Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[MisterBeale]

Obama needs to nominate a black or hispanic female. Let's see the Repubs try stopping that....

The black quotas and Hispanic quotas are already filled. There is an Asian opening though. Try to keep up. A woman might be useful.

Though, to be sure, they should probably be more concerned with finding someone they can all agree on, rather than the color of the person's skin or what is between their legs.

 

[Synthaholic]

Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

Of course he should.

Constitution-loving conservatives can't show where a president can't nominate a Justice in an election year.

 

[MisterBeale]

The Republicans might take it under advisement to approve who he picks, because if they should lose the Senate, and Hillary gets elected, HE, OBAMA, just might be the next Justice.



Hillary Clinton Would Consider Appointing President Obama to Supreme Court
Clinton ‘Loves’ Idea of Appointing Obama to Supreme Court

 

[SmokeALib]

Hell no.

 

[Billy000]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

Christ. It doesn't matter WHO it is, if Obama were to nominate someone, republicans would automatically reject him/her.

 

[Faun]

Next President Should Appoint SC Justice, Not Obama


From IJR:

“Justice Scalia’s fidelity to the Constitution was rivaled only by the love of his family: his wife Maureen his nine children, and his many grandchildren. Through the sheer force of his intellect and his legendary wit, this giant of American jurisprudence almost singlehandedly revived an approach to constitutional interpretation that prioritized the text and original meaning of the Constitution. Elaine and I send our deepest condolences to the entire Scalia family.”

…

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


Use the nuclear option that Democrats used on Obama care to stifle any and all candidates he presents.. I am good with this line of attack on the socialists and their wet dreams of being kings..

I take it then you will support the Democrats in early January should they win the Senate in the election and choose to use the nuclear option to confirm Obama's nominee before the next president is sworn in?

 

[Dr Grump]

Though, to be sure, they should probably be more concerned with finding someone they can all agree on, rather than the color of the person's skin or what is between their legs.

...or theirr....GASP!.....political persuasion.

 

[Mac1958]

He'll nominate one, knowing the Republicans will hold it up or shoot it down, and he'll hope for some political mileage out of that in November. Such is politics.

Republicans blocking his nomination will likely lead to Republicans losing control of the Senate. I know I will be donating to every Democrat that is in a close race this year. Taking back the Senate is just as important as winning the White House.

I don't know that enough of the undecided electorate pays close enough attention for something like this to be an influential factor in their vote.

Could be.
.

 

[nat4900]

Again, the House has nothing to do with the topic, so to include them is ignorant of reality.

Well, my humble apologies for having stated a DO=NOTHING "congress" instead of just a DO-NOTHING "senate."

 

[nat4900]

Hope that's easy enough for you, eh?

Though to be fair, you only need five, so it looks, as usual, to be a squeaker.

So, all that is needed is 5 democratic wins out of 28 contested seats.....and you have "serious doubts"??????

RIGHT WINGERS ARE A BIT DENSE THESE DAYS....

 

[nat4900]

Obama needs to nominate a black or hispanic female. Let's see the Repubs try stopping that....

True........or even an Asian female.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Kettle meet pot.

Someday, even an idiot like you can distinguish between hitting the wrong key (the word should have been whole) and illiteracy......Did you finish the 7th grade?

Yes, and about 15 more after that!

It was just rich you were criticizing someone else and then committed the same offense.

I have been guilty of that myself.

Have a nice day!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Again, the House has nothing to do with the topic, so to include them is ignorant of reality.

Well, my humble apologies for having stated a DO=NOTHING "congress" instead of just a DO-NOTHING "senate."

When are you libs going to realize that a do-nothing House and Senate is exactly what we need.

 

[nat4900]

When are you libs going to realize that a do-nothing House and Senate is exactly what we need.

Really?????

....and then, your ilk, bitches when the president utilizes his (or hers) executive order option to get ANYTHING done?

 

[nat4900]

We should be reminded that justice Kennedy was confirmed (not nominated, but confirmed) in Reagan's last year in office by a senate that had a majority of democrats.

 

[gipper]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

Christ. It doesn't matter WHO it is, if Obama were to nominate someone, republicans would automatically reject him/her.

I don't think so and history shows you are wrong.

Many Rs voted for Obama's two leftist bitches. The Rs have a long history of approving D nominated SC justices. Goes back decades.

McConnell, who is as prolific a liar as Cankles, will likely do Obama's bidding as he has done for some time now.

 

[Wildman]

Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

temporarily.., like Bolton was.., for one year only.

YES..!! i know Bolton was not a S.C. nominee, but the same rule should apply during a recess.

 

[Wry Catcher]

COTUS is clear, POTUS nominates and the Senate advises and consents to the nomination.

President Obama will do his duty and nominate a replacement for Justice Saclia, and the Senate Republicans, even before said nomination, will begin to assassinate the character of the unknown person as liberal, and one who will allow abortion up to the birth, the confiscation of all firearms from our citizens and the suppression of voting by anyone who has not given their DNA to a government agent.

It's clear, Sen. Cruz said so and he never lies. In fact the Republican's will once again vote in lockstop to deny President Obama his choice, even if Jesus Christ himself appeared with The President in the Rose Garden as his nominee,.

 

[nat4900]

Christ. It doesn't matter WHO it is, if Obama were to nominate someone, republicans would automatically reject him/her.

Of course you're probably correct....However, the "spectacle" of a do-nothing bunch of republican senators while running for re-election....will be a sight to see and behold.

 

[nat4900]

Again, good folks, picture the "scenario" of a republican senator vowing to do nothing this entire 2016 ......(including addressing Obama's nominee for the SC).....while 28 of these sweethearts are campaigning to be re-elected......