Scalia question

[dannyboys]

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court NomineesThe Federalist‎

The question isn't whether the Senate can vote to reject a nominee, of course they can.

The question is should the Senate sit on it's ass for a year and do nothing with nominiees. Giving the Dem's political fodder to blast GOP candidates helping put Hillary in the White House and posibilty sifting control of the Senate to the Dems. Then you have Hillary making both nomination with a friendly liberal Senate.

You can bet if Hillary wins, the Ginsburg will send in her notice of retirement and then Hillary gets to make two back to back appointments.


>>>>

You have to consider that there are millions hard-core REP voters and possibly many Independents who under no circumstance what to see Obama but a LIB SGJ on the bench. They see everything Obama has done in office as an attack on REP values. These voters are going to be delighted to watch the Senate be far too 'busy busy busy' to even put any Obama nomination on a discussion schedule until after the next inauguration day.
It will all come down to which party wins the election. As it stands now the Sanders supporters will never in a million years turn out to vote for Hillary after the DNC hands the nomination to Hillary. The DNC and Hillary has totally alienated the entire 18-35 DEM voter demographic and they won't get them back as long as Hillary is the nomination.
Meaning Trump and his majority REP Senate will put the next 3-4 young SGJs on the bench for the next five decades.

The hard core voters aren't in question as they don't decide elections. It's the 20% voting block in the middle that will shift that actually decide elections. The GOP being seen as childish and obstructionist can push them to voting for Hillary in the general. Then she gets to make not only the Scalia appointment but you can bank on Ginsburg retiring shortly thereafter and she will appoint a second.

I'd rather have a moderate now make it through Senate confirmation and then a shot at a Republican in the White House with a Republican Senate then the GOP acting like children and ending up with a Democrat in the White House with a Democrat Senate.


>>>>

The odds that 95% of the LIB 18-35 year old demographic who are fervid Sander's supporters will turn out to vote for Hillary don't exist in reality.
Sanders is NEVER going to tell these millennials to go vote for Hillary. Even if he did he then would be condemned as a sell-out.
No. The party's over for the DEMs this election cycle.
Debbie is about to fall on her sword.
It's beyond too late for Biden to come hobbling into the race.
The DEMs are having to toss the election into file Thirteen.
The Senate is going to 'run out the clock' on any nomination Obama puts up.
Someone tell Debbie to turn out the lights on the way out the door.
Did I mention the multiple felony charges against Hillary are just waiting for the ink to dry.
The FBI sent each charge to multiple private law firms and had them check every word and dot to make positive the charges are 110% legally watertight.
The day when Hillary announces she is quitting for 'health reasons' is the day she is tipped off that in 10 days the men in suits are going to be 'perp-walking' her out of her mansion.
This will coincide nicely with Debbie's resignation.
Then it will up to Bernie to take the fall against Trump.
The LIB millennials will NEVER forget the bloodbath dear old Bernie stepped into when he went against the Clinton Machine!
Bernie will NOT go quietly into the night as far as what he sees as a set-up by the DNC.
If Debbie had any integrity she would have told Bernie months ago to stay home and knit a fucking sweater.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Scalia was the face of the defense of the Second Amendment. No one was stronger.
We now face a situation where the Second Amendment COULD be at it's most vulnerable position in decades.

 

[Auld Phart]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

The next president will be making Supreme Court appointments reflecting the will of the people who voted in 2016; the Scalia vacancy is the responsibility of the current president, reflecting the will of the people who reelected him in 2012.

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

That is not partisan.
It's the Senates right to be able to hold up nominations that they don't approve.
It is called checks and balances so that either party can't do a total control of each others ideologies.
Now if the Senate was still the majority of Dems then it would be legal.
The people elected a Majority of Repubs into the house and Senate in order to block most of Obamas far left policies.

actually Peach, it is very partisan in the way the republicans ANNOUNCED that they would not vet or vote on anyone that Obama appointed, BEFORE the Senate even knew who the nominee would be...

they showed their PARTISAN HAND, upfront....less than 12 hours of Scalia being dead...

pretty stupid of them...to show their 'partisan' cards upfront...they could have kept their mouths shut, seen who the nominee appointed was, vetted them, then deny the vote or vote them down.......

but nooooooooo, they had to make circus clowns out of themselves....such idiots as they are........

again

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on 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"

Why is it wrong now, and it wasn't wrong in 1987?

 

[dannyboys]

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

And who is it that nominates Supreme Court justices? The sitting POTUS. Who is the sitting POTUS?

no one is stopping him from nominating anyone

come on you are smarter then this

The Republicans are stopping him, they got inside his head.

Lol!

