Not dead a day and The Obamanation intends to nominate successor for Scalia on Supreme Court: CNN

[NYcarbineer]

It's been posted already.

By the highly respected SCOTUSblog, which the furball shrugged off as a blog.

You apparently missed my references to the three instances cited, all of which were done by presidents who could serve another term. F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan. Had they lost the election, the nominations would have been withdrawn.

Let's go back to what you said:

1. Tradition of not nominating a Supreme Court Justice during the last year; no federal court appointments in the last eight months either.
2. It is withheld to help the future president uphold their policies, which could be his party.
3. The future president represents the future will of the people and a new Justice rules into that future.

1. There is no tradition. Certainly not for a full year.
2. Bullshit
3. Bullshit.

OK. So if you call something "bullshit" then it's proof that it is.
So Bullshit on your post.
Bullshit
Bullshit
Bullshit.

Where in the Constitution does it require a president in his last year to defer judicial appointments to the next president?

You, Mr. Constitution...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why the last year? Why not Day One of a second term President?

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL Fear just courses through your bloodstream doesn't it. Conservatives have a love affair with fear going on and you think everyone else does as well. Its yours alone Porky, own it.

We had an election and this president was elected. He is granted the powers in the Constitution to select Supreme Court nominees and the opposing political party isn't granted the power to stall the executive branch's power indefinitely.

If the Gopp tries to delay this for a year then the Democrats should tell them no matter what you want to do we will block it.

Indefinitely.

This is what you cons want I say shove it down your throat. You people are 8 year old children who cry like Kanye West when you don't get your way.

Hillary is the one trying to scare women into voting for her.

The Senate confirms or denies, live with it.

Interesting your answer to stalling is stalling. Bravo! Ya sacred little turd.

You are a whiner. The conservative way. You don't get your way so you whine like an 8 year old that doesn't get an ice cream.

I love to hear the whining, don't stop.

You're clearly unhinged with hatred.

 

[EriktheRed]

Is there something that makes Kennedy's appointment different?

I am going to let you think about that for a minute. Kennedy's appointment in his last year of his term....

Yes, just like this year is the last of this current President's.

 

[paperview]

The Republicans have to, in effect, say "we aren't going to let the president exercise his Constitutional powers, we reserve those powers to Congress".

This of course is a breech of the separation of powers between the branches of government. The president should just start nominating whoever he wants immediately and make them hold hearings and reject them one after the other. The Republicans seem to love holding hearings and holding useless votes over and over so let's line em up and let these anti-American anti-democracy losers do what they want to do so it is recorded and in plain view for the entire country.

If the Republicans do try to block this appointment then the Democrats should simply not work with them on anything. ANYTHING. In Congress. Vote down everything the Republican'ts want to do.

Cons this is what you seem to want so I say the Democrats should shove it down your throats until their fingers find your colon.

For the least eighty years a lame duck president has not submitted a nominee for the Supreme Court. As a lifetime appointment all have decided it was best to have the soon to be president make that choice. A Democrat could win and their agenda might need interpretation through the court as well. It is a time honored approach and a very practical one too.

You sound desperate IsaccNewton, scared out of your mind.

LOL Fear just courses through your bloodstream doesn't it. Conservatives have a love affair with fear going on and you think everyone else does as well. Its yours alone Porky, own it.

We had an election and this president was elected. He is granted the powers in the Constitution to select Supreme Court nominees and the opposing political party isn't granted the power to stall the executive branch's power indefinitely.

If the Gopp tries to delay this for a year then the Democrats should tell them no matter what you want to do we will block it.

Indefinitely.

This is what you cons want I say shove it down your throat. You people are 8 year old children who cry like Kanye West when you don't get your way.

LOL!! Remember when Democrats filibustered all of Bush's nominations? Yeah you're a stinking partisan hypocrite hack.

Bush nominated two SC Justices.

One John Roberts. Not filibustered.

Alitio - Failed filibuster by Kerry.

Your memory sucks.

 

[saveliberty]

Is there something that makes Kennedy's appointment different?

I am going to let you think about that for a minute. Kennedy's appointment in his last year of his term....

Yes, just like this year is the last of this current President's.

Kennedy was shot before his last year in office moron. I even gave you a hint.

 

[EriktheRed]

Is there something that makes Kennedy's appointment different?

I am going to let you think about that for a minute. Kennedy's appointment in his last year of his term....

Yes, just like this year is the last of this current President's.

Kennedy was shot before his last year in office moron. I even gave you a hint.

Thought you were talking about SC Justice Kennedy's appointment in the last year of Reagan's term.


