Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[nat4900]

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

Check out how many times Thomas has even asked ONE question to attorneys presenting a case before the SC.

 

[kaz]

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

Check out how many times Thomas has even asked ONE question to attorneys presenting a case before the SC.

And that makes him a "puppet" how?

It cracks me up how liberals goose step in perfect sync and then you call other people "puppets."

Patten: If everyone's thinking alike, someone isn't thinking

Democrats are not thinking

 

[hadit]

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?

I hold out little hope that he would do so, and fully expect the Senate to cravenly give him the political hack he desires.

 

[hadit]

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.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

 

[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?

I hold out little hope that he would do so, and fully expect the Senate to cravenly give him the political hack he desires.

Yes, when I read that McConnell is the one saying this, it crushes my hope that Republicans mean it

 

[SmokeALib]

No.

 

[Arizona Willie]

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?
========

Because America has become much more polarized than it ever was before due to hate radio being allowed to be spewed non stop.

=========

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.

=============
Actually, I was incorrect.

They have only PUBLICALLY STATED that they would vote down ANY nominee. They didn't qualify it with ultra-conservative but everyone knows that is what they are demanding. The want another ultra-conservative in order to keep a packed Republican majority Supreme Court.

That is no secret. And no one with half a brain tries to deny it.

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

 

[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?
========

Because America has become much more polarized than it ever was before due to hate radio being allowed to be spewed non stop.

=========

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.

=============
Actually, I was incorrect.

They have only PUBLICALLY STATED that they would vote down ANY nominee. They didn't qualify it with ultra-conservative but everyone knows that is what they are demanding. The want another ultra-conservative in order to keep a packed Republican majority Supreme Court.

That is no secret. And no one with half a brain tries to deny it.

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

Republicans haven't nominated more than a few "ulta conservatives" over the last decades. Thomas, Scalia, Bork. W didn't nominate any far right nominees. Who else did they nominate that's ultra conservative?

 

[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

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.

========
Yeppers, I have learned my lessons from Republicans very well.

don't like the tactics right wingers use in forums?

awwww too bad ... soo sad....

 

[kaz]

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.

========
Yeppers, I have learned my lessons from Republicans very well.

don't like the tactics right wingers use in forums?

awwww too bad ... soo sad....

Sorry, I lost interest. If you want to just debate Republicans, then why don't you go ahead and just post to them?

 

[Arizona Willie]

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?
========

Because America has become much more polarized than it ever was before due to hate radio being allowed to be spewed non stop.

=========

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.

=============
Actually, I was incorrect.

They have only PUBLICALLY STATED that they would vote down ANY nominee. They didn't qualify it with ultra-conservative but everyone knows that is what they are demanding. The want another ultra-conservative in order to keep a packed Republican majority Supreme Court.

That is no secret. And no one with half a brain tries to deny it.

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

Republicans haven't nominated more than a few "ulta conservatives" over the last decades. Thomas, Scalia, Bork. W didn't nominate any far right nominees. Who else did they nominate that's ultra conservative?

========
They haven't nominated " more than a few " because there have not BEEN any ultra-conservatives until the last 30 years or so.

Prior to Reagan, if someone proposed the kind of crap Republicans DEMAND NOW THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPORTED AS UNAMERICAN.

The political atmosphere in America has NEVER been as poisonous as it is now with militias defying the Federal Government and HATE RADIO spewing anti-government crap 24 hours a day.

 

[boilermaker55]

Hell yes, and put the onus on the conservatives.

 

[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.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

 

[Boss]

....and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees...

Please show the part of the constitution which states they have to approve nominees or are required to do this according to a time frame.

 

[TooTall]

"Should Obama nominate a justice or not?"

Of course he should, and the Senate should confirm that nominee, in accordance with the Constitution and the will of the American people.

Was the will of the American people observed when Judge Bork was nominated?

 

[hadit]

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.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

Sure, he could do exactly that if he wanted to show the people just how desperate he is to get another justice appointed and how scared he is that the next president will be a Republican. He does have quite the large ego.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve ANY nominee. I will state confidently that a Senator could go an entire career and NEVER vote to confirm a single appointee. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Interpol]

Of course he should, as any President, Republican or Democratic, should.

There is absolutely no compelling argument for doing otherwise, especially for a role as important as supreme court justice.

 

[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?
========

Because America has become much more polarized than it ever was before due to hate radio being allowed to be spewed non stop.

=========

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.

=============
Actually, I was incorrect.

They have only PUBLICALLY STATED that they would vote down ANY nominee. They didn't qualify it with ultra-conservative but everyone knows that is what they are demanding. The want another ultra-conservative in order to keep a packed Republican majority Supreme Court.

That is no secret. And no one with half a brain tries to deny it.

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

Republicans haven't nominated more than a few "ulta conservatives" over the last decades. Thomas, Scalia, Bork. W didn't nominate any far right nominees. Who else did they nominate that's ultra conservative?

========
They haven't nominated " more than a few " because there have not BEEN any ultra-conservatives until the last 30 years or so.

Prior to Reagan, if someone proposed the kind of crap Republicans DEMAND NOW THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPORTED AS UNAMERICAN.

The political atmosphere in America has NEVER been as poisonous as it is now with militias defying the Federal Government and HATE RADIO spewing anti-government crap 24 hours a day.

how have Republicans moved to the right? They're socialist light

 

[Redfish]

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.

They cannot violate the Constitution in this matter, because they cannot prevent Obama from making a nomination. Of course, Obama cannot also force them to approve his pick.

========

Correct. He cannot FORCE THEM.

However, as President, he CAN call a weekly press conference and show charts of how long it has taken to approve each previous nominee and DRAMATICALLY show what assholes the Republicans are being and how they are violating the Constitution by refusing to approve any nominees and some of them are on RECORD as saying they will not approve ANY nominee. But we all know that if he nominated an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE they WOULD approve that one.

And the Democratic party can, and should, file Impeachment charges against any Senator who has publically stated he would not approve any nominee because he is violating his Oath of Office as well as the Constitution.

Bullshit, there is no constitutional mandate that the senate must vote on or approve any nominee. Just as there was no constitutional mandate that required Reid to call a vote on the 300+ house passed bills that he sat on for years.

Schumer said the exact same thing about Bush nominees and you liberfools praised him for it. you are the biggest hypocrites on earth.