Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[PaintMyHouse]

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

"Advise and consent" means that the people have a say. Therefore, the president does not have an absolute right to select a Justice. There is no express limit on advise and consent. If there was a limit, then the appointments clause would be absolute. THIS is contrary to the Framers' intent.

The Senate can refuse to confirm and they can do so, legally, for as long as they like. The checks on this power are elections and, I guess, recess appointments, though I question if the latter was intended by the Framers as a check rather than merely a pragmatic means to prevent government freeze at a time when we were not as mobile and lacked today's technology.

I, personally, think that the political risk is worth not having another leftist political hack appointed to a lifetime seat on the USSC. Of course, another way to look at it is to give Obama his nominee and then try to get the court back later on when 1-2 other Justices die or retire. Republicans can do this if the win the presidency. If they lose, then they lose the court anyway if you assume that there will be a couple a vacancies under Hillary.

People already hate the Congress for not doing its job. Go for it, the Dems can use all the help they can get, and we will remind everyone of this over and over again:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

 

[EriktheRed]

The new Senate sets filibuster rules.......nuclear option

Do you honestly think an incoming Democratic Senate will allow Republicans to filibuster the nominee after they had already sat on it for 11 months?

They have to win first, now don't they...........

That's the way it works

Possible outcomes:
Dems win Senate and Presidency.......Liberal Justice gets picked
Dems win Senate, Republicans take Presidency.......Obama nominee approved
Republicans win Senate, Dems take presidency.......Will Republicans block the court for five years? Doubt it
Republicans take both......Conservative Justice

Only one outcome supports Republicans

You are not very bright, are you?

Is that really the best response you could come up with?

I don't like to invest a lot of time talking to morons.

Oh, but give it a try anyway and tell us a bit more about what's wrong with the post you responded to.

 

[jillian]

Umm ... that's when the 115th session of Congress begins. Should Democrats win the Senate this election, do you think they will or will not confirm Obama's nominee should Republicans stall until then?

FILABUSTER still on the table.

Who decides the filibuster rules?
The new Senate
The Democratic Senate has already shown they do not support filibuster of court nominees

They didn't change the rule on Supreme Nominees............They only when Nuclear on lesser courts.

Will they have the votes to change the rule again in January..............that's up to the elections.

The new Senate sets filibuster rules.......nuclear option

Do you honestly think an incoming Democratic Senate will allow Republicans to filibuster the nominee after they had already sat on it for 11 months?

They have to win first, now don't they...........

yes. but you still can't find a candidate that doesn't make most of the country vomit.

 

[paperview]

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

"Advise and consent" means that the people have a say. Therefore, the president does not have an absolute right to select a Justice. There is no express limit on advise and consent. If there was a limit, then the appointments clause would be absolute. THIS is contrary to the Framers' intent.

The Senate can refuse to confirm and they can do so, legally, for as long as they like. The checks on this power are elections and, I guess, recess appointments, though I question if the latter was intended by the Framers as a check rather than merely a pragmatic means to prevent government freeze at a time when we were not as mobile and lacked today's technology.

I, personally, think that the political risk is worth not having another leftist political hack appointed to a lifetime seat on the USSC. Of course, another way to look at it is to give Obama his nominee and then try to get the court back later on when 1-2 other Justices die or retire. Republicans can do this if the win the presidency. If they lose, then they lose the court anyway if you assume that there will be a couple a vacancies under Hillary.

The GOP is preemptively denying ANY nominee.


They are screwing the pooch and showing they haven't a shred of decency left in their tiny fingers.

 

[Flaylo]

He's just another Supreme Court justice who died, and as I said, watch the Repubtibums play politics with his death.

 

[ZackB]

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

"Advise and consent" means that the people have a say. Therefore, the president does not have an absolute right to select a Justice. There is no express limit on advise and consent. If there was a limit, then the appointments clause would be absolute. THIS is contrary to the Framers' intent.

The Senate can refuse to confirm and they can do so, legally, for as long as they like. The checks on this power are elections and, I guess, recess appointments, though I question if the latter was intended by the Framers as a check rather than merely a pragmatic means to prevent government freeze at a time when we were not as mobile and lacked today's technology.

I, personally, think that the political risk is worth not having another leftist political hack appointed to a lifetime seat on the USSC. Of course, another way to look at it is to give Obama his nominee and then try to get the court back later on when 1-2 other Justices die or retire. Republicans can do this if the win the presidency. If they lose, then they lose the court anyway if you assume that there will be a couple a vacancies under Hillary.