That's what I was talking about.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Republicans have to, in effect, say "we aren't going to let the president exercise his Constitutional powers, we reserve those powers to Congress".

This of course is a breech of the separation of powers between the branches of government. The president should just start nominating whoever he wants immediately and make them hold hearings and reject them one after the other. The Republicans seem to love holding hearings and holding useless votes over and over so let's line em up and let these anti-American anti-democracy losers do what they want to do so it is recorded and in plain view for the entire country.

If the Republicans do try to block this appointment then the Democrats should simply not work with them on anything. ANYTHING. In Congress. Vote down everything the Republican'ts want to do.

Cons this is what you seem to want so I say the Democrats should shove it down your throats until their fingers find your colon.

For the least eighty years a lame duck president has not submitted a nominee for the Supreme Court. As a lifetime appointment all have decided it was best to have the soon to be president make that choice. A Democrat could win and their agenda might need interpretation through the court as well. It is a time honored approach and a very practical one too.

You sound desperate IsaccNewton, scared out of your mind.

LOL Fear just courses through your bloodstream doesn't it. Conservatives have a love affair with fear going on and you think everyone else does as well. Its yours alone Porky, own it.

We had an election and this president was elected. He is granted the powers in the Constitution to select Supreme Court nominees and the opposing political party isn't granted the power to stall the executive branch's power indefinitely.

If the Gopp tries to delay this for a year then the Democrats should tell them no matter what you want to do we will block it.

Indefinitely.

This is what you cons want I say shove it down your throat. You people are 8 year old children who cry like Kanye West when you don't get your way.

LOL!! Remember when Democrats filibustered all of Bush's nominations? Yeah you're a stinking partisan hypocrite hack.

Bush nominated two SC Justices.

One John Roberts. Not filibustered.

Alitio - Failed filibuster by Kerry.

Your memory sucks.

Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
There.

 

[saveliberty]

Thought you were talking about SC Justice Kennedy's appointment in the last year of Reagan's term.


That's what I was talking about.

Okay, that dispels the confusion some. Thank you.

Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term. Unless you are going to allow Obama a third term...

... Yes, let's not go there.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Republicans have to, in effect, say "we aren't going to let the president exercise his Constitutional powers, we reserve those powers to Congress".

This of course is a breech of the separation of powers between the branches of government. The president should just start nominating whoever he wants immediately and make them hold hearings and reject them one after the other. The Republicans seem to love holding hearings and holding useless votes over and over so let's line em up and let these anti-American anti-democracy losers do what they want to do so it is recorded and in plain view for the entire country.

If the Republicans do try to block this appointment then the Democrats should simply not work with them on anything. ANYTHING. In Congress. Vote down everything the Republican'ts want to do.

Cons this is what you seem to want so I say the Democrats should shove it down your throats until their fingers find your colon.

For the least eighty years a lame duck president has not submitted a nominee for the Supreme Court. As a lifetime appointment all have decided it was best to have the soon to be president make that choice. A Democrat could win and their agenda might need interpretation through the court as well. It is a time honored approach and a very practical one too.

You sound desperate IsaccNewton, scared out of your mind.

LOL Fear just courses through your bloodstream doesn't it. Conservatives have a love affair with fear going on and you think everyone else does as well. Its yours alone Porky, own it.

We had an election and this president was elected. He is granted the powers in the Constitution to select Supreme Court nominees and the opposing political party isn't granted the power to stall the executive branch's power indefinitely.

If the Gopp tries to delay this for a year then the Democrats should tell them no matter what you want to do we will block it.

Indefinitely.

This is what you cons want I say shove it down your throat. You people are 8 year old children who cry like Kanye West when you don't get your way.

LOL!! Remember when Democrats filibustered all of Bush's nominations? Yeah you're a stinking partisan hypocrite hack.

Bush nominated two SC Justices.

One John Roberts. Not filibustered.

Alitio - Failed filibuster by Kerry.

Your memory sucks.

Dems invented borking and payback is a barack

 

[EriktheRed]

Thought you were talking about SC Justice Kennedy's appointment in the last year of Reagan's term.


That's what I was talking about.

Okay, that dispels the confusion some. Thank you.

Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term. Unless you are going to allow Obama a third term...

... Yes, let's not go there.

Oh...

So you're totally splitting hairs. Ok....

 

[Contumacious]

Perhaps Obama will choose a conservative. He may want a legacy of maintaining balance on the court. Make a step toward compromise and stability.

