The GOP stand on scalia replacement should be - "Let the public decide."

[ShootSpeeders]

Popular election of judges would require an amendment and only the states can do that, Would take over a year and even if it didn't pass, obozo would be gone by then.

Remind the public that judges are now legislators and should be answerable to the public same as congressmen. Ask democrats why are they so opposed to democracy.

 

[Auld Phart]

Popular election of judges would require an amendment and only the states can do that, Would take over a year and even if it didn't pass, obozo would be gone by then.

Remind the public that judges are now legislators and should be answerable to the public same as congressmen. Ask democrats why are they so opposed to democracy.

9 out of 10 Justices would come from the East Coast areas if we did that.

Voters would have less interest in voti9ng for a Justice than they do voting for a president

 

[Confounding]

The public decided when they elected Obama in 2012.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The public decided when they elected Obama in 2012.

Moreover, they decided when the US Constitution was ratified.

Once again, proves the right only wants to trash the Constitution.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Moreover, they decided when the US Constitution was ratified.

Once again, proves the right only wants to trash the Constitution.

HAHAHA. What a stupid thing to say. The constitution itself lays out the rules for the amending process. Was it "trashing the constitution" when the 13th amendment was passed freeing the slaves.? Or the 19th giving women the vote? THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The public decided when they elected Obama in 2012.

Hey einstein. Obama is a president not a supreme court justice.

 

[bullwinkle]

The public decided when they elected Obama in 2012.

Hey einstein. Obama is a president not a supreme court justice.

Speedshooters, I think you missed the point. The people decided when they elected Obama twice to place that decision into his hands, is what was meant. The people decided twice to let him make a choice and present it to Congress should the necessity arise, and the tenor and atmosphere of that body in the selection process will be duly noted.

 

[Confounding]

Hey einstein.

Oh look, irony!

 

[Siete]

this or any other president should decide ... F Congress. What the heck have they done for the last decade that gives them any weight on the issue?

oh yeah, NOTHING.

 

[TooTall]

The public decided when they elected Obama in 2012.

Hey einstein. Obama is a president not a supreme court justice.

Speedshooters, I think you missed the point. The people decided when they elected Obama twice to place that decision into his hands, is what was meant. The people decided twice to let him make a choice and present it to Congress should the necessity arise, and the tenor and atmosphere of that body in the selection process will be duly noted.

That is correct. My only hope (to use Obama's word) is that he nominates a flaming liberal and the Republican controlled committee gives him hearing similar to the one that the Democrats gave Judge Bork a few years back. They can then vote him out of committee after dragging it out long enough to completely destroy his reputation, and after a filibuster, vote no on his confirmation.

 

[Wildman]

Obama is a president not a supreme court justice.

nor a dicktater.................., yet!!

 

[bullwinkle]

The public decided when they elected Obama in 2012.

Hey einstein. Obama is a president not a supreme court justice.

Speedshooters, I think you missed the point. The people decided when they elected Obama twice to place that decision into his hands, is what was meant. The people decided twice to let him make a choice and present it to Congress should the necessity arise, and the tenor and atmosphere of that body in the selection process will be duly noted.

That is correct. My only hope (to use Obama's word) is that he nominates a flaming liberal and the Republican controlled committee gives him hearing similar to the one that the Democrats gave Judge Bork a few years back. They can then vote him out of committee after dragging it out long enough to completely destroy his reputation, and after a filibuster, vote no on his confirmation.

Hope on, but don't hold your breath.

 

[OKTexas]

Popular election of judges would require an amendment and only the states can do that, Would take over a year and even if it didn't pass, obozo would be gone by then.

Remind the public that judges are now legislators and should be answerable to the public same as congressmen. Ask democrats why are they so opposed to democracy.

I'm not a dem and I oppose the popular election of judges. Do you really want the two coasts picking all supreme court judges? There needs to be an amendment all right, but to tell the court if legislation is constitutionally defective, it has to be sent back to the legislature to fix. The court has no constitutional power to tweak legislation, that needs to be made clear.

 

[OKTexas]

The public decided when they elected Obama in 2012.

And they amended that decision in 2014 by electing a republican Senate.

 

[Confounding]

And they amended that decision in 2014 by electing a republican Senate.

Gerrymandering elects congress, not the public.

 

[OKTexas]

And they amended that decision in 2014 by electing a republican Senate.

Gerrymandering elects congress, not the public.

Your ignorance is showing, Senators are elected by the whole State, not by congressional districts.

 

[TooTall]

And they amended that decision in 2014 by electing a republican Senate.

Gerrymandering elects congress, not the public.

How do you gerrymander a statewide election for Senators? You don't even know what the word means.

 

[TooTall]

And they amended that decision in 2014 by electing a republican Senate.

Gerrymandering elects congress, not the public.

Your ignorance is showing, Senators are elected by the whole State, not by congressional districts.

Ya' beat me to it!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I'm not a dem and I oppose the popular election of judges. Do you really want the two coasts picking all supreme court judges? There needs to be an amendment all right, but to tell the court if legislation is constitutionally defective, it has to be sent back to the legislature to fix. The court has no constitutional power to tweak legislation, that needs to be made clear.

I agree. If a law is unclear, then it should go back to congress and they rewrite it to remove the ambiguity. And if a section of the constitution is unclear, it should be handled by the amending process.

The courts have granted themselves the power to interpret but that means the power to legislate and the constitution says "all legislative powers shall be vested in a congress of the united states".