Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[HenryBHough]

Anybody got a transcript of how The Democrat Party robo-Senators interviewed Robert Bork?

It would save a lot of time to use repeat the same discussion with but minor name changes.

 

[nat4900]

Now, in this case, where the people will be making that choice for President in 8 months, it is not so far fetched to allow the people make that choice seeing as who they choose as president will pretty much determine the ideology of the next justice.

Partially correct....YET, the Constitution clearly states that the president (NOT a referendum of the people) nominates a justice....AND, Obama was RE-elected for FOUR years and not 3.

 

[nat4900]

Anybody got a transcript of how The Democrat Party robo-Senators interviewed Robert Bork?

It would save a lot of time to use repeat the same discussion with but minor name changes.

I've stated this before...Bork was rejected because he OPENLY stated that he was AGAINST the voting rights bill, AGAINST pro-choice for women, AGAINST the ACLU and because he backed Nixon during the Saturday Night's Massacre, if you're old enough to remember that.......

A nominated justice should show SOME impartiality and Bork was a staunch ideologue and that is why he was rejected.

 

[nat4900]

it will be argued politically but I don't see it as a big problem for the republicans.

I fully agree with the rest of your post except for the portion above.....Were that the case (that there's no problem for republicans), you would NOT have seen McConnell quickly state that the senate won't even entertain an Obama nominee......The spectacle of GOP senators bashing someone for little but political reasons, will NOT go over well for those senators running for re-election.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Now, in this case, where the people will be making that choice for President in 8 months, it is not so far fetched to allow the people make that choice seeing as who they choose as president will pretty much determine the ideology of the next justice.

Partially correct....YET, the Constitution clearly states that the president (NOT a referendum of the people) nominates a justice....AND, Obama was RE-elected for FOUR years and not 3.

And, the Constitution clearly states that the representives of the people--Congress--have authority to accept, or reject any nominee put forth by the president.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

it will be argued politically but I don't see it as a big problem for the republicans.

I fully agree with the rest of your post except for the portion above.....Were that the case (that there's no problem for republicans), you would NOT have seen McConnell quickly state that the senate won't even entertain an Obama nominee......The spectacle of GOP senators bashing someone for little but political reasons, will NOT go over well for those senators running for re-election.

That depends on whom they're bashing.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Anybody got a transcript of how The Democrat Party robo-Senators interviewed Robert Bork?

It would save a lot of time to use repeat the same discussion with but minor name changes.

I've stated this before...Bork was rejected because he OPENLY stated that he was AGAINST the voting rights bill, AGAINST pro-choice for women, AGAINST the ACLU and because he backed Nixon during the Saturday Night's Massacre, if you're old enough to remember that.......

A nominated justice should show SOME impartiality and Bork was a staunch ideologue and that is why he was rejected.

Justify the rejection however you wish, but that doesn't change the reality that a Republican Congress can also reject any nominee.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Anybody got a transcript of how The Democrat Party robo-Senators interviewed Robert Bork?

It would save a lot of time to use repeat the same discussion with but minor name changes.

https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/bork/hearing-pt1.pdf

 

[deaddogseye]

it will be argued politically but I don't see it as a big problem for the republicans.

I fully agree with the rest of your post except for the portion above.....Were that the case (that there's no problem for republicans), you would NOT have seen McConnell quickly state that the senate won't even entertain an Obama nominee......The spectacle of GOP senators bashing someone for little but political reasons, will NOT go over well for those senators running for re-election.

Could well be. The other side would suggest though that ANY GOP Senator who votes to confirm his appointee will face a primary challenge next tiome around. That may or not be true

 

[nat4900]

Could well be. The other side would suggest though that ANY GOP Senator who votes to confirm his appointee will face a primary challenge next tiome around. That may or not be true

Agreed !!!! ..and that is why I'm all for term limits instead of having elected partisan who ONLY worry about their reelection (with special interests "blackmailing them) instead of doing what their oaths state.

 

[Meathead]

Agreed !!!! ..and that is why I'm all for term limits instead of having elected partisan who ONLY worry about their reelection (with special interests "blackmailing them) instead of doing what their oaths state.

Non-starter

 

[Jarhead]

Now, in this case, where the people will be making that choice for President in 8 months, it is not so far fetched to allow the people make that choice seeing as who they choose as president will pretty much determine the ideology of the next justice.

Partially correct....YET, the Constitution clearly states that the president (NOT a referendum of the people) nominates a justice....AND, Obama was RE-elected for FOUR years and not 3.

