Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[JimH52]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

It is his duty to nominate a Judge and it is the Senate's duty to consider the nomination with a Hearing. If the Senate does not, they have fallen short of their constitutional responsibility and need to be voted out of office.

 

[JimH52]

He should save himself the effort

If a Repub was in the WH, you would be screaming for them to nominate someone. Carson admitted as much.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[OldLady]

Is it my imagination or is Donald Trump looking more Orange than usual...does he have "John Boehner Syndrome".....

This is a Trump?

No but it Trumps the Bible as a source document for a Legal system

Well said.

 

[JimH52]

Right there in 3 Corinthians!

 

[Boss]

...denying Obama his Constitutional authority to seat justices during recess.

The president doesn't get to seat justices without the advice and consent of Congress... sorry... that sounds like Cuba or Russia maybe?

The Constitution says otherwise. But that's ok, I don't expect you to understand.

No, the constitution says "the president shall appoint with advice and consent of congress."

AND... Congress can simply ignore any appointee he names like he ignores the law.

Dumbfuck -- they can't ignore the process. They don't have to confirm a nominee, but they are Constitutionally mandated to consider every nominee.

WTF is wrong with you rightards? Why do you hate the Constitution??

No they're not constitutionally obligated to any such thing. They are obligated to advise and consent but there is no time constraint for that. They can take as long as they please and then reject whomever is nominated. I think they should deploy the Hillary Clinton Strategy here... obfuscate... delay... stall... maybe lie a little bit about how hard they are working to get it done... stall a little more... delay... obfuscate... stall... have a press conference every couple of months to assure everyone they are working on it... stall some more... delay... obfuscate. It seems to work wonders for her.

 

[Boss]

It is his duty to nominate a Judge and it is the Senate's duty to consider the nomination with a Hearing.

No it's NOT. It's up to the Senate Judiciary Committee comprised of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats to approve any nominee and move their name to the Senate for consideration. They can take as long as they like and they can reject the nominee without ever bringing them to the Senate for a vote.

 

[Boss]

He should save himself the effort

If a Repub was in the WH, you would be screaming for them to nominate someone. Carson admitted as much.

Well let's use that scenario.. Imagine it's 2008 and Ruth Bater Nutbag croaks just as the Democrats are poised to nominate their messiah and the beleaguered Bush decides to take this opportunity to nominate a hard core conservative to replace her... you'd be alright with that? Wouldn't be any resistance at all from the left on his pick? You'd all be fine and dandy with it because he is president and it's his choice to make? That's what you are telling us with a straight face?

 

[Faun]

...denying Obama his Constitutional authority to seat justices during recess.

The president doesn't get to seat justices without the advice and consent of Congress... sorry... that sounds like Cuba or Russia maybe?

The Constitution says otherwise. But that's ok, I don't expect you to understand.

No, the constitution says "the president shall appoint with advice and consent of congress."

AND... Congress can simply ignore any appointee he names like he ignores the law.

Dumbfuck -- they can't ignore the process. They don't have to confirm a nominee, but they are Constitutionally mandated to consider every nominee.

WTF is wrong with you rightards? Why do you hate the Constitution??

No they're not constitutionally obligated to any such thing. They are obligated to advise and consent but there is no time constraint for that. They can take as long as they please and then reject whomever is nominated. I think they should deploy the Hillary Clinton Strategy here... obfuscate... delay... stall... maybe lie a little bit about how hard they are working to get it done... stall a little more... delay... obfuscate... stall... have a press conference every couple of months to assure everyone they are working on it... stall some more... delay... obfuscate. It seems to work wonders for her.

What you describe is not their plan, so your post is worthless. They say they will not advise and consent any of the president's nominees. That flies in the face of the Constitution you hate which says that is their job.

 

[Faun]

It is his duty to nominate a Judge and it is the Senate's duty to consider the nomination with a Hearing.

No it's NOT.

The Constitution says it is. Why on Earth would anyone take the word of a deranged moron like you over the words in the Constitution?

 

[Faun]

He should save himself the effort

If a Repub was in the WH, you would be screaming for them to nominate someone. Carson admitted as much.

Well let's use that scenario.. Imagine it's 2008 and Ruth Bater Nutbag croaks just as the Democrats are poised to nominate their messiah and the beleaguered Bush decides to take this opportunity to nominate a hard core conservative to replace her... you'd be alright with that? Wouldn't be any resistance at all from the left on his pick? You'd all be fine and dandy with it because he is president and it's his choice to make? That's what you are telling us with a straight face?

Keep dreaming up hypotheticals while denying the current reality.

 

[Boss]

What you describe is not their plan, so your post is worthless. They say they will not advise and consent any of the president's nominees. That flies in the face of the Constitution you hate which says that is their job.

Oh, they will advise Obama that they don't intend to give consent.

 

[Boss]

It is his duty to nominate a Judge and it is the Senate's duty to consider the nomination with a Hearing.

No it's NOT.

The Constitution says it is. Why on Earth would anyone take the word of a deranged moron like you over the words in the Constitution?

