Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Just imagine the political fight that is coming.

Politically, a big fight will benefit the Democrats tremendously.

Maybe, maybe not.

It has to benefit the Democrats, because the issues that the typical conservative are going to throw a fit about if an Obama appointee holds are losing issues in the general population.

Such as those same losing issues that has been giving Trump momentum because he dares to address them? Tighter borders with immigration over amnesty, protecting Americans from threats of terrorism, concerns over unchecked refugees from a terrorist prone region, political correctness run amuck that hasn't made us safer by placing emphasis on appeasement over security. Issues that share the concern of independent voters as well. Unlike the Democrats who are at odds with whom they prefer as a their nominee, the younger generation favoring a more socialist leaning direction with the old generation choosing the same establishment politician. Hillary hasn't been the clear decisive a candidate as she would have hoped. It would be interesting how that split effects the growing momentum of the right.

 

[bendog]

If you did, and you don't, you would understand the difference between "nominate" and "appoint." Sadly, you don't. Which is why you're not making any sense.

That aside... why do you refuse to answer Nyvin's question?

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?​

As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.

The lack of action in the Senate is allowed in the Senate Rules and Procedures that is to say that the leadership has the prerogative to schedule as it sees fit. However, a constitutional requirement such as advice and consent can't be trumped by rules and procedures. So it seems to me the question is when does the delay become a violation of the constitutional since there is no time limit establish.

No time limit established?
The Repub Senate set it by announcing until right after the Nov. elections.

No time limit established in the constitution

We're not strict constructionists. LOL

 

[Contumacious]

I have not seen Nyvin's question. Nor do I care to do so.

Learn about our Senate's History.
U.S. Senate: Nominations
The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Then let me repeat it, maybe you'll address it this time...

So what kind of precedent does this set our country up for? When your party doesn't like a nominee (before they're even announced) because it's from a president in the opposite party you just block it until you get a president from your party?

If Republicans win in 2016 do Democrats just block all the nominees until 2021??? What's the plan here?​

As far as your link -- that doesn't address the current situation. That speaks to the Senate's authority to reject nominees. No one is saying otherwise. The current situation is the Senate's attempt to deny a president his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement. Something you even agreed with earlier; though now it appears you don't know what you were agreeing with.

The lack of action in the Senate is allowed in the Senate Rules and Procedures that is to say that the leadership has the prerogative to schedule as it sees fit. However, a constitutional requirement such as advice and consent can't be trumped by rules and procedures. So it seems to me the question is when does the delay become a violation of the constitutional since there is no time limit establish.

No time limit established?
The Repub Senate set it by announcing until right after the Nov. elections.

No time limit established in the constitution

We're not strict constructionists. LOL

Right, he is not a strict constructionist, the Communist Manifesto will do just fine.


.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I really figured Kennedy would be next to go ... a bolt of lightening (-:

Sorry, I had to. I wish well to all of them.

We're going to dick around with this an not have a shot at the Oval Office and hand the Senate to the Dem's.


Gee the idea that Hillary or Bernie will nominate (a) Scalia's replacement, (b) Ginsburg's replacement**, and maybe a Kennedy's replacement***. That's freaking stupid.




** She, IIRC 86 and has been waiting for a Dem President with a Dem Senate, she will retire.
*** Kennedy, IIRC enters his 80's this year and I would expect his seat to open (hopefully through retirement) during the next presidents term.



>>>>

 

[bendog]

I really figured Kennedy would be next to go ... a bolt of lightening (-:

Sorry, I had to. I wish well to all of them.

We're going to dick around with this an not have a shot at the Oval Office and hand the Senate to the Dem's.


Gee the idea that Hillary or Bernie will nominate (a) Scalia's replacement, (b) Ginsburg's replacement**, and maybe a Kennedy's replacement***. That's freaking stupid.




** She, IIRC 86 and has been waiting for a Dem President with a Dem Senate, she will retire.
*** Kennedy, IIRC enters his 80's this year and I would expect his seat to open (hopefully through retirement) during the next presidents term.