Nominate? Yes. He swore to uphold the constitution. I support him nominating a candidate. But for him, or ANY elected official to criticize the senate for deeming it best for the people to be poart of this decision since the timing allows for it, I find a disturbing. No one can deny that it would be best for the appointee reflect the values of the current population and what better way to ensure that by allowing the upcoming election answer what the values of the current population is?

 

[Redfish]

Obama can nominate whoever he wants, the senate can have a vote or do nothing. that's what the constitution says.

Wrong on the last part......The Constitution does NOT state that the senate should "do nothing"....They're elected to do something including voting to NOT confirm a nominee....

McConnell and the other nitwits, just don't want the spectacle of shooting down a perfectly eligible Obama nominee...especially in an election year where 24 GOP senate seats need to be defended.

If Obama puts up a moderate or middle of the road constitutionalist he/she will probably get a vote, if he puts up a far left lesbian, pro choice, anti gun liberal there is not reason to waste time with hearings and a vote.

But we all know that Obama will not put up a moderate, he will find the most left leaning person he can and then try to make political headlines when that person is laughed out of the running.

 

[Redfish]

Obama can nominate whoever he wants, the senate can have a vote or do nothing. that's what the constitution says.

Wrong on the last part......The Constitution does NOT state that the senate should "do nothing"....They're elected to do something including voting to NOT confirm a nominee....

McConnell and the other nitwits, just don't want the spectacle of shooting down a perfectly eligible Obama nominee...especially in an election year where 24 GOP senate seats need to be defended.

The GOP is much more likely to lose seats if it allows a far left nominee a vote or hearings, If they were to confirm such a person the GOP would be over.

 

[Jarhead]

it will be argued politically but I don't see it as a big problem for the republicans.

I fully agree with the rest of your post except for the portion above.....Were that the case (that there's no problem for republicans), you would NOT have seen McConnell quickly state that the senate won't even entertain an Obama nominee......The spectacle of GOP senators bashing someone for little but political reasons, will NOT go over well for those senators running for re-election.

I suggest you reconsider who is acting politically....

A senate who says "the people will tell us who they want in the seat based on who they elect as president, be that President a democrat or a republican"....

or.....

A president who criticizes the senate for saying such a thing.

Now....think about it.

 

[deaddogseye]

also here is something on the first poll on this issue:

The country is split on how to handle the Supreme Court vacancy, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday. Forty-three percent of Americans believe the Senate should act this year on Obama's nominee; 42 percent favor waiting and letting his successor filling the opening; 15 percent have no opinion. President Obama has made clear that he expects the Senate hold a confirmation vote on his nominee.

If these numbers are correct and hold this is a big nothing burger and the next president will be filing the seat. Period

 

[deaddogseye]

it will be argued politically but I don't see it as a big problem for the republicans.

I fully agree with the rest of your post except for the portion above.....Were that the case (that there's no problem for republicans), you would NOT have seen McConnell quickly state that the senate won't even entertain an Obama nominee......The spectacle of GOP senators bashing someone for little but political reasons, will NOT go over well for those senators running for re-election.

I suggest you reconsider who is acting politically....

A senate who says "the people will tell us who they want in the seat based on who they elect as president, be that President a democrat or a republican"....

or.....

A president who criticizes the senate for saying such a thing.

Now....think about it.

I hadn't seen your response when I just posted but take a look at my post #496. All the constitutional argument pale by comparison

 

[foggedinn]

Yes, he should nominate a replacement sc justice.
I would prefer someone from the political arena. The court has moved beyond the people in too many areas.

 

[JoeB131]

I see you are one of those folks that is unable to discern between fact and spin.

What is it like to support party that sees you as a gullible fool?

No need to answer. Your post alone has eliminated any credibility you may have had in my eyes.

Hey, Dumbfuck, I was one of you right Wing Republicans, until I figured out that the GOP only works for the rich.

Seems the only "gullible" one here is you...brain in a jar...

 

[nat4900]

Nominate? Yes. He swore to uphold the constitution. I support him nominating a candidate. But for him, or ANY elected official to criticize the senate for deeming it best for the people to be poart of this decision since the timing allows for it, I find a disturbing. No one can deny that it would be best for the appointee reflect the values of the current population and what better way to ensure that by allowing the upcoming election answer what the values of the current population is?

I mostly agree....

However, I believe that Obama's criticism of the senate is NOT based on what their likely decision will be (not confirming the nominee)...rather, his criticism was based on McConnell's assertion that the senate wouldn't even hold hearings on the nominee.

Further, we can also say that Obama was re-elected for FOUR full years and his reelection WAS the will of the people....therefore, for another 11 months, Obama should do what he swore to do.