Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Jarhead]

LOL at you ignoring Trump and Romney making huge gains with what they were given. Self made millionaires? Try billionaires.

No, I don't ignore the fact Romney and Trump used their money to fuck over working people.

In fact, I think it's actually pretty fucked up, don't you?

Romney got rich, and Joe Soptic's wife died because Romney cancelled her insurance? Why are you cheering this?

Trump gets to build a gaudy casino, and Vera Coking loses her house.

This is the kind of thing you think is great? this is the kind of America Antonin Scalia thought was okay.

Once again, showing your knowledge of the spin and not the knowledge of the facts.

Romney did what he was supposed to do as a company that took over ailing companies and either stopped the bleeding or put it to rest before it bled out. When he stopped the bleeding, he saved many jobs. When the option was to put it to rest, he did what was going to happen anyway. They did not perform unfriendly takeovers. They bought companies up for sale that were marketplace viable but poorly run. Spin it anyway you want....but when they bought companies, they bought them to profit....no argument here.....some were not salvageable...and if they could not save them, certainly the original ownership that got them in trouble couldn't save them. That whole Joe Soptic's wife dying story was spun and designed to fool the simple minded voter.....I guess...and no disrespect meant.....like you.

Vera Coking lost her house because she knew it was a goldmine ad opted to hold out for as much as she can get. When Trump offered her a very solid market price, she held out for more. She took a gamble....and she lost. Again, that story was spun for the simplest of minds...those that put no thought into it and simply went with what made them feel "superior" to the evil successful business man. Are you one of them?

 

[hadit]

Great... so now we're going to have a re-borking of Bork?

Far from it.....Bork's is a boring topic......Only mentioned him to point out that he was one of the poorest nominee choices ever made.

You cannot treat a seat on the SCOTUS like you would for an ambassadorship to Lithuania.

Which is why Obama needs to nominate a justice with a sharp legal mind and a deep, sound understanding of the Constitution, not one that checks off the most grievance groups checkboxes.

 

[nat4900]

Which is why Obama needs to nominate a justice with a sharp legal mind and a deep, sound understanding of the Constitution, not one that checks off the most grievance groups checkboxes.

Agreed !!! Test a nominee's knowledge of the Constitution and wisdom in "interpreting" what the Founders implied in that document (I believe that the Constitution is a static and blueprint of how a democratic republic should be governed)........But the issue here is this:

Were Obama to indeed nominate someone of the above caliber, would politics supersede duty of the senate?

 

[Arizona Willie]

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.

========

The Constitution says in plain words that it is the responsibility of the President to nominate replacement Justices.

Republicans CLAIM to believe in and love the Constitution and they DEMAND it be followed to the letter --- when it benefits them --- but now they want to wipe their ass with the Constitution because they won't get their way if it is followed.

They can vote any and all nominees down.

But they would be showing their ass if they did that repeatedly.

They don't realize how childish and hypocritical they look to human beings with their current behavior.

 

[kaz]

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.

Don't give a shit if he nominates one, but the Republicans should not confirm one. Granted Republicans nominating justices is a coin flip. But a coin flip Republican nominee is better odds than a certain Democrat socialist who doesn't give a shit about anything but expanding government power nominee

 

[kaz]

Which is why Obama needs to nominate a justice with a sharp legal mind and a deep, sound understanding of the Constitution, not one that checks off the most grievance groups checkboxes.

Agreed !!! Test a nominee's knowledge of the Constitution and wisdom in "interpreting" what the Founders implied in that document (I believe that the Constitution is a static and blueprint of how a democratic republic should be governed)........But the issue here is this:

Were Obama to indeed nominate someone of the above caliber, would politics supersede duty of the senate?

You can read the Constitution? you can read at all? OK, what does the 10th amendment say?

 

[Arizona Willie]

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...

========

If the situation were reversed with a Rep President and a Dem Senate / Congress --- Republicans would DEFINITELY NOMINATE AN ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE.


So why shouldn't Obama follow his political ideology and nominate an ultra-liberal.


Especially since the Republicans have PUBLICALLY STATED they will vote down any nominee other than an ultra-conservative.

 

[kaz]

Especially since the Republicans have PUBLICALLY STATED they will vote down any nominee other than an ultra-conservative.

When did they say that? Quote?

 

[Arizona Willie]

We know how this will play out...

1. Obama will nominate a new justice soon. It'll be the one of the few things he gets done quickly.
2. The Republican Senate will not approve of the nominee (as they shouldn't)
3. Democrats will accuse Republicans of playing politics and holding up progress. (they would do the same thing) They'll make up slogans like "GOP war on America". They'll ride this all the way to the November election.
4. America will decide the next justice with the election. (as it should be)

========

All your " as it should be " are ONLY your opinion flavored by your political bias.

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS OTHERWISE

But then you Repubs only believe in the Constitution when it suits you.

 

[Arizona Willie]

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.

