"Some say a President, winning election, can appoint anyone the want- I disagree"-Obama 2006

[Vigilante]

obamaspeeches.com ^ | January 26, 2006 | Obama
Obama Senate Supreme Court Nominees As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls.

 

[Jackson]

That's not realistic. Obama will nominate a died in the wool liberal, and the Republicans will stretch out the confirmation process until they are sure the nominee will not be confirmed. Then they'll start the whole process again and again until Jan.20, 2017.

Republicans will do everything in their power to make sure they don't lose the House or Senate.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would like to see Trump announce that if he gets the nomination, he will nominate Ted Cruz for the Justice position.

 

[FA_Q2]

The idea that "the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable" is nothing more than partisan hacks whining that the republicans in the senate are not going to play nice with Obama's appointees. You don't have the senate confirming the appointee just to see if they are smart - you have them confirm those appointees because it would be clearly destructive to the core concept of separation of powers if the President selected judges without oversight.

 

[emilynghiem]

The idea that "the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable" is nothing more than partisan hacks whining that the republicans in the senate are not going to play nice with Obama's appointees. You don't have the senate confirming the appointee just to see if they are smart - you have them confirm those appointees because it would be clearly destructive to the core concept of separation of powers if the President selected judges without oversight.

Dear Vigilante and FA_Q2

According to the Code of Ethics for Govt Service
NOBODY in federal govt should be putting "LOYALTY TO PERSONS OR PARTY"
Above the Constitution.

Last I checked, Obama, Pelosi, Justice Roberts, and anyone else who has taken sides on
issues of health care mandates and/or marriage beliefs nationalized through federal govt
was putting their own political beliefs and opinions before the Constitution which says govt should be NEUTRAL
on issues of BELIEFS and creeds instead of discriminating.

Politicians on both left and right are too busy pushing their own beliefs at the expense and exclusion of opponents:
* prochoice or prolife beliefs, right to health care and free choice of abortion,
or right to life and free market choice of health care without govt mandates
* gun rights or gun control beliefs
* immigration rights or immigration control
* gay rights and marriage equality beliefs or traditional marriage beliefs that gays are not equal
* limited federal govt by maximizing state and local control vs. social programs nationalized through federal govt

NEITHER side is putting the Constitution first, and checking all these other agendas as POLITICAL BELIEFS
that shouldn't be imposed through govt at the expense of the EQUAL BELIEFS AND CREEDS of other citizens.

I don't think ANY of these people or parties deserves to have a candidate nominated
to the Justice position who is going to continue this trend.

Since the other 8 positions are divided evenly between liberals and conservatives,
why not appoint a regular person committed to remaining NEUTRAL
ON ISSUES OF POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
and to make decisions by CONSENSUS of all sides, in cases where Faith-based BELIEFS are involved such as in the above listed topics, or else ruling that the laws need to be rewritten in order to reach such a consensus
by REMOVING any detected BIAS that leans toward or against one side's BELIEFS over the other side's.

Instead of just throwing in a tie breaking vote (that is basically "gambling" on one side's beliefs/creeds
vs. the other to see which one gets to dominate and exclude or discriminate against the other side's beliefs),
why not set up a process to MODERATE a public discussion of EVERY major issue or ruling that is going through the courts, and provide CONFLICT resolution, mediation and facilitators trained to form a consensus decision among opposing sides, and then use that "input" from the public (when all issues are settled and an agreement is reached as to where people, parties and the public "agree or disagree") to form a decision IN CONJUNCTION with the Justices.

So any poorly written laws that are biased toward or against one side or another
CAN BE SCREENED OUT AND CORRECTED IN ADVANCE
instead of splitting Congress and Courts nearly 50/50 because of the bias in the laws
that are causing half the Court or Congress to reject it.

If half the nation, Congress or Courts are rejecting something,
and especially if the support and the opposition are evenly split by Party,
that should tell us the given law is BIASED politically and should be reworked instead of fighting
to ram it through against the beliefs of the opposing side.

Why can't we recognize when bills or rulings are that politically divided,
isn't it obvious that there are partisan beliefs and biases being pushed?

Are we going to keep up this culture of bullying for dominance?
When can we consider actually ADDRESSING the root conflict and SOLVING it in advance?

if we know that bills or rulings are that divided, evenly by party,
shouldn't that tell us we need to back and resolve the conflict causing the split?