>>>>

Well, that's the thing. People who only pay scant attention to the Court were freaking out over the Obamacare decision or the gay marriage decision as if THIS IS A MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Segregation and voting rights were a constitutional crisis. Nixon was. Obamacare was just old fashioned legislative construction and gay marriage was an outlier because Kennedy is nearly as conservative as Alito .... except on gay rights.

Ever since Obama got reelected the gop's been saying no more for Obama. I think Ginsburg would have stepped down otherwise.

The next potus will set the Court's ideology for probably close to two decades.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This certainly brightened up my otherwise cold, dull day!

That's not a nice thing to say!

For the amount of damage that guy did....I do not feel one ounce of guilt.

Can't help but smile about this news

Not as much damage as Justice Sonia Sotomayor will try to do to change the country.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If the Republicans try to block the president from appointing a new judge, which is explicit in the Constitution, this form of government is headed out. They can whine about the first couple 'choices', but they can't delay it in hopes a conservative will get elected in November.

Obama should put forth a name next week, and if the Republicans try to stall until the elections the Democrats should put out one minute ads nonstop how Republicans do not believe in the Constitution. Which if they try to delay until November, they don't.

In any case Obamacare was just enshrined as non-reversible, as was gay marriage.

It would be no different than what liberal Democrats had proposed to do towards the end of Reagan's term, when they promised they would stand firm to block any nominee who they believed shared (in their opinion) any "extremist" views. Forcing a more moderate choice for the court that the liberals were willing to concede to. President Obama should be given the same courtesy, call it karma.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It would be no different than what liberal Democrats had proposed to do towards the end of Reagan's term, when they promised they would stand firm to block any nominee who they believed shared (in their opinion) any "extremist" views. Forcing a more moderate choice for the court that the liberals were willing to concede to. President Obama should be given the same courtesy, call it karma.

The only Supreme Court vacancy at the end of Reagan's term was filled by a Dem Senate voting on Kennedy.


>>>>

 

[bendog]

If the Republicans try to block the president from appointing a new judge, which is explicit in the Constitution, this form of government is headed out. They can whine about the first couple 'choices', but they can't delay it in hopes a conservative will get elected in November.

Obama should put forth a name next week, and if the Republicans try to stall until the elections the Democrats should put out one minute ads nonstop how Republicans do not believe in the Constitution. Which if they try to delay until November, they don't.

In any case Obamacare was just enshrined as non-reversible, as was gay marriage.

It would be no different than what liberal Democrats had proposed to do towards the end of Reagan's term, when they promised they would stand firm to block any nominee who they believed shared (in their opinion) any "extremist" views. Forcing a more moderate choice for the court that the liberals were willing to concede to. President Obama should be given the same courtesy, call it karma.

If the gop did so, there'd be no issue, but the fact is the gop is not going to confirm any more Obama nominees, and it's been that way for his entire second term.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Nyvin]

If the Republicans try to block the president from appointing a new judge, which is explicit in the Constitution, this form of government is headed out. They can whine about the first couple 'choices', but they can't delay it in hopes a conservative will get elected in November.

Obama should put forth a name next week, and if the Republicans try to stall until the elections the Democrats should put out one minute ads nonstop how Republicans do not believe in the Constitution. Which if they try to delay until November, they don't.

In any case Obamacare was just enshrined as non-reversible, as was gay marriage.

It would be no different than what liberal Democrats had proposed to do towards the end of Reagan's term, when they promised they would stand firm to block any nominee who they believed shared (in their opinion) any "extremist" views. Forcing a more moderate choice for the court that the liberals were willing to concede to. President Obama should be given the same courtesy, call it karma.

Only...McConnell point blank said the Senate would not consider "ANY" nominee put forward by Obama.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Black President in Back of the Bus....the only Black President has almost as many nominees filibustered as the rest of the White Presidents COMBINED...Coincidence ....LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Only...McConnell point blank said the Senate would not consider "ANY" nominee put forward by Obama.

He is a nobody just the highest ranking Republican in the Senate...........Majority Leader of the Senate

 

[peach174]

If the Republicans try to block the president from appointing a new judge, which is explicit in the Constitution, this form of government is headed out. They can whine about the first couple 'choices', but they can't delay it in hopes a conservative will get elected in November.

Obama should put forth a name next week, and if the Republicans try to stall until the elections the Democrats should put out one minute ads nonstop how Republicans do not believe in the Constitution. Which if they try to delay until November, they don't.

In any case Obamacare was just enshrined as non-reversible, as was gay marriage.

It would be no different than what liberal Democrats had proposed to do towards the end of Reagan's term, when they promised they would stand firm to block any nominee who they believed shared (in their opinion) any "extremist" views. Forcing a more moderate choice for the court that the liberals were willing to concede to. President Obama should be given the same courtesy, call it karma.

If the gop did so, there'd be no issue, but the fact is the gop is not going to confirm any more Obama nominees, and it's been that way for his entire second term.

They just confirmed 16 of them last year.
Confirmation Listing

 

[IsaacNewton]

If the Republicans try to block the president from appointing a new judge, which is explicit in the Constitution, this form of government is headed out. They can whine about the first couple 'choices', but they can't delay it in hopes a conservative will get elected in November.

Obama should put forth a name next week, and if the Republicans try to stall until the elections the Democrats should put out one minute ads nonstop how Republicans do not believe in the Constitution. Which if they try to delay until November, they don't.

In any case Obamacare was just enshrined as non-reversible, as was gay marriage.

It would be no different than what liberal Democrats had proposed to do towards the end of Reagan's term, when they promised they would stand firm to block any nominee who they believed shared (in their opinion) any "extremist" views. Forcing a more moderate choice for the court that the liberals were willing to concede to. President Obama should be given the same courtesy, call it karma.

So you are just ignorant or a liar.

Did the Democrats approve someone? Yes.

See? Its not hard.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Clarence Thomas On The Bench Without Scalia Is A Disaster: He Hasn’t Asked A Question In 10 Years

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is the epitome of conservative obstructionism. As the court evolved over the years, participation from the justices,...

 

[bendog]

If the Republicans try to block the president from appointing a new judge, which is explicit in the Constitution, this form of government is headed out. They can whine about the first couple 'choices', but they can't delay it in hopes a conservative will get elected in November.

Obama should put forth a name next week, and if the Republicans try to stall until the elections the Democrats should put out one minute ads nonstop how Republicans do not believe in the Constitution. Which if they try to delay until November, they don't.

In any case Obamacare was just enshrined as non-reversible, as was gay marriage.

It would be no different than what liberal Democrats had proposed to do towards the end of Reagan's term, when they promised they would stand firm to block any nominee who they believed shared (in their opinion) any "extremist" views. Forcing a more moderate choice for the court that the liberals were willing to concede to. President Obama should be given the same courtesy, call it karma.

If the gop did so, there'd be no issue, but the fact is the gop is not going to confirm any more Obama nominees, and it's been that way for his entire second term.

They just confirmed 16 of them last year.
Confirmation Listing

The thread is about the supreme court. And it's no secret the gop said no more after Kagen. He got two, and that was going to be it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Poll: Majorities In 2 Key Swing States Want Scalia Seat Filled Before Election

 

[Dot Com]

Clarence Thomas On The Bench Without Scalia Is A Disaster: He Hasn’t Asked A Question In 10 Years

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is the epitome of conservative obstructionism. As the court evolved over the years, participation from the justices,...

I was thinking the same thing. Mind if i start a thread on that? TyroneSlothrop

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Clarence Thomas On The Bench Without Scalia Is A Disaster: He Hasn’t Asked A Question In 10 Years

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is the epitome of conservative obstructionism. As the court evolved over the years, participation from the justices,...

I was thinking the same thing. Mind if i start a thread on that? TyroneSlothrop

please please do