Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[eagle1462010]

Senate Judiciary Committee in session for Obama pick.

 

[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."

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?

You remain completely fucking deranged.

I said nothing about a "rubber stamp."

It's like English isn't your first language.

Or your second.

Or even your third.

 

[Faun]

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.

Your derangement worsens.

I say, "the Constitution puts that responsibility [advise and consent] on the Senate."

And you respond with, "no, it says it's the President's responsibility with advise and consent from the Senate."

...which of course, is what I just said.

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.

Like I said ... you're completely fucking deranged.

 

[Faun]

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?

Time limits have nothing to do with this debate. Republicans have said they will not advise & consent on any of Obama's nominees. Since they don't want to do their job, hopefully the voters will accommodate them in November.

 

[Boss]

Time limits have nothing to do with this debate. Republicans have said they will not advise & consent on any of Obama's nominees. Since they don't want to do their job, hopefully the voters will accommodate them in November.

I've simply not heard a single republican say they wouldn't advise and consent. I've heard them say they would reject any nominee. However, rejecting falls under advising. It's also withholding consent. "Advise and consent" doesn't infer they MUST consent... that would completely nullify any advising and would simply be a redundant formality that made no sense to even have. "Advise and consent" means that the president can't act alone to appoint a justice... he must have the blessing of the Senate. If the Senate doesn't feel compelled to consent, they don't have to.... they often don't. In this case, they certainly won't because Obama is not going to nominate another Scalia... IF he does, then maybe they will consent?

 

[Faun]

Time limits have nothing to do with this debate. Republicans have said they will not advise & consent on any of Obama's nominees. Since they don't want to do their job, hopefully the voters will accommodate them in November.

I've simply not heard a single republican say they wouldn't advise and consent. I've heard them say they would reject any nominee. However, rejecting falls under advising. It's also withholding consent. "Advise and consent" doesn't infer they MUST consent... that would completely nullify any advising and would simply be a redundant formality that made no sense to even have. "Advise and consent" means that the president can't act alone to appoint a justice... he must have the blessing of the Senate. If the Senate doesn't feel compelled to consent, they don't have to.... they often don't. In this case, they certainly won't because Obama is not going to nominate another Scalia... IF he does, then maybe they will consent?

Of course you haven't. You struggle with English. The Senate does not have to consent but they can't consent if they shut down the confirmation process. If they paint themselves into a corner where they can't consent, then they are violating the Constitution which states their responsibility is to advise and consent.

 

[Boss]

Of course you haven't. You struggle with English. The Senate does not have to consent but they can't consent if they shut down the confirmation process. If they paint themselves into a corner where they can't consent, then they are violating the Constitution which states their responsibility is to advise and consent.

No one has suggested shutting down the process. I think they should USE the process. Run that clock! Take as much time as humanly possible to vet his nominee.... then... reject them and start the process over.

 

[Faun]

Of course you haven't. You struggle with English. The Senate does not have to consent but they can't consent if they shut down the confirmation process. If they paint themselves into a corner where they can't consent, then they are violating the Constitution which states their responsibility is to advise and consent.

No one has suggested shutting down the process. I think they should USE the process. Run that clock! Take as much time as humanly possible to vet his nominee.... then... reject them and start the process over.

In all honesty, who gives a flying fuck what you think they should do? I care about what they say they are going to do. And Republicans have already declared they will not allow Obama to appoint a replacement for Scalia's seat.

A political manuever, by the way, which doesn't get a whole lot of support. Rasmussen, a conservative pollster, reflects respondents are against Republicans not allowing any Obama nominee to even be considered by a margin of 53% to 35%.

Should Scalia’s Replacement Be Obama’s Choice? - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Boss]

Of course you haven't. You struggle with English. The Senate does not have to consent but they can't consent if they shut down the confirmation process. If they paint themselves into a corner where they can't consent, then they are violating the Constitution which states their responsibility is to advise and consent.

No one has suggested shutting down the process. I think they should USE the process. Run that clock! Take as much time as humanly possible to vet his nominee.... then... reject them and start the process over.

In all honesty, who gives a flying fuck what you think they should do? I care about what they say they are going to do. And Republicans have already declared they will not allow Obama to appoint a replacement for Scalia's seat.

A political manuever, by the way, which doesn't get a whole lot of support. Rasmussen, a conservative pollster, reflects respondents are against Republicans not allowing any Obama nominee to even be considered by a margin of 53% to 35%.

Should Scalia’s Replacement Be Obama’s Choice? - Rasmussen Reports™

Hey, I am with the 53%... it should be his choice! I haven't said he shouldn't get to make a choice. If it were a Republican, I would say the same thing. But Obama will have to select someone in the mold of Scalia which he's not very likely to do. If he doesn't, his selection needs to be rejected.

 

[Borillar]

Yes, this President should do as the Constitution says he should do, and appoint a replacement for Scalia.

The next President will already have 3 justices to replace....4 is way too many for one sitting President, for the court to not be considered politically "stacked"....

I would like to see a Moderate, with no political allegiances as they are suppose to be...not too young so they are not on the court the next 50 years, and a female to get the court closer to gender even, but a good moderate male would be good as well...

Moderate from Obama..............LOL

I hope Obama nominates someone as liberal as Scalia was conservative. Kind of like the GOP did when they replaced Thurgood Marshall with Uncle Thomas.

 

[Searcher44]

Why bother?

The Senate does not seem in a mood to ratify anyone that His Imperial Majesty is likely to offer up as a nominee...

Depends, he might just offer up a nominee who is barely acceptable to his base and is a constitutional scholar with a few years on a fed court and was unanimously approved by R.s and D.s in Congress. Obama hasn't done much that has thrilled the progressives in the Party. One last parting shot to assure himself of hundreds of millions in corporate speaking fees and book deals and Board of Governor jobs would put the final nail in his coffin as that fake progressive advertised 8 yrs. ago.
Call me a cynic. Let's see him make a bold move for a change and actually throw all the weight of the Presidency behind a real liberal Constitutionalist and fight like a pitbull to get him or her through Congress. HA! That'll be the day. But we all know that's what a Conservative president would do, if you deny that you're lying to yourself and everyone else.

 

[Boss]

I hope Obama nominates someone as liberal as Scalia was conservative.

I agree with you 100% ... I hope he nominates the biggest left-wing loon he can find! The Senate Judiciary Committee includes Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions... and they will hold said liberal in committee for months and months, going over every ruling and every aspect of that loon's life... They will insist on a lengthy drawn out hearing where they can ask all sorts of questions to expose just how radical the loon is, and after running months and months of clock... summarily reject them. I think that is the best case scenario.

The REAL problem is going to be if Obama nominates a supposed "conservative" or "moderate" and there isn't enough record for the SJC to evaluate. Then, if that person goes to the floor, establishment GOPers can form their Gang of Whatever and overturn a filibuster to approve Obama's pick before the election.

 

[Meathead]

Short of nominating a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, ain't nothing gonna happen.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

Better than someone who thinks we need to put an adjective in front of the word "Rape" to justify crazy abortion views.

Grassley is already walking back the "No way" position.

Point is, there's no precedent for denying an appointment to the next presidency. Goodbye Conservative SCOTUS, hello Legal Sanity.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree with you 100% ... I hope he nominates the biggest left-wing loon he can find! The Senate Judiciary Committee includes Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions... and they will hold said liberal in committee for months and months, going over every ruling and every aspect of that loon's life... They will insist on a lengthy drawn out hearing where they can ask all sorts of questions to expose just how radical the loon is, and after running months and months of clock... summarily reject them. I think that is the best case scenario.

You're right. They'll talk about all those crazy views.
Like women should control their own bodies.
And crazy people shouldn't be able to buy guns.
And rich people shouldn't be able to buy politicians
And we shouldn't execute people when proof emerges that they didn't do it.