Obama doesn't have the guts to nominate someone he knows doesn't have a chance.
This is when you think about it the most perfect example of the Classic Obama' we have all come to despise. His "lead from behind" worldview means he'll NEVER personally go out on a limb. His style is to drag his fucking feet until someone around him makes a decision. If they make the right decision he'll take the credit. If they fuck up he can always say he 'wasn't home at the time'.
He's been doing this his entire life.
Now he's in a tight spot. We'll watch him fucking twist in the wind for months. The DNC will be doing polling daily to see which way the political wind is blowing. If Obama's inaction is costing votes? Is it getting votes? Are the REPs winning the debate over waiting on a nomination?
I predict right here Obama will appoint a 'select committee' to find a suitable SGJ candidate. (Even though they have has the short-short short list at hand for seven plus years for such an eventuality as a SGJ's death.)
With any luck his committee will take until the middle of next January.

 

[Auld Phart]

It's a real shame that the SC is not thought of as unbiased any more, and we the people have a SC that is considered partisan on all of their critical rulings....


And boy oh boy have the Republicans made sure of that this past decade....

Precisely NOT what our Founders wanted, and the OPPOSITE of what it should be with our Justices.

You are a hateful group of people.

It's a real shame that the SC is not thought of as unbiased any more, and we the people have a SC that is considered partisan on all of their critical rulings....

When was it unbiased?

 

[Auld Phart]

No President has nominated a SCJ in that President's last year in office in 80 years.

Reagan's nomination of Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988, Reagan left office in January 1989.


>>>>

His last YEAR in office was 1988

 

[dannyboys]

Scalia was the face of the defense of the Second Amendment. No one was stronger.
We now face a situation where the Second Amendment COULD be at it's most vulnerable position in decades.

Relax. There's no chance the REP controlled Senate will EVER even put any Obama nomination even on a discussion schedule until next January. None ZIP!
what must happen is the election of TRUMP. Then the REPs can put 3-4 radical LIB SGJ on the bench for decades to come. There really is a GOD.

 

[dannyboys]

This is EXACTLY why Trump and Sanders are hijacking the presidential race. People don't like it--watch out, super conservatives. I have been entirely open, up to now, in considering a Republican as my vote for president in November. I absolutely, positively will NOT vote for any candidate who opposes even considering the president's nomination. I'm only one, but I'm not alone. I DO NOT SEE why a nominee can't be considered and voted down, if not acceptable.

Luckily Republicans can't win. Voters will see them for what they are. We welcome scalias timing.

Right now the DNC is plotting away

As long as the Senate stays in session the fucking DNC can 'plot' all they want. There is ZERO they can do to circumvent the US CONSTITUTION. ZERO!
You really believe the REP voters waiting to elect a REP President are going to somehow have a problem with the REP controlled Senate upholding the Constitution?
Wise up.
Don't forget the number of declared LIB voters in the 18-35 demographic will NEVER turn out to vote for Cankles the female enabler for Bill Clinton's years of sexual predation against innocent females. When Clinton gets handed the nomination 95% of this demographic are going to stay home. A small percent of them will vote for Trump.
The DNC is totally fucked now.
They are going to have to watch President Trump put 3 of 4 radical young Conservatives on the SC. The REP controlled Senate will gleefully rubber stamp Trump's nominees.
Aside: I hear Debbie's days are now numbered. BTW. I give her one month left from today before she jumps instead of being publicly pushed.
SHE was the MAIN driving force behind doing whatever was necessary to get Hillary the nomination. She fucked up big-time in the opinion of a LOT of very powerful DNC backroom boys and girls.
They wanted Biden. He was willing privately. It was Debbie who basically told him to back off.
The original ticket was going to be Biden with 'Pocahontas' Warren as running mate.
Trump will be President for two terms. The Senate and Congress and SC will be fucking wall-to-wall REPS for at least a decade.
By then the LIBs will have changed their name as often as a crack whore changes her panties.

We will nominate a justice who is a moderate and if your side objects you'll have to explain why. I welcome the conversation.

The stakes have never been higher and I feel confident.

How do you know that Obama will pick a moderate?

If he doesn't the person won't get approved.

And history tells me Obama ain't a liberal. Now Bernie, that's a liberal.

Obama could nominate Donald Rumsfeld and the Senate wouldn't even put the nomination on a discussion schedule until January.
Some of you all aren't getting at the heart of the matter.
This is 'payback time' for the Senate. They hold every fucking card in the deck and Obama and the DNC have ZERO cards.
Obama and the DNC are fucked. The way Obama acted in the last 7+ years with such open disdain and disregard for Congress and the Senate has consequences.
Hey Obama! You reap what you sow asshole!

 

[Wyatt earp]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

????

The recent election kicked the democrats to the back of the bus in the senate, ya know the one Obama said his policys were on the table.

Midterm. Get ready for another general election trouncing.

Hell, a Republican won't even be in the general election because they can't beat trump. How popular are the Republicans? They have no mandate

Yea we know the children will be out again voting for prom king or queen.

 

[IsaacNewton]

If the Republican'ts try to stall an appointment until a new president is seated the Democrats will block all attempted appointments by any Republican president from then on.

Republicans you need to understand what is going to happen. This is basically the end of democratic government here. You can't tell every other person in the country that you are going to do whatever you want all the time and no one else, even their elected officials, will have any say in anything.

If the GOP tries to block all Obama nominees, as Ted Cruz said he will, then the Democrats will respond in kind for ALL future attempts by any Republican president.

This shit doesn't just work one way. You are 8 year old children that constantly throw a tantrum if you don't get your way now. And that kind of childish behavior isn't going to fly in the real adult world. You better get your shit together.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

They can easily keep Obama from naming the next justice, simply don't confirm whatever unqualified Marxist he nominates.

So far Obama appointed one person purely on race and gender. Sonia Sotomayor is unquestionably the dumbest person to ever sit on the court. Then there is Elena Kagan, a white, Jewish Marxist. Much like Ginsberg, Kagan is dedicated to ending the United States. One more like her and the Bill of Rights will be declared unconstitutional.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What happens if a democrat gets elected president?

Then the Constitution is over.

 

[Iceweasel]

If the Republican'ts try to stall an appointment until a new president is seated the Democrats will block all attempted appointments by any Republican president from then on.

Republicans you need to understand what is going to happen. This is basically the end of democratic government here. You can't tell every other person in the country that you are going to do whatever you want all the time and no one else, even their elected officials, will have any say in anything.

If the GOP tries to block all Obama nominees, as Ted Cruz said he will, then the Democrats will respond in kind for ALL future attempts by any Republican president.

This shit doesn't just work one way. You are 8 year old children that constantly throw a tantrum if you don't get your way now. And that kind of childish behavior isn't going to fly in the real adult world. You better get your shit together.

Hey moron, the dims put a hit job out on Bork and Thomas and obama is the one acting like a petulant child. Grow up and face the real world.

 

[Care4all]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

The next president will be making Supreme Court appointments reflecting the will of the people who voted in 2016; the Scalia vacancy is the responsibility of the current president, reflecting the will of the people who reelected him in 2012.

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

That is not partisan.
It's the Senates right to be able to hold up nominations that they don't approve.
It is called checks and balances so that either party can't do a total control of each others ideologies.
Now if the Senate was still the majority of Dems then it would be legal.
The people elected a Majority of Repubs into the house and Senate in order to block most of Obamas far left policies.

actually Peach, it is very partisan in the way the republicans ANNOUNCED that they would not vet or vote on anyone that Obama appointed, BEFORE the Senate even knew who the nominee would be...

they showed their PARTISAN HAND, upfront....less than 12 hours of Scalia being dead...

pretty stupid of them...to show their 'partisan' cards upfront...they could have kept their mouths shut, seen who the nominee appointed was, vetted them, then deny the vote or vote them down.......

but nooooooooo, they had to make circus clowns out of themselves....such idiots as they are........

again

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on 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"

Why is it wrong now, and it wasn't wrong in 1987?

Except the Senate did not do that, did they? They accepted Ronald Reagan's nominee and thoroughly vetted him, and approved him as Justice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If the Republican'ts try to stall an appointment until a new president is seated the Democrats will block all attempted appointments by any Republican president from then on.

They will anyway, they always do.

But the GOP will still have the majority of both houses so the obstruction of the dems won't mean much.

Republicans you need to understand what is going to happen. This is basically the end of democratic government here. You can't tell every other person in the country that you are going to do whatever you want all the time and no one else, even their elected officials, will have any say in anything.

If the GOP tries to block all Obama nominees, as Ted Cruz said he will, then the Democrats will respond in kind for ALL future attempts by any Republican president.

This shit doesn't just work one way. You are 8 year old children that constantly throw a tantrum if you don't get your way now. And that kind of childish behavior isn't going to fly in the real adult world. You better get your shit together.

Utter bullshit and idiocy.

dims attacks Robert Bork and stalled nearly 3 years to keep Reagan from appointing a justice. They eventually failed, but they delayed years.

The normal process would run us through the election cycle. IF Obama were a man, he would decline to nominate, but he is a worm, so he will attempt to stuff the court with another America hating Marxist like Kagan.