Maybe you should READ the constitution and see what it actually says. They are not obligated to do anything in any time frame. The Senate doesn't hold a hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee does that... Jim said "it's the Senate's duty" and that's what I objected to... it is NOT the Senate's duty to consider anything until the SJC holds their hearing which they can take all the time in the world to do... there is no time limit imposed by the Constitution.

 

[JimH52]

The president doesn't get to seat justices without the advice and consent of Congress... sorry... that sounds like Cuba or Russia maybe?

The Constitution says otherwise. But that's ok, I don't expect you to understand.

No, the constitution says "the president shall appoint with advice and consent of congress."

AND... Congress can simply ignore any appointee he names like he ignores the law.

Dumbfuck -- they can't ignore the process. They don't have to confirm a nominee, but they are Constitutionally mandated to consider every nominee.

WTF is wrong with you rightards? Why do you hate the Constitution??

No they're not constitutionally obligated to any such thing. They are obligated to advise and consent but there is no time constraint for that. They can take as long as they please and then reject whomever is nominated. I think they should deploy the Hillary Clinton Strategy here... obfuscate... delay... stall... maybe lie a little bit about how hard they are working to get it done... stall a little more... delay... obfuscate... stall... have a press conference every couple of months to assure everyone they are working on it... stall some more... delay... obfuscate. It seems to work wonders for her.

What you describe is not their plan, so your post is worthless. They say they will not advise and consent any of the president's nominees. That flies in the face of the Constitution you hate which says that is their job.

They say they want to expand their tent and yet they keep blocking, even the consensus picks of the nation's First Black President. If Obama nominates someone that the Senate has unanimously approved to an Appeals Court already, how will McConnell deny that person a fair hearing? They will prove to the country's voters that the members of the GOP are obstructionist. You realize the GOP dies a little more each time it pulls one of these tricks?

 

[Faun]

What you describe is not their plan, so your post is worthless. They say they will not advise and consent any of the president's nominees. That flies in the face of the Constitution you hate which says that is their job.

Oh, they will advise Obama that they don't intend to give consent.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're so fucking deranged, you just admitted they are shirking their Constitutional obligations; only you're too deranged to realize it.

If they're not giving their consent no matter what -- then they are not "advising and consenting."

 

[Faun]

It is his duty to nominate a Judge and it is the Senate's duty to consider the nomination with a Hearing.

No it's NOT.

The Constitution says it is. Why on Earth would anyone take the word of a deranged moron like you over the words in the Constitution?

Maybe you should READ the constitution and see what it actually says. They are not obligated to do anything in any time frame. The Senate doesn't hold a hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee does that... Jim said "it's the Senate's duty" and that's what I objected to... it is NOT the Senate's duty to consider anything until the SJC holds their hearing which they can take all the time in the world to do... there is no time limit imposed by the Constitution.

No, you should read the Constitution. The Constitution says it's the Senate's responsibility. How they choose to do it is another thing entirely, but the Constitution puts that responsibility on the Senate.

 

[Boss]

What you describe is not their plan, so your post is worthless. They say they will not advise and consent any of the president's nominees. That flies in the face of the Constitution you hate which says that is their job.

Oh, they will advise Obama that they don't intend to give consent.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're so fucking deranged, you just admitted they are shirking their Constitutional obligations; only you're too deranged to realize it.

If they're not giving their consent no matter what -- then they are not "advising and consenting."

Nope... you need to review what "advise and consent" means... it's not a synonym for "rubber stamp". They are fully and duly authorized to advise Obama he needs to nominate another candidate because they refuse to consent. Do you actually not know that the Senate has rejected more SCOTUS nominees than it has approved over the years?

 

[Boss]

No, you should read the Constitution. The Constitution says it's the Senate's responsibility. How they choose to do it is another thing entirely, but the Constitution puts that responsibility on the Senate.

No, it says it's the President's responsibility with advise and consent from the Senate. The process in the Senate calls for review by the Senate Judiciary Committee before anything is voted on by the Senate. AND... Congress can actually vote to reduce the number of justices on the court, if they so choose. They could convene a vote tomorrow and restrict the SCOTUS to seven justices and there would be no selection available to replace Scalia at all.

Maybe we need to start playing fucking hard ball with you idiots? I think some of you really do need some tough love here. You need someone to snatch a knot in your asses and get you on the same page as everyone who is sane. You've won a couple of elections and think you're fucking dictators or something and we really do need to get you straightened out about some things before we wind up in a civil war.

 

[JimH52]

It will be unprecedented and beyond the pale for the GOP Senate to not hold hearings on an Obama nominee. And it makes for a Great DNC Campaign ad!

 

[Boss]

It will be unprecedented and beyond the pale for the GOP Senate to not hold hearings on an Obama nominee. And it makes for a Great DNC Campaign ad!

Again, the SENATE never holds these hearings... it's the Senate Judiciary Committee. They can take as much time as they please to do so, there is no time limit for this. The Senate is powerless until the SJC moves the candidate to the floor for consideration. If and when that happens, the Republicans can invoke the filibuster and require a super majority for cloture. There is plenty of precedent for that, the Senate has filibustered nominees before.

As for "campaign ads" ....that's fine... it's perfectly acceptable to make this a campaign issue. The GOP candidate may create their own ads regarding this very important seat on the court. Do you want a liberal ideologue or avowed Socialist making this appointment?