You know, all those "sane" views of Tony the Big Tuna Scalia, who is thankfully taking that well-deserved dirt nap right now.

 

[Kondor3]

...Point is, there's no precedent for denying an appointment to the next presidency...

Imaginative lawmakers do not require a precedent... they set precedents... after all, each and every precedent was 'new' once upon a time.

...Goodbye Conservative SCOTUS, hello Legal Sanity.

No... somehow, I don't think so.

Obama will nominate.

The Senate will procrastinate.

Recent liberally-focused 'judicial activism' on the part of the Supreme Court is responsible in part for the Populist Rebellion we see unfolding.

Republican lawmakers know this, and will quite possibly find ways to drag this out for a very long time, and then to reject the nomination.

They also know that vast numbers of Americans will see such procrastination merely as a defensive tactic, to prevent a runaway Flaming Liberal high court.

An endeavor that those vast numbers of Americans are likely to support.

So... the Republicans in the Senate will stall a vote, for as long as possible, then reject the nominee.

And then?

Rinse and repeat... until January 20, 2017.

Will that scenario actually materialize?

Dunno.

But it seems likely at the moment... all the teenage Liberal angst in the world notwithstanding.

Checks and balances...

Checks and balances.

 

[JoeB131]

...Point is, there's no precedent for denying an appointment to the next presidency...

Imaginative lawmakers do not require a precedent... they set precedents... after all, each and every precedent was 'new' once upon a time.

...Goodbye Conservative SCOTUS, hello Legal Sanity.

No... somehow, I don't think so.

Obama will nominate.

The Senate will procrastinate.

Recent liberally-focused 'judicial activism' on the part of the Supreme Court is responsible in part for the Populist Rebellion we see unfolding.

Republican lawmakers know this, and will quite possibly find ways to drag this out for a very long time, and then to reject the nomination.

They also know that vast numbers of Americans will see such procrastination merely as a defensive tactic, to prevent a runaway Flaming Liberal high court.

An endeavor that those vast numbers of Americans are likely to support.

So... the Republicans in the Senate will stall a vote, for as long as possible, then reject the nominee.

And then?

Rinse and repeat... until January 20, 2017.

Will that scenario actually materialize?

Dunno.

But it seems likely at the moment... all the teenage Liberal angst in the world notwithstanding.

Checks and balances...

Checks and balances.

Like I said, guy. All Obama has to do is nominate an Asian American female that the Senate overwealmingly approved for an Appeals Court appointment. Old white guys picking on an Asian woman, it's going to remind everyone who the Republicans are- the party of mean old white men.

Then they'll fold like a cheap suit.

 

[Kondor3]

...Then they'll fold like a cheap suit.

Hmmmmm... in any event, we're about to find out, who's right on this one.

 

[JimH52]

If the GOP does not hold a hearing on Obama's pick, they will thumb their nose at the black community for good. Forget enlarging the tent. You better hope white, racist families suddenly develop record procreation. DREAM ON!

The GOP wins the game of Justice Chicken, but they lose the war. The game of Chess with the GOP continues. Just a matter of time until checkmate, and no more GOP.

 

[JimH52]

I hope Obama nominates someone as liberal as Scalia was conservative.

I agree with you 100% ... I hope he nominates the biggest left-wing loon he can find! The Senate Judiciary Committee includes Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions... and they will hold said liberal in committee for months and months, going over every ruling and every aspect of that loon's life... They will insist on a lengthy drawn out hearing where they can ask all sorts of questions to expose just how radical the loon is, and after running months and months of clock... summarily reject them. I think that is the best case scenario.

The REAL problem is going to be if Obama nominates a supposed "conservative" or "moderate" and there isn't enough record for the SJC to evaluate. Then, if that person goes to the floor, establishment GOPers can form their Gang of Whatever and overturn a filibuster to approve Obama's pick before the election.

Of course you do. The GOP still has no excuse to block his nominee. They will pay at the voting booth.