even worse if the Republicans just rolled over again and let him have yet another far left activist judge.

Just a possibility of what may come if Republicans piss off enough of the electorate by playing footloose with the Constitution. Whereas they could work with Obama now and a seat a moderate.

 

[mudwhistle]

You must be another one of those fake-Republicans like Jake Snarkey. He spouts lib talking-points yet claims to be a Republican voter.

No real Republican feels that Clarence Thomas is a bad Supreme Court Justice.

Oh no, I am NOT now a republican....the insane party left me a long time ago......and, Thomas is indeed not a "bad judge" he is basically NOTHING, just a puppet to the now gone Scalia...Check out how many questions Thomas ever asked during a hearing, check out how many opinions he has written, and check out if Thomas EVER voted differently from Scalia.

Vote??? I didn't know it was supposed to be a popularity contest.

Isn't a justice supposed to correctly interpret laws?
Aren't they supposed to follow the law, not write laws from the bench?
Isn't Congress supposed to do that? Write laws?

 

[Grizz]

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.

Sounds like a threat.
Actually, it would be even worse if the Republicans just rolled over again and let him have yet another far left activist judge.

Just a possibility of what may come if Republicans piss off enough of the electorate by playing footloose with the Constitution. Whereas they could work with Obama now and a seat a moderate.

Like Lynch or Holder?

 

[Grizz]

You must be another one of those fake-Republicans like Jake Snarkey. He spouts lib talking-points yet claims to be a Republican voter.

No real Republican feels that Clarence Thomas is a bad Supreme Court Justice.

Oh no, I am NOT now a republican....the insane party left me a long time ago......and, Thomas is indeed not a "bad judge" he is basically NOTHING, just a puppet to the now gone Scalia...Check out how many questions Thomas ever asked during a hearing, check out how many opinions he has written, and check out if Thomas EVER voted differently from Scalia.

How do I know you aren't a bright individual?

Justice's don't "vote".

They make their rulings in private and write their opinions....they don't debate.

 

[Faun]

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.

Sounds like a threat.
Actually, it would be even worse if the Republicans just rolled over again and let him have yet another far left activist judge.

Just a possibility of what may come if Republicans piss off enough of the electorate by playing footloose with the Constitution. Whereas they could work with Obama now and a seat a moderate.

Like Lynch or Holder?

No, like a moderate.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Sounds like a threat.
Actually, it would be even worse if the Republicans just rolled over again and let him have yet another far left activist judge.

Just a possibility of what may come if Republicans piss off enough of the electorate by playing footloose with the Constitution. Whereas they could work with Obama now and a seat a moderate.

Like Lynch or Holder?

No, like a moderate.

A moderate judge is a judge without principles or core values.

How about a constructionist judge who believes in following the letter of the law.

 

[Faun]

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.

Sounds like a threat.
Actually, it would be even worse if the Republicans just rolled over again and let him have yet another far left activist judge.

Just a possibility of what may come if Republicans piss off enough of the electorate by playing footloose with the Constitution. Whereas they could work with Obama now and a seat a moderate.

Like Lynch or Holder?

No, like a moderate.

A moderate judge is a judge without principles or core values.

How about a constructionist judge who believes in following the letter of the law.

I'm hoping for a qualified judge both sides can agree to.

 

[mudwhistle]

Sounds like a threat.
Actually, it would be even worse if the Republicans just rolled over again and let him have yet another far left activist judge.

Just a possibility of what may come if Republicans piss off enough of the electorate by playing footloose with the Constitution. Whereas they could work with Obama now and a seat a moderate.

Like Lynch or Holder?

No, like a moderate.

A moderate judge is a judge without principles or core values.

How about a constructionist judge who believes in following the letter of the law.

I'm hoping for a qualified judge both sides can agree to.

Impossible.

Democrats decided that wasn't gonna work for them......so they went full-retard and decided not to compromise. Their ideology is this........the only compromise they allow is when conservatives give in. They keep pounding and pounding till people just get tired of the Bull Shit and give in to their demands.

 

[Faun]

Just a possibility of what may come if Republicans piss off enough of the electorate by playing footloose with the Constitution. Whereas they could work with Obama now and a seat a moderate.

Like Lynch or Holder?

No, like a moderate.

A moderate judge is a judge without principles or core values.

How about a constructionist judge who believes in following the letter of the law.

I'm hoping for a qualified judge both sides can agree to.

Impossible.

Democrats decided that wasn't gonna work for them......so they went full-retard and decided not to compromise. Their ideology is this........the only compromise they allow is when conservatives give in. They keep pounding and pounding till people just get tired of the Bull Shit and give in to their demands.

Hopefully, you'll excuse me for ignoring your vapid opinion.

 

[mudwhistle]

Like Lynch or Holder?

No, like a moderate.

A moderate judge is a judge without principles or core values.

How about a constructionist judge who believes in following the letter of the law.

I'm hoping for a qualified judge both sides can agree to.

Impossible.

Democrats decided that wasn't gonna work for them......so they went full-retard and decided not to compromise. Their ideology is this........the only compromise they allow is when conservatives give in. They keep pounding and pounding till people just get tired of the Bull Shit and give in to their demands.

Hopefully, you'll excuse me for ignoring your vapid opinion.

I'm a realist.

 

[nat4900]

How do I know you aren't a bright individual?

Justice's don't "vote".

They make their rulings in private and write their opinions....they don't debate.

You and some other nitwit have really no idea of what I meant and chose to concentrate on the word "vote" since you could not defend Thomas' performance...

BTW, justices do VOTE to hear a case, and have often VOTED in case of a tie when one of the justices recuses him/herself....

If you had an ounce of dignity, you'd apologize.