Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[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.

In your dreams.

Current polling isn't your friend on this. One poll is fairly even, but every other one shows the public does not favor this maneuver by the Senate.

 

[TooTall]

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?

Your post:

"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]

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?

Your post:

"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 should pay closer attention. I said they can't pick and choose the "president." I didn't say they can't pick and choose the "nominee."

So no, not the same as, confirming or not confirming the nominee.

 

[TooTall]

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?

Your post:

"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 should pay closer attention. I said they can't pick and choose the "president." I didn't say they can't pick and choose the "nominee."

So no, not the same as, confirming or not confirming the nominee.

A distinction without a difference. I haven't heard any Congressman pick a nominee, have you?

 

[Londoner]

The American people elected him twice by wide margins. The American People DID decide.

And that decision comes with a Constitutional right and obligation to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

If Obama is obstructed, the Supreme Court will be hampered from settling important cases for over a year. Such a vacancy is not only unprecedented but it proves that the Republican Party does not give a shit about the Constitution.

But we already knew that if given the choice between defending the Constitution or defending the political power of the Rightwing, the Constitution doesn't stand a chance.

 

[TooTall]

The American people elected him twice by wide margins. The American People DID decide.

And that decision comes with a Constitutional right and obligation to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

If Obama is obstructed, the Supreme Court will be hampered from settling important cases for over a year. Such a vacancy is not only unprecedented but it proves that the Republican Party does not give a shit about the Constitution.

But we already knew that if given the choice between defending the Constitution or defending the political power of the Rightwing, the Constitution doesn't stand a chance.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to accept or reject any nominee the President makes.

 

[Grizz]

The American people elected him twice by wide margins. The American People DID decide.

And that decision comes with a Constitutional right and obligation to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

If Obama is obstructed, the Supreme Court will be hampered from settling important cases for over a year. Such a vacancy is not only unprecedented but it proves that the Republican Party does not give a shit about the Constitution.

But we already knew that if given the choice between defending the Constitution or defending the political power of the Rightwing, the Constitution doesn't stand a chance.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to accept or reject any nominee the President makes.

Or to do nothing at all.

 

[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....

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

Who said anything about picking and choosing nominees?

Your post:

"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 should pay closer attention. I said they can't pick and choose the "president." I didn't say they can't pick and choose the "nominee."

So no, not the same as, confirming or not confirming the nominee.

A distinction without a difference. I haven't heard any Congressman pick a nominee, have you?

That you're unable to discern the clear distinction between rejecting a nominee based on the nominee's positions from rejecting all nominees without knowing who they are because you disagree with the president's positions astutely reveals why you don't understand what's at issue here.

 

[Faun]

The American people elected him twice by wide margins. The American People DID decide.

And that decision comes with a Constitutional right and obligation to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

If Obama is obstructed, the Supreme Court will be hampered from settling important cases for over a year. Such a vacancy is not only unprecedented but it proves that the Republican Party does not give a shit about the Constitution.

But we already knew that if given the choice between defending the Constitution or defending the political power of the Rightwing, the Constitution doesn't stand a chance.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to accept or reject any nominee the President makes.

It doesn't give them the power to shut the entire appointment process down.

 

[Pasco08]

It is his Job to do so, So yes throw the ball into Congresses court and let them make fools of themselves. Isn't he vetting a Republican?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Obama Is Outsmarting Republicans And Winning The Supreme Court Nominee Fight
President Obama is winning the Supreme Court fight as he is outsmarting Republicans at every turn and forcing them to choose between his confirming nominee or losing their own jobs.…

 

[TooTall]

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

Who said anything about picking and choosing nominees?

Your post:

"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 should pay closer attention. I said they can't pick and choose the "president." I didn't say they can't pick and choose the "nominee."

So no, not the same as, confirming or not confirming the nominee.

A distinction without a difference. I haven't heard any Congressman pick a nominee, have you?

That you're unable to discern the clear distinction between rejecting a nominee based on the nominee's positions from rejecting all nominees without knowing who they are because you disagree with the president's positions astutely reveals why you don't understand what's at issue here.

I understand that based on Obama's previous nominees for the Supreme Court the Republican majority has decided that he would not nominate a person that they could vote to confirm.

 

[TooTall]

It is his Job to do so, So yes throw the ball into Congresses court and let them make fools of themselves. Isn't he vetting a Republican?

The one Republican Obama vetted turned down the offer to serve if nominated.

 

[Faun]

Who said anything about picking and choosing nominees?

Your post:

"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 should pay closer attention. I said they can't pick and choose the "president." I didn't say they can't pick and choose the "nominee."

So no, not the same as, confirming or not confirming the nominee.

A distinction without a difference. I haven't heard any Congressman pick a nominee, have you?

That you're unable to discern the clear distinction between rejecting a nominee based on the nominee's positions from rejecting all nominees without knowing who they are because you disagree with the president's positions astutely reveals why you don't understand what's at issue here.

I understand that based on Obama's previous nominees for the Supreme Court the Republican majority has decided that he would not nominate a person that they could vote to confirm.

There's no such thing as shutting down the confirmation process "based on previous nominees." They have no idea who he's going to put up based on who he had put up under a Democrat-led Senate. Besides, they always retain the power to vote down a nominee if they don't like who he put up.

But I don't expect someone to understand when they can't even discern between rejecting the nominees versus rejecting the president.