People already hate the Congress for not doing its job. Go for it, the Dems can use all the help they can get, and we will remind everyone of this over and over again:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Congressional approval is always low, thus the truism that "everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman".

 

[jillian]

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

"Advise and consent" means that the people have a say. Therefore, the president does not have an absolute right to select a Justice. There is no express limit on advise and consent. If there was a limit, then the appointments clause would be absolute. THIS is contrary to the Framers' intent.

The Senate can refuse to confirm and they can do so, legally, for as long as they like. The checks on this power are elections and, I guess, recess appointments, though I question if the latter was intended by the Framers as a check rather than merely a pragmatic means to prevent government freeze at a time when we were not as mobile and lacked today's technology.

I, personally, think that the political risk is worth not having another leftist political hack appointed to a lifetime seat on the USSC. Of course, another way to look at it is to give Obama his nominee and then try to get the court back later on when 1-2 other Justices die or retire. Republicans can do this if the win the presidency. If they lose, then they lose the court anyway if you assume that there will be a couple a vacancies under Hillary.

People already hate the Congress for not doing its job. Go for it, the Dems can use all the help they can get, and we will remind everyone of this over and over again:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Congressional approval is always low, thus the truism that "everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman".

and?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

"Advise and consent" means that the people have a say. Therefore, the president does not have an absolute right to select a Justice. There is no express limit on advise and consent. If there was a limit, then the appointments clause would be absolute. THIS is contrary to the Framers' intent.

The Senate can refuse to confirm and they can do so, legally, for as long as they like. The checks on this power are elections and, I guess, recess appointments, though I question if the latter was intended by the Framers as a check rather than merely a pragmatic means to prevent government freeze at a time when we were not as mobile and lacked today's technology.

I, personally, think that the political risk is worth not having another leftist political hack appointed to a lifetime seat on the USSC. Of course, another way to look at it is to give Obama his nominee and then try to get the court back later on when 1-2 other Justices die or retire. Republicans can do this if the win the presidency. If they lose, then they lose the court anyway if you assume that there will be a couple a vacancies under Hillary.

People already hate the Congress for not doing its job. Go for it, the Dems can use all the help they can get, and we will remind everyone of this over and over again:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Congressional approval is always low, thus the truism that "everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman".

It's your funeral but the safe bet is they will grandstand, and fold, as usual.

 

[eddiew]

Do you remember how your leader McConnell spoke about obama and trying to make him a 1 term president your hate for the president started early,,,,,,,was obama supposed to turn the other cheek?

Yeah, because the left supported Bush so well. And being a liberal, you don't understand. When the right disagrees with the left it isn't hate. The left sees opposition as evil but the fact is we don't want to go there, period. It isn't hate, it's knowing better as adults.

"Adults"????

Yep, unlike the immature left the adults look down the road and weigh consequences.

did your adults look down the road in Iraq and weigh the consequences??? Did they look down the road giving huge tax breaks to billionaires??? Or did they when nominating the 2 idiots for our presidency in 2008

 

[ZackB]

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

"Advise and consent" means that the people have a say. Therefore, the president does not have an absolute right to select a Justice. There is no express limit on advise and consent. If there was a limit, then the appointments clause would be absolute. THIS is contrary to the Framers' intent.

The Senate can refuse to confirm and they can do so, legally, for as long as they like. The checks on this power are elections and, I guess, recess appointments, though I question if the latter was intended by the Framers as a check rather than merely a pragmatic means to prevent government freeze at a time when we were not as mobile and lacked today's technology.

I, personally, think that the political risk is worth not having another leftist political hack appointed to a lifetime seat on the USSC. Of course, another way to look at it is to give Obama his nominee and then try to get the court back later on when 1-2 other Justices die or retire. Republicans can do this if the win the presidency. If they lose, then they lose the court anyway if you assume that there will be a couple a vacancies under Hillary.

People already hate the Congress for not doing its job. Go for it, the Dems can use all the help they can get, and we will remind everyone of this over and over again:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Congressional approval is always low, thus the truism that "everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman".

In addition, some people - me included - do not want Congress to "do their job" if that means approving policy recommendations of Obama. In this sense, Congressional obstructionism is a good thing, and it is something that is a valid check on Art. I power as contemplated by the Framers.

The problem with most of you leftists is that you are woefully uneducated.

 

[ZackB]

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

"Advise and consent" means that the people have a say. Therefore, the president does not have an absolute right to select a Justice. There is no express limit on advise and consent. If there was a limit, then the appointments clause would be absolute. THIS is contrary to the Framers' intent.

The Senate can refuse to confirm and they can do so, legally, for as long as they like. The checks on this power are elections and, I guess, recess appointments, though I question if the latter was intended by the Framers as a check rather than merely a pragmatic means to prevent government freeze at a time when we were not as mobile and lacked today's technology.

I, personally, think that the political risk is worth not having another leftist political hack appointed to a lifetime seat on the USSC. Of course, another way to look at it is to give Obama his nominee and then try to get the court back later on when 1-2 other Justices die or retire. Republicans can do this if the win the presidency. If they lose, then they lose the court anyway if you assume that there will be a couple a vacancies under Hillary.

People already hate the Congress for not doing its job. Go for it, the Dems can use all the help they can get, and we will remind everyone of this over and over again:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Congressional approval is always low, thus the truism that "everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman".

It's your funeral but the safe bet is they will grandstand, and fold, as usual.

Maybe so. McConnell suffers from vaginitis.

 

[rightwinger]

Who decides the filibuster rules?
The new Senate
The Democratic Senate has already shown they do not support filibuster of court nominees

They didn't change the rule on Supreme Nominees............They only when Nuclear on lesser courts.

Will they have the votes to change the rule again in January..............that's up to the elections.

The new Senate sets filibuster rules.......nuclear option

Do you honestly think an incoming Democratic Senate will allow Republicans to filibuster the nominee after they had already sat on it for 11 months?

They have to win first, now don't they...........

That's the way it works

Possible outcomes:
Dems win Senate and Presidency.......Liberal Justice gets picked
Dems win Senate, Republicans take Presidency.......Obama nominee approved
Republicans win Senate, Dems take presidency.......Will Republicans block the court for five years? Doubt it
Republicans take both......Conservative Justice

Only one outcome supports Republicans.

Pretty sure it's safe to assume that if a Republican wins the WH next year, we'll also still have a GOP-controlled Senate.

Not necessarily so

Dems have to win five seats

 

[Iceweasel]

Do you remember how your leader McConnell spoke about obama and trying to make him a 1 term president your hate for the president started early,,,,,,,was obama supposed to turn the other cheek?

Yeah, because the left supported Bush so well. And being a liberal, you don't understand. When the right disagrees with the left it isn't hate. The left sees opposition as evil but the fact is we don't want to go there, period. It isn't hate, it's knowing better as adults.

"Adults"????

Yep, unlike the immature left the adults look down the road and weigh consequences.

did your adults look down the road in Iraq and weigh the consequences??? Did they look down the road giving huge tax breaks to billionaires??? Or did they when nominating the 2 idiots for our presidency in 2008

Lots of Dems voted for the Iraq war, and for reasons that have been discussed since then. If you really are too ignorant/stupid to understand the words then more words can't help you. So yes, I'd put you squarely in the immature (liberal) camp.

 

[rightwinger]

But it does mean that the people, through their elected surrogates, DO get to voice their opinions on the nominee. The president does not get a blank check.

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

"Advise and consent" means that the people have a say. Therefore, the president does not have an absolute right to select a Justice. There is no express limit on advise and consent. If there was a limit, then the appointments clause would be absolute. THIS is contrary to the Framers' intent.

The Senate can refuse to confirm and they can do so, legally, for as long as they like. The checks on this power are elections and, I guess, recess appointments, though I question if the latter was intended by the Framers as a check rather than merely a pragmatic means to prevent government freeze at a time when we were not as mobile and lacked today's technology.

I, personally, think that the political risk is worth not having another leftist political hack appointed to a lifetime seat on the USSC. Of course, another way to look at it is to give Obama his nominee and then try to get the court back later on when 1-2 other Justices die or retire. Republicans can do this if the win the presidency. If they lose, then they lose the court anyway if you assume that there will be a couple a vacancies under Hillary.

People already hate the Congress for not doing its job. Go for it, the Dems can use all the help they can get, and we will remind everyone of this over and over again:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Congressional approval is always low, thus the truism that "everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman".

In addition, some people - me included - do not want Congress to "do their job" if that means approving policy recommendations of Obama. In this sense, Congressional obstructionism is a good thing, and it is something that is a valid check on Art. I power as contemplated by the Framers.

The problem with most of you leftists is that you are woefully uneducated.