HE WILL APPOINT SOMEONE WHO IS AT CLOSE TO BEING A MARXIST-LENINIST AS POSSIBLY CAN BE.


.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term. Unless you are going to allow Obama a third term...

... Yes, let's not go there.

"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

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT
By LINDA GREENHOUSE, Special to the New York Times
Published: November 12, 1987
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11— President Reagan, stung by the failure of two nominations to the Supreme Court in the last three weeks, today nominated Judge Anthony M. Kennedy and expressed the hope that he could be confirmed quickly in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation"
REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

 

[paperview]

Is there something that makes Kennedy's appointment different?

I am going to let you think about that for a minute. Kennedy's appointment in his last year of his term....

Yes, just like this year is the last of this current President's.

Kennedy was shot before his last year in office moron. I even gave you a hint.

Idiot furball doesn't know the difference between Anthony Kennedy & John Kennedy.

 

[saveliberty]

Thought you were talking about SC Justice Kennedy's appointment in the last year of Reagan's term.


That's what I was talking about.

Okay, that dispels the confusion some. Thank you.

Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term. Unless you are going to allow Obama a third term...

... Yes, let's not go there.

Oh...

So you're totally splitting hairs. Ok....

No president in the last eighty years has nominated a Justice in the last year he could serve. The three that could serve longer had their nominees approved after they won another term. Posters suggested that was not true, it is. Then they said there was no good reason to not nominate and confirm. I mentioned the next president needs their policies supported and it could be from their party, so presidents have traditionally waited.

 

[EriktheRed]

Thought you were talking about SC Justice Kennedy's appointment in the last year of Reagan's term.


That's what I was talking about.

Okay, that dispels the confusion some. Thank you.

Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term. Unless you are going to allow Obama a third term...

... Yes, let's not go there.

Oh...

So you're totally splitting hairs. Ok....

Oh wait...

Is "splitting hairs" even accurate here, since you claim that "Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term"?

According to this article...

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

Kennedy was nominated in '87.

 

[saveliberty]

Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term. Unless you are going to allow Obama a third term...

... Yes, let's not go there.

"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

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT
By LINDA GREENHOUSE, Special to the New York Times
Published: November 12, 1987
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11— President Reagan, stung by the failure of two nominations to the Supreme Court in the last three weeks, today nominated Judge Anthony M. Kennedy and expressed the hope that he could be confirmed quickly in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation"
REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

Oh your right, that was the third person nominated after the Democrats stonewalled the first two for how long? You want us to do that huh?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist, and Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination.

Who remembers that but the wonks? Republicans are the obstructionists, everyone knows that and holding up Obama's nomination will only serve to reinforce that perception going into the election.

LMAO !!!! You can whimper and play that card if it makes you feel any better, it's so very typical of the left when confronted with the contrary. Tissue ??

 

[paperview]

"saveliberty said: ↑
Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term. Unless you are going to allow Obama a third term...

... Yes, let's not go there. "

Yeah, you shouldn't cause you just made an even bigger fool of yourself.

 

[Camp]

The Republicans have to, in effect, say "we aren't going to let the president exercise his Constitutional powers, we reserve those powers to Congress".

This of course is a breech of the separation of powers between the branches of government. The president should just start nominating whoever he wants immediately and make them hold hearings and reject them one after the other. The Republicans seem to love holding hearings and holding useless votes over and over so let's line em up and let these anti-American anti-democracy losers do what they want to do so it is recorded and in plain view for the entire country.

If the Republicans do try to block this appointment then the Democrats should simply not work with them on anything. ANYTHING. In Congress. Vote down everything the Republican'ts want to do.

Cons this is what you seem to want so I say the Democrats should shove it down your throats until their fingers find your colon.

For the least eighty years a lame duck president has not submitted a nominee for the Supreme Court. As a lifetime appointment all have decided it was best to have the soon to be president make that choice. A Democrat could win and their agenda might need interpretation through the court as well. It is a time honored approach and a very practical one too.

You sound desperate IsaccNewton, scared out of your mind.

This link disagrees with your conclusion and provides details. It also goes back further than 80 years. I have been able to find nothing from an objective source (or otherwise) that indicates what you claim about Presidents voluntarily withholding a nomination as some kind of tradition or any other reason.
Perhaps you can provide a link that counters this one?

scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

The link does no such thing. The three presidents for the last 80 years in question are Eisenhower (nominated in his first term confirmed in his second); F Roosevelt (same deal between terms 2 and 3); Reagan (between first and terms).

You used a blog?

You are claiming a tradition exist and the SCOTUS Blog shows that no such tradition exist.