Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Redfish]

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

Certainly the Constitution does not state that senators need to APPROVE anyone.....however, a time frame is implied....Even the position description for someone hired by Wendy's does not have to specifically state that it shouldn't take 4 or 6 hours to serve a hamburger.

when was the last time a SCOTUS nominee was voted on by the senate in an election year? Don't know? Look it up. There is nothing new taking place in 2016.

 

[Redfish]

Ted Cruz says he will ‘absolutely’ filibuster Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia

Now THAT is what I would be looking for from an ideologue like Cruz...The guy is just "great" ; he will then not only torpedo his own candidacy, but a few of his right wing colleagues as well......GO CRUZ !!!!

Obama said the exact same thing in his short time in the senate. But you won't mention that now will you?

 

[nat4900]

No one has said that obozo cannot nominate someone or that the senate cannot call a vote on that person. NO ONE has said or done anything that violates the constitution.

Exactly how would you (try some objectivity) interpret McConnell's statement (about an hour after Scalia's death was announced) to Obama, "don't even bother to nominate anyone...we will not consider a hearing..."

I know I'm paraphrasing here, but the gist is pretty much the same as to what McConnell stated.

 

[Redfish]

No one has said that obozo cannot nominate someone or that the senate cannot call a vote on that person. NO ONE has said or done anything that violates the constitution.

Exactly how would you (try some objectivity) interpret McConnell's statement (about an hour after Scalia's death was announced) to Obama, "don't even bother to nominate anyone...we will not consider a hearing..."

I know I'm paraphrasing here, but the gist is pretty much the same as to what McConnell stated.

Yep, that's what he said. No interpretation needed. Schumer and Obama both said the same thing when Bush was president. Wake up, this is nothing new.

 

[nat4900]

when was the last time a SCOTUS nominee was voted on by the senate in an election year? Don't know? Look it up. There is nothing new taking place in 2016.

A Senate controlled by Democrats confirmed President Reagan’s nomination of Anthony Kennedy on a 97 to 0 vote in February 1988, which happened to be an election year.

 

[nat4900]

Obama said the exact same thing in his short time in the senate. But you won't mention that now will you?

Two things to be kept in mind......

ONE......Obama was not the senate majority leader and stated that he would support (not initiate) a filibuster
TWO....Obama threatened a filibuster of Alito AFTER his nomination was announced...
...and, as a kicker, THREE....Obama has stated that he regrets his filibuster statement.

 

[Redfish]

when was the last time a SCOTUS nominee was voted on by the senate in an election year? Don't know? Look it up. There is nothing new taking place in 2016.

A Senate controlled by Democrats confirmed President Reagan’s nomination of Anthony Kennedy on a 97 to 0 vote in February 1988, which happened to be an election year.

OK, good job, 28 years ago. You may pass the class yet. Now, Kennedy is/was which of the following: conservative, liberal, moderate?

Kennedy has been the swing vote on many issues, do you think Obama will nominate someone like him?

 

[Redfish]

Obama said the exact same thing in his short time in the senate. But you won't mention that now will you?

Two things to be kept in mind......

ONE......Obama was not the senate majority leader and stated that he would support (not initiate) a filibuster
TWO....Obama threatened a filibuster of Alito AFTER his nomination was announced...
...and, as a kicker, THREE....Obama has stated that he regrets his filibuster statement.

Sure he regrets it, because his party lost control in 2014. He would not regret it if the dems still controlled the senate.

Wake up and stop letting yourself get played by the partisan rhetoric and lies.

 

[Camp]

No one has said that obozo cannot nominate someone or that the senate cannot call a vote on that person. NO ONE has said or done anything that violates the constitution.

Exactly how would you (try some objectivity) interpret McConnell's statement (about an hour after Scalia's death was announced) to Obama, "don't even bother to nominate anyone...we will not consider a hearing..."

I know I'm paraphrasing here, but the gist is pretty much the same as to what McConnell stated.

Yep, that's what he said. No interpretation needed. Schumer and Obama both said the same thing when Bush was president. Wake up, this is nothing new.

It has been explained in detail how you are distorting that talking point, but you keep repeating it. Neither Obama or Schumer said the same thing as the Senate Leader, and neither was in the position to stop a nomination and hearing the way McConnell is.
You only get away with these exaggerations and distortions because you refuse to use links to back up your dishonesty.

 

[Redfish]

No one has said that obozo cannot nominate someone or that the senate cannot call a vote on that person. NO ONE has said or done anything that violates the constitution.

Exactly how would you (try some objectivity) interpret McConnell's statement (about an hour after Scalia's death was announced) to Obama, "don't even bother to nominate anyone...we will not consider a hearing..."

I know I'm paraphrasing here, but the gist is pretty much the same as to what McConnell stated.

Yep, that's what he said. No interpretation needed. Schumer and Obama both said the same thing when Bush was president. Wake up, this is nothing new.

It has been explained in detail how you are distorting that talking point, but you keep repeating it. Neither Obama or Schumer said the same thing as the Senate Leader, and neither was in the position to stop a nomination and hearing the way McConnell is.
You only get away with these exaggerations and distortions because you refuse to use links to back up your dishonesty.

Schumer and Obama's quotes have been posted. What they said is what they said. It doesn't matter if they were senate leader of just a voting member of the senate.

Now, if you want to talk about unconstitutional actions by the leader of the senate, shall we discuss Reid's tenure in that job?

 

[Camp]

No one has said that obozo cannot nominate someone or that the senate cannot call a vote on that person. NO ONE has said or done anything that violates the constitution.

Exactly how would you (try some objectivity) interpret McConnell's statement (about an hour after Scalia's death was announced) to Obama, "don't even bother to nominate anyone...we will not consider a hearing..."

I know I'm paraphrasing here, but the gist is pretty much the same as to what McConnell stated.

Yep, that's what he said. No interpretation needed. Schumer and Obama both said the same thing when Bush was president. Wake up, this is nothing new.

It has been explained in detail how you are distorting that talking point, but you keep repeating it. Neither Obama or Schumer said the same thing as the Senate Leader, and neither was in the position to stop a nomination and hearing the way McConnell is.
You only get away with these exaggerations and distortions because you refuse to use links to back up your dishonesty.

Schumer and Obama's quotes have been posted. What they said is what they said. It doesn't matter if they were senate leader of just a voting member of the senate.

Now, if you want to talk about unconstitutional actions by the leader of the senate, shall we discuss Reid's tenure in that job?

Do you know what the word distortion means? It doesn't matter that the links showing the distortions are posted. You need to post ones that show they are not distorted. You can't do it. All you can do is give a lame opinion that you can not back up with fact. And it makes a big difference whether a Senator is just one out of 100 making a statement with no authority to act, or the one making the statement is the leader that actually has the power to act on his opinion or threat.

 

[Faun]

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

YES !!!! (unless the entire country has turned racist and fascist)

OK, then you won't mind if anyone Obama nominates is "borked" will you?

You understand the difference between considering a nominee versus not even considering them, don't you?

No, no you don't.

How about the difference between rejecting one nominee versus rