Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[bendog]

Well, no one should confuse McConnell with Robert Byrd or even Orin Hatch, but he's declared war when it may have been better to have accepted a Justice supporting gay rights (even if they're hard to find in the constitution) because that battle is over, and instead looked to Heller and Citizens United as settled. Although I can think of three gop senators off the top of my head who probably aren't happy with CI.

 

[Faun]

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.

Not exactly.

This is what Senator McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”


And, this is what then Senator Biden said in 1992:

Senate Republican leaders Monday seized on comments made by Vice President Joe Biden 24 years ago, when the then-senator from Delaware said the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.

"Once the political season is underway and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," Biden said in June 1992 on the Senate floor, according to a C-SPAN recording of his remarks.

10 to 1 you didn't hold that against Biden and voted for the Obama/Biden ticket.

Yrs, exactly. McConnell (and Criuz) have stated they will do what they can to prevent Obama from appointing a replacement.

Biden never even suggested such nonsense of Bush. Biden said wait until the election, just a few months out and with no vacancy on the court, is over.

And frankly, like many, I never knew Biden even said that until yesterday.

The Republicans are asking the same thing. Wait until the election, just 10 months away. Schumer said the same thing with the election 17 months away. Paybacks are hell aren't they.

What Biden said then is not what Republicans are saying now. The message now is don't even nominate anyone ... ever again. If you do, we will not confirm them ... the next president will appoint Scalia's replacement, not Obama. Compared to the message to Bush, which was that he would get to appoint any replacements should a seat open; but that he would have to wait a few months until the election was over.

Once again, this is what McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

And how is that different from what I said?? McConnell will not let Obama fill that vacancy.

That's never happened before in U.S. history.

 

[Faun]

Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.

--LOL

there is no difference

and furthermore it is constitutional

Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....

Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.

Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.

The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.

Just goes to demonstrate how desperate the right is to try and defend the unbelievable suggestions by GOP leadership to shut the conformation process down for a year because they don't like Obama.

Obama can't appoint anyone. He can nominate anyone he wants to and the Senate can confirm or not confirm who he nominates.

Show me where the Constitution allows for the Senate to pick and choose which president gets to fill vacated seats on the Supreme Court....

 

[Faun]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

Baloney. Invoke the "Biden Rule", don't hold hearings and wait till after the elections. **** the Democrats.. they'd most certainly do it.

Yet they didn't in 1988 when they confirmed Kennedy.

 

[HenryBHough]

Show me where the Constitution allows for the Senate to pick and choose which president gets to fill vacated seats on the Supreme Court....

You're right. Not a word in there. Just as there no schedule as to when any nominee must have a hearing and especially none that mandates blind acceptance.

The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly. It could take many, many months to get on the dance card.

Do y'think Joe Biden is wishing he hadn't been such an excellent teacher?

 

[Faun]

The Republicans are asking the same thing. Wait until the election, just 10 months away. Schumer said the same thing with the election 17 months away. Paybacks are hell aren't they.

No they are not saying wait until after the elections. They are saying "No" based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee:

"This comes after McConnell issued his most definitive statement on Tuesday: There will be no Supreme Court nominee confirmed in President Barack Obama's final year in office.

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court."

​

Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee - CNNPolitics.com


>>>>

The GOP will lose the White House and the Senate if they play this moronic strategy of theirs.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Obama should nominate Van Jones

 

[Faun]

Show me where the Constitution allows for the Senate to pick and choose which president gets to fill vacated seats on the Supreme Court....

You're right. Not a word in there. Just as there no schedule as to when any nominee must have a hearing and especially none that mandates blind acceptance.

The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly. It could take many, many months to get on the dance card.

Do y'think Joe Biden is wishing he hadn't been such an excellent teacher?

Denying a "schedule" altogether goes against the Constitution which grants the president the power of filling vacancies "with" the Senate. If the Senate refuses to do their job now, just imagine who the voters will elect in November to do the Senate's job.

 

[Faun]

I think this is going to burn the GOP, but bad.

34 Senators up for election this year. 24 Republican and 10 Democrats and we (Republican) only have a 4 seat majority in the Senate.

Your side will beat the crap out of those Senators and the Presidential candidate about this for the next 9 months.

I'm sure McConnell will enjoy the nominee that President Clinton (or Sanders) submits to a Senate with a Dem majority.




Stupid shits.


>>>>

Two swing states have already released polls showing a majority are against what Republicans are planning on doing.

 

[the_human_being]

I do think President Trump will appoint good middle of the road honorable people with zero political bias to the bench when he takes office. Great men such as Judge Roy Moore and David Dukes.

 

[paperview]

Show me where the Constitution allows for the Senate to pick and choose which president gets to fill vacated seats on the Supreme Court....

You're right. Not a word in there. Just as there no schedule as to when any nominee must have a hearing and especially none that mandates blind acceptance.

The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly. It could take many, many months to get on the dance card.

Do y'think Joe Biden is wishing he hadn't been such an excellent teacher?

Denying a "schedule" altogether goes against the Constitution which grants the president the power of filling vacancies "with" the Senate. If the Senate refuses to do their job now, just imagine who the voters will elect in November to do the Senate's job.

They are basically saying they can't and won't do their job for a year, and it's the *next* Senate that has to do their job.

 

[Faun]

I do think President Trump will appoint good middle of the road honorable people with zero political bias to the bench when he takes office. Great men such as Judge Roy Moore and David Dukes.

Seems he won't get to since the Democrat Senate won't hold hearings for 4 years, thanks to this new Senate rule, until a Democrat president is sworn in.

 

[Faun]

Show me where the Constitution allows for the Senate to pick and choose which president gets to fill vacated seats on the Supreme Court....

You're right. Not a word in there. Just as there no schedule as to when any nominee must have a hearing and especially none that mandates blind acceptance.

The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly. It could take many, many months to get on the dance card.

Do y'think Joe Biden is wishing he hadn't been such an excellent teacher?

Denying a "schedule" altogether goes against the Constitution which grants the president the power of filling vacancies "with" the Senate. If the Senate refuses to do their job now, just imagine who the voters will elect in November to do the Senate's job.

They are basically saying they can't and won't do their job for a year, and it's the *next* Senate that has to do their job.

Yup. If the Republicans don't want to do their job I have no doubt in November, Democrats will.

 

[jon_berzerk]

As a Senator 24 years ago, Vice President Joe Biden literally made every argument Republicans are now making against President Obama making a Supreme Court appointment to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

Must-Watch1992 Video Shows Biden Arguing Against Election Year Supreme Court Appointments | Common Sense Central | News/Talk 1130 WISN

Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.

--LOL

there is no difference

and furthermore it is constitutional

Sure there is Jon. I can I'd like to kick you in the balls, and then I could kick you in the balls.

nonsense that is your best argument to try and force the senate to appoint an nominee

--LOL

I'm not trying to force anything. The facts are the dems never carried through with what the gop is going to do. The gop is going to change what has been done in the past. But the reality is the gop was never going to give Obama a third Justice. I suppose had Justice Ginsberg passed they really should have, because we're now left with a 5-4 Court.

Since 1980, the gop has had 5 presidential terms, and the dems 4. In all likihood, the next two presidential terms will see 3, possibly 4, vacancies. Scalia, Kennedy Ginsberg and Breyer. We're going to see a Court that is not evenly divided. One side or the other will win, and that will determine how the Constitution is construed for 20 or more years.