 

[Iceweasel]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

The next president will be making Supreme Court appointments reflecting the will of the people who voted in 2016; the Scalia vacancy is the responsibility of the current president, reflecting the will of the people who reelected him in 2012.

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

That is not partisan.
It's the Senates right to be able to hold up nominations that they don't approve.
It is called checks and balances so that either party can't do a total control of each others ideologies.
Now if the Senate was still the majority of Dems then it would be legal.
The people elected a Majority of Repubs into the house and Senate in order to block most of Obamas far left policies.

actually Peach, it is very partisan in the way the republicans ANNOUNCED that they would not vet or vote on anyone that Obama appointed, BEFORE the Senate even knew who the nominee would be...

they showed their PARTISAN HAND, upfront....less than 12 hours of Scalia being dead...

pretty stupid of them...to show their 'partisan' cards upfront...they could have kept their mouths shut, seen who the nominee appointed was, vetted them, then deny the vote or vote them down.......

but nooooooooo, they had to make circus clowns out of themselves....such idiots as they are........

again

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on 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"

Why is it wrong now, and it wasn't wrong in 1987?

Except the Senate did not do that, did they? They accepted Ronald Reagan's nominee and thoroughly vetted him, and approved him as Justice.

They stalled for months until they no longer could. What's good for the goose ....

 

[Auld Phart]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

The next president will be making Supreme Court appointments reflecting the will of the people who voted in 2016; the Scalia vacancy is the responsibility of the current president, reflecting the will of the people who reelected him in 2012.

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

That is not partisan.
It's the Senates right to be able to hold up nominations that they don't approve.
It is called checks and balances so that either party can't do a total control of each others ideologies.
Now if the Senate was still the majority of Dems then it would be legal.
The people elected a Majority of Repubs into the house and Senate in order to block most of Obamas far left policies.

actually Peach, it is very partisan in the way the republicans ANNOUNCED that they would not vet or vote on anyone that Obama appointed, BEFORE the Senate even knew who the nominee would be...

they showed their PARTISAN HAND, upfront....less than 12 hours of Scalia being dead...

pretty stupid of them...to show their 'partisan' cards upfront...they could have kept their mouths shut, seen who the nominee appointed was, vetted them, then deny the vote or vote them down.......

but nooooooooo, they had to make circus clowns out of themselves....such idiots as they are........

again

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on 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"

Why is it wrong now, and it wasn't wrong in 1987?

Except the Senate did not do that, did they? They accepted Ronald Reagan's nominee and thoroughly vetted him, and approved him as Justice.

They accepted his THIRD nominee, in 1987, not 1988.

They Borked Bork, and shot down Ginsberg, before he went with 'moderate' Kennedy.

he was finally appointed in 1988.

The same could happen this year.

and remember, so far the record for nominee for one chair is 9.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Except the Senate did not do that, did they? They accepted Ronald Reagan's nominee and thoroughly vetted him, and approved him as Justice.

After they had Borked the Nation for 3 years, they were spent. The country was fed up with the dims.

 

[Care4all]

The next President will likely have 3-4 Supreme Court appointments over their 8 year term, to appoint.

The next president will be making Supreme Court appointments reflecting the will of the people who voted in 2016; the Scalia vacancy is the responsibility of the current president, reflecting the will of the people who reelected him in 2012.

Americans who voted to reelect the president expect their votes to be respected, they have a right to their votes being respected and acknowledged, not ignored and discarded for capricious partisan reasons.

That is not partisan.
It's the Senates right to be able to hold up nominations that they don't approve.
It is called checks and balances so that either party can't do a total control of each others ideologies.
Now if the Senate was still the majority of Dems then it would be legal.
The people elected a Majority of Repubs into the house and Senate in order to block most of Obamas far left policies.

actually Peach, it is very partisan in the way the republicans ANNOUNCED that they would not vet or vote on anyone that Obama appointed, BEFORE the Senate even knew who the nominee would be...

they showed their PARTISAN HAND, upfront....less than 12 hours of Scalia being dead...

pretty stupid of them...to show their 'partisan' cards upfront...they could have kept their mouths shut, seen who the nominee appointed was, vetted them, then deny the vote or vote them down.......

but nooooooooo, they had to make circus clowns out of themselves....such idiots as they are........

again

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on 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"

Why is it wrong now, and it wasn't wrong in 1987?

Except the Senate did not do that, did they? They accepted Ronald Reagan's nominee and thoroughly vetted him, and approved him as Justice.

Also, do you have the link to democrats doing what you said....

 

[Auld Phart]

You already thanked me for this one, I believe.

I know I've posted it often enough for everyone to have seen it.

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on 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; Democrats warned Reagan there would be a fight"