So now you get to block Congress from doing anything and the court from doing anything

That leaves........Obama as the only game in town
He can do what he wants with executive orders and a 4-4 court can't tell him otherwise

 

[deltex1]

Indian-American among those Obama could nominate to replace Justice Scalia

I'm still leaning Sharpton....

 

[EriktheRed]

They didn't change the rule on Supreme Nominees............They only when Nuclear on lesser courts.

Will they have the votes to change the rule again in January..............that's up to the elections.

The new Senate sets filibuster rules.......nuclear option

Do you honestly think an incoming Democratic Senate will allow Republicans to filibuster the nominee after they had already sat on it for 11 months?

They have to win first, now don't they...........

That's the way it works

Possible outcomes:
Dems win Senate and Presidency.......Liberal Justice gets picked
Dems win Senate, Republicans take Presidency.......Obama nominee approved
Republicans win Senate, Dems take presidency.......Will Republicans block the court for five years? Doubt it
Republicans take both......Conservative Justice

Only one outcome supports Republicans.

Pretty sure it's safe to assume that if a Republican wins the WH next year, we'll also still have a GOP-controlled Senate.

Not necessarily so

Dems have to win five seats

True, but if the Dems' fortunes turn out so badly this year that they lose the WH, I believe it's a pretty safe bet that the Republican President-elect's coattails will be long enough to help a lot of downticket Repubs.

 

[eddiew]

That's correct, but the GOP is suggesting they lock the doors to the bank, very unconstitutional and goes against the Original Intent now doesn't it?

"Advise and consent" means that the people have a say. Therefore, the president does not have an absolute right to select a Justice. There is no express limit on advise and consent. If there was a limit, then the appointments clause would be absolute. THIS is contrary to the Framers' intent.

The Senate can refuse to confirm and they can do so, legally, for as long as they like. The checks on this power are elections and, I guess, recess appointments, though I question if the latter was intended by the Framers as a check rather than merely a pragmatic means to prevent government freeze at a time when we were not as mobile and lacked today's technology.

I, personally, think that the political risk is worth not having another leftist political hack appointed to a lifetime seat on the USSC. Of course, another way to look at it is to give Obama his nominee and then try to get the court back later on when 1-2 other Justices die or retire. Republicans can do this if the win the presidency. If they lose, then they lose the court anyway if you assume that there will be a couple a vacancies under Hillary.

People already hate the Congress for not doing its job. Go for it, the Dems can use all the help they can get, and we will remind everyone of this over and over again:

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Congressional approval is always low, thus the truism that "everyone hates Congress, but everyone loves their Congressman".

In addition, some people - me included - do not want Congress to "do their job" if that means approving policy recommendations of Obama. In this sense, Congressional obstructionism is a good thing, and it is something that is a valid check on Art. I power as contemplated by the Framers.

The problem with most of you leftists is that you are woefully uneducated.

So now you get to block Congress from doing anything and the court from doing anything

That leaves........Obama as the only game in town
He can do what he wants with executive orders and a 4-4 court can't tell him otherwise

AND with the man the pubs call a swing voter kennedy, it might be 5-3

 

[mudwhistle]

He's just another Supreme Court justice who died, and as I said, watch the Repubtibums play politics with his death.

The way Obama has been going after our guns.....I predicted a few years ago that Scalia would probably be killed in a car accident or die of natural causes during Obama's second term.

I never thought it would actually happen......

 

[mudwhistle]

The new Senate sets filibuster rules.......nuclear option

Do you honestly think an incoming Democratic Senate will allow Republicans to filibuster the nominee after they had already sat on it for 11 months?

They have to win first, now don't they...........

That's the way it works

Possible outcomes:
Dems win Senate and Presidency.......Liberal Justice gets picked
Dems win Senate, Republicans take Presidency.......Obama nominee approved
Republicans win Senate, Dems take presidency.......Will Republicans block the court for five years? Doubt it
Republicans take both......Conservative Justice

Only one outcome supports Republicans.

Pretty sure it's safe to assume that if a Republican wins the WH next year, we'll also still have a GOP-controlled Senate.

Not necessarily so

Dems have to win five seats

True, but if the Dems' fortunes turn out so badly this year that they lose the WH, I believe it's a pretty safe bet that the Republican President-elect's coattails will be long enough to help a lot of downticket Repubs.

The Dems will attempt to steal the election if they can't win it.

 

[Iceweasel]

yes. but you still can't find a candidate that doesn't make most of the country vomit.

You don't represent most of the country.