All I'm saying is just be honest about what the gop is doing. If the dems were in the same position, with a maj senate and gop potus, they might do the same. But McConnell is adamant that a gop Senate was not going to give Obama a 5 seat majority, and possibly not even maintain the 4 seats the dems now have.

they are honest

they are not going to give consent to a nominee made by this president

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yeah it's politics. The difference, however, is the dems didn't do it. If the gop choses to cross this Rubicon, it's on them. But, it's not some new thing. Since Obama's re-election, it's been left up to whomever wins in 16 to decide the makeup, and one party or the other will be in control of the Court for twenty years. No more 5-4 stuff.

--LOL

there is no difference

and furthermore it is constitutional

Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....

Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.

Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.

The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.

Just goes to demonstrate how desperate the right is to try and defend the unbelievable suggestions by GOP leadership to shut the conformation process down for a year because they don't like Obama.

Well in a sense they were the same thing. The gop had 3 potus terms in a row, which was pretty unheard of, and which probably wouldn't have happened except for Gary Hart and Duckass melting down. (I voted for HW in 80, 88 and 92 btw) HW did after all get his TWO Justices: Souter and Thomas. Souter of course didn't turn out to be a staunch conservative, and he was succeeded by Sontomayor.

BUT the dems didn't carry through. In criminal law there's a concept that you can think real hard about committing a crime, and even say dumb shite, but there's no crime until you take one concrete action to accomplish the crime, and then it's "an attempt."

But, since 1968 gop potuses have had 12 Justices confirmed, and the dems ..... 4. If you needed any kind of graphic to show that the Court has moved right since the Liberal hayday, that should do it. The next time some fool says "the dems have loading up the bench with a bunch of liberals," I might post this again.

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

whine all you want

 

[TooTall]

--LOL

there is no difference

and furthermore it is constitutional

Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....

Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.

Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.

The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.

Just goes to demonstrate how desperate the right is to try and defend the unbelievable suggestions by GOP leadership to shut the conformation process down for a year because they don't like Obama.

Obama can't appoint anyone. He can nominate anyone he wants to and the Senate can confirm or not confirm who he nominates.

Show me where the Constitution allows for the Senate to pick and choose which president gets to fill vacated seats on the Supreme Court....

Confirming or not confirming a nominee is the same as picking or choosing.

 

[TooTall]

The Republicans are asking the same thing. Wait until the election, just 10 months away. Schumer said the same thing with the election 17 months away. Paybacks are hell aren't they.

No they are not saying wait until after the elections. They are saying "No" based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee:

"This comes after McConnell issued his most definitive statement on Tuesday: There will be no Supreme Court nominee confirmed in President Barack Obama's final year in office.

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court."

​

Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee - CNNPolitics.com


>>>>

The GOP will lose the White House and the Senate if they play this moronic strategy of theirs.

In your dreams.

 

[hadit]

Not exactly.

This is what Senator McConnell said:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

The American people already had a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice when they elected Obama twice.

They also gave control of the Senate to the Republicans. That voice has to be heard as well.

 

[hadit]

I don't remember hearing a lot of democrats complaining about Congress not doing their constitutional duty when Harry Reid refused to allow a budget for several years.

 

[Faun]

Ok, since you're too stupid to recognize the difference, I'll explain it to ya....

Biden never told Bush he couldn't pick a replacement justice; that the next president will get that honor. Even worse for your mental condition, there wasn't a vacancy anyway.

Jon's quite adept and not facing reality.

The right is actually retarded enough to think telling Bush he would have to wait a few months until after the election to name a replacement SC justice should a seat open up (which none did) ... is the same as ... telling Obama, with almost a year left in his presidency, that he will not get to appoint a justice to fill an actual vacancy.

Just goes to demonstrate how desperate the right is to try and defend the unbelievable suggestions by GOP leadership to shut the conformation process down for a year because they don't like Obama.

Obama can't appoint anyone. He can nominate anyone he wants to and the Senate can confirm or not confirm who he nominates.

Show me where the Constitution allows for the Senate to pick and choose which president gets to fill vacated seats on the Supreme Court....

Confirming or not confirming a nominee is the same as picking or choosing.

Who said anything about picking and choosing nominees?