Don't give a shit if he nominates one, but the Republicans should not confirm one. Granted Republicans nominating justices is a coin flip. But a coin flip Republican nominee is better odds than a certain Democrat socialist who doesn't give a shit about anything but expanding government power nominee

========

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Republicans to nominate a replacement.

That is OBAMA'S RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[Arizona Willie]

He will nominate someone and the GOP need to understand that they need to fill that vacancy before November or it will look bad on their part for being too Partisan and Hostile.

Just fill the vacancy and pick another battle to stand your ground on.

========

The Republican Party is 100% in violation of the Constitution in demanding that Obama wait and not nominate a replacement until after the election in order for them to have ANOTHER chance at getting a Republican President WHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

 

[Arizona Willie]

No. The Senate needs to have good reason for not confirming an appointee. I saw today that Scalia was confirmed 98-0.

The idea that republican members of the Senate are right to deny a SC nominee based only on political grounds is bunk. It isn't business as usual.

========

Ah, but the Republicans hate the Constitution and have absolutely no use for it --- if it doesn't further THEIR agenda.

When it got in Bush's way he said " it's only a fucking piece of paper " and that is, indeed, the way Republicans view it when it doesn't get them their way.

 

[kaz]

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.

Don't give a shit if he nominates one, but the Republicans should not confirm one. Granted Republicans nominating justices is a coin flip. But a coin flip Republican nominee is better odds than a certain Democrat socialist who doesn't give a shit about anything but expanding government power nominee

========

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Republicans to nominate a replacement.

That is OBAMA'S RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Try reading my post again. I didn't say Republicans should nominate a replacement. I said Republicans should not confirm one. Do you understand the difference?

 

[nat4900]

The Constitution says in plain words that it is the responsibility of the President to nominate replacement Justices.

Republicans CLAIM to believe in and love the Constitution and they DEMAND it be followed to the letter --- when it benefits them --- but now they want to wipe their ass with the Constitution because they won't get their way if it is followed.

They can vote any and all nominees down.

But they would be showing their ass if they did that repeatedly.

They don't realize how childish and hypocritical they look to human beings with their current behavior.

Agreed.......The MAIN reason why McConnell doesn't even want a nominee is NOT because of their obvious prerogative to turn that nominee down,,,,BUT, rather, of the spectacle it will show that even if a nominee is a moderate and well qualified individual, anything that smacks of "aiding" Obama must be turned down by an ultra-partisan senate.

(Although I very much disliked Scalia, I actually believe that this scholar of the Constitution would agree with us)

 

[kaz]

If the situation were reversed with a Rep President and a Dem Senate / Congress --- Republicans would DEFINITELY NOMINATE AN ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE.

Why is that? They have only rarely done that before. Why would they start now?

So why shouldn't Obama follow his political ideology and nominate an ultra-liberal

No one said he shouldn't. He can go ahead and do that. No one is stopping him.

Especially since the Republicans have PUBLICALLY STATED they will vote down any nominee other than an ultra-conservative.

I asked you before to show who said this, you didn't, so I'm asking again. Who said this? Provide a link

 

[Arizona Willie]

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.

Don't give a shit if he nominates one, but the Republicans should not confirm one. Granted Republicans nominating justices is a coin flip. But a coin flip Republican nominee is better odds than a certain Democrat socialist who doesn't give a shit about anything but expanding government power nominee

========

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Republicans to nominate a replacement.

That is OBAMA'S RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Try reading my post again. I didn't say Republicans should nominate a replacement. I said Republicans should not confirm one. Do you understand the difference?

========

Yes I do understand the difference, probably better than you do.

And I may have misread your post --- I do get one wrong once in awhile

 

[nat4900]

Forgive me for this.....Right now I actually feel sorry for Clarence Thomas.....
A puppet who has lost his puppet-master.

 

[kaz]

Agreed.......The MAIN reason why McConnell doesn't even want a nominee

Every post you guys keep saying he doesn't want Obama to present a nominee. Every article I read doesn't say that. It says he wants to stop the nominee.

What's the deal? You guys having comprehension issues? Can't you repeat positions accurately?

Obama has every right to nominate someone. I agree with Republicans to vote them down, but I still can't find anyone saying your strawman he can't or shouldn't nominate someone

 

[kaz]

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.

Don't give a shit if he nominates one, but the Republicans should not confirm one. Granted Republicans nominating justices is a coin flip. But a coin flip Republican nominee is better odds than a certain Democrat socialist who doesn't give a shit about anything but expanding government power nominee

========

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Republicans to nominate a replacement.

That is OBAMA'S RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Try reading my post again. I didn't say Republicans should nominate a replacement. I said Republicans should not confirm one. Do you understand the difference?

========

Yes I do understand the difference, probably better than you do.

And I may have misread your post --- I do get one wrong once in awhile

So instead of just saying OK, you misread it you're going to be a jerk and insult me over your screw up anyway? Got it.

 

[kaz]

Forgive me for this.....Right now I actually feel sorry for Clarence Thomas.....
A puppet who has lost his puppet-master.

What does that mean? A conservative votes conservative and that confuses you how exactly?