Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[Meathead]

Oh yeah. Obama's got a pen so he can nominate. Still, he doesn't have enough votes in the Senate so he can't confirm.

Too Bad!

 

[JQPublic1]

The Republican Senate better deny every last Obama nominee.

Damn straight. Nothing like galvanizing Democrats to not only win the White House but to also take back the Senate. I'm getting my checkbook out for every close Senate race.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stunt costs Republicans the Senate. Many people will be pissed if the Senate shirks its responsibility to advise and consent the president's nominees.

I guess the historic bitch slapping voters put on Democrats hasn't sunk in yet, the people are fed up with the left and rejected them in an historic blow out election.

But they kept Obama. Now that he is departing, it is a different ballgame.

 

[NoNukes]

Need a tissue?

obama can choose next .......?
is it true?

He nominates and then Congress has to confirm the person he nominated.

obama can choose liberal or not ?

He will choose a liberal, it remains to be seen if he can get them confirmed.

based on your experience
obama can or ??

He will do it, and the world will be a better place.

 

[Geaux4it]

I smell a rat. Scalia got Fostered perhaps.

-Geaux

 

[waltky]

The question is...

... will he be replaced...

... by a conservative...

... or a liberal jurist?

President Barack Obama to nominate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia successor 'in due time'
February 13, 2016 | WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama declared Saturday night he would seek to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, charging into a heated and likely prolonged election-year fight with Republicans. Obama said a nomination was "bigger than any one party."

With a half-dozen or more major cases and the ideological tilt of the court in the balance, Obama said he pIanned "to fulfill my constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor in due time." The president said the decision was about democracy and "the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life, and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our founders envisioned."

Obama's remarks answered Republicans who wasted little time Saturday night, as news of Scalia's unexpected death spread, arguing that Obama should leave the lifetime appointment to his successor. "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

His position was echoed by several Republicans seeking the GOP presidential nomination. Sen. Ted Cruz said conservatives could not risk losing influence on the court "for a generation." Donald Trump urged Senate Republicans to "delay, delay, delay." Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton told a Democratic dinner in Denver that Obama "is president of the United States until Jan 20, 2017. That is a fact my friends, whether the Republicans like it or not." "Let's get on with it," said Democrat Bernie Sanders, arguing that the Senate should vote on whoever Obama nominates.

The court has already heard — but not decided — big cases involving immigration, abortion, affirmative action and public employee unions. With many cases recently decided by 5-4 margins, with Scalia leading the conservative majority, the vacancy could have major repercussions, both legally and in the presidential race. The nomination fight in the Senate could determine the tenor of much of Obama's final year in office — and ricochet through the campaign to replace him. Obama, who already has little goodwill on the Hill, faces stiff opposition from Republicans hungry for the chance to further tip the court to the right. A confirmation process often takes more than two months, but could be drawn out longer by the Republican-led Senate.

MORE

 

[JoeB131]

Oh yeah. Obama's got a pen so he can nominate. Still, he doesn't have enough votes in the Senate so he can't confirm.

Too Bad!

That assumes all 54 senators are going to buck tradition and block his nominee. The last time that happened was when John Tyler was President.

Nope. Obama will get his nominee. Liberal Supreme Court, baby. Good bye Heller, Good Bye Citizens United.

 

[JoeB131]

I smell a rat. Scalia got Fostered perhaps.

-Geaux

Yes, because 79 year old fat guys dying of natural causes is totally unprecedented.

 

[Meathead]

Oh yeah. Obama's got a pen so he can nominate. Still, he doesn't have enough votes in the Senate so he can't confirm.

Too Bad!

That assumes all 54 senators are going to buck tradition and block his nominee. The last time that happened was when John Tyler was President.

Nope. Obama will get his nominee. Liberal Supreme Court, baby. Good bye Heller, Good Bye Citizens United.

Sure Joey. That's going to happen in an election year. There is no way Obama and his minions are going to peel off 14 Republican senators unless the nominee is decidedly moderate and not another ugly-dyke liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

Sure Joey. That's going to happen in an election year. There is no way Obama and his minions are going to peel off 14 Republican senators unless the nominee is decidedly moderate and not another ugly-dyke liberal.

They don't need to peel off 14. They just need to peel off four. You guys couldn't filibuster Kagan and Sotomoyor, you won't do it to this guy.

You've lost the Supreme Court, probably for a generation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

LMAO @ Warren, Biden, etc....how about appointing someone that actually has judicial experience? You left loons need help

So if he appoints a very experienced liberal judge you'll support him/her?

Fuck off.

GFY ya little dweeb. Appoint Biden or Warren...you're a fucking idiot with an agenda and butthurt it was pointed out

You're the one who said experience was all that mattered.

 

[rightwinger]

McConnell: Senate should not confirm Scalia's replacement until after election

McConnell: After the election.

Possible outcomes if Republicans stall on confirmation

1. Republicans win presidency and hold Senate and name a Conservative Justice

2. Republicans win Presidency but Democrats win Senate and refuse to confirm a Conservative nominee

3. Democrats win Presidency but Republicans hold Senate, Republicans refuse to confirm

4. Democrats win both presidency and Senate and name a Liberal

 

[NYcarbineer]

A judicial fight going into the election will remind the voters how far on the wrong side of the issues the conservative judges are.
The GOP candidates are already stepping in it making the outrageously anti-consitutional claim that Obama shouldn't even have the right to appoint the next judge.

 

[Meathead]

Sure Joey. That's going to happen in an election year. There is no way Obama and his minions are going to peel off 14 Republican senators unless the nominee is decidedly moderate and not another ugly-dyke liberal.

They don't need to peel off 14. They just need to peel off four. You guys couldn't filibuster Kagan and Sotomoyor, you won't do it to this guy.

You've lost the Supreme Court, probably for a generation.

Sure, and George Zimmerman is doing time in the big house. The next president is going to nominate and get the next SCJ confirmed. Obama doesn't have a chance of getting a liberal in there. Time is against him and the last mid-term has consequences. Read 'em and whine.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Dems will suddenly be for the Constitutionalist for this selection even though they have gone against it time and time again with their pen and phone. Amnesty for illegals and Sanctuaries.............

Just another election with their standard tactics.

They will be thwarted on getting the nomination. The only question is on what they gain from tactics they will use over it. If the tables were turned they would do the same and have in the past done the exact same thing. Showing that history of their tactics could level the playing field.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have not even picked a candidate yet and we are 11 MONTHS away from the next president
That means even if a Republican wins, it will take another four months to select and confirm a Justice

That would mean 15 months with a vacancy......will the people stand for it?
That's a lot of tie votes

 

[rightwinger]

The Dems will suddenly be for the Constitutionalist for this selection even though they have gone against it time and time again with their pen and phone. Amnesty for illegals and Sanctuaries.............

Just another election with their standard tactics.

They will be thwarted on getting the nomination. The only question is on what they gain from tactics they will use over it. If the tables were turned they would do the same and have in the past done the exact same thing. Showing that history of their tactics could level the playing field.

EOs have always been constitutional. At least they are when a Republican is president

 

[eagle1462010]

The Dems will suddenly be for the Constitutionalist for this selection even though they have gone against it time and time again with their pen and phone. Amnesty for illegals and Sanctuaries.............

Just another election with their standard tactics.

They will be thwarted on getting the nomination. The only question is on what they gain from tactics they will use over it. If the tables were turned they would do the same and have in the past done the exact same thing. Showing that history of their tactics could level the playing field.

EOs have always been constitutional. At least they are when a Republican is president

Not when they openly violate our laws..............Amnesty for illegals is certainly against the law..........as are other EPA laws just overturned by SCOTUS

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

LOL this is very telling...Republicans booing the Facts LOL

GOP candidate Ted Cruz was called out by CBS debate moderator John Dickerson for saying, incorrectly, that no Supreme Court justices were confirmed in election years for 80 years.

Dickerson pointed out that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, was confirmed in 1988, which was an election year.

“But Kennedy was confirmed in ’88,” Dickerson pointed out.

Cruz then paused and said, incorrectly, “No, Kennedy was confirmed in ’87.”

After Dickerson said he wanted to get the facts straight for the audience, the audience began booing.

 

[rightwinger]

The Dems will suddenly be for the Constitutionalist for this selection even though they have gone against it time and time again with their pen and phone. Amnesty for illegals and Sanctuaries.............

Just another election with their standard tactics.

They will be thwarted on getting the nomination. The only question is on what they gain from tactics they will use over it. If the tables were turned they would do the same and have in the past done the exact same thing. Showing that history of their tactics could level the playing field.

EOs have always been constitutional. At least they are when a Republican is president

Not when they openly violate our laws..............Amnesty for illegals is certainly against the law..........as are other EPA laws just overturned by SCOTUS

That's why we have courts

Just because something is not conservative, does not make it unconstitutional

 

[eagle1462010]

The Dems will suddenly be for the Constitutionalist for this selection even though they have gone against it time and time again with their pen and phone. Amnesty for illegals and Sanctuaries.............

Just another election with their standard tactics.

They will be thwarted on getting the nomination. The only question is on what they gain from tactics they will use over it. If the tables were turned they would do the same and have in the past done the exact same thing. Showing that history of their tactics could level the playing field.

EOs have always been constitutional. At least they are when a Republican is president

Not when they openly violate our laws..............Amnesty for illegals is certainly against the law..........as are other EPA laws just overturned by SCOTUS

That's why we have courts

Just because something is not conservative, does not make it unconstitutional

Obama's selections where purely political...........Not by their abilities. If they were chosen without taking in their views on politics you would not see the splits in decisions time and time again.

His 2 new appointees should have not ruled in Obamacare when they had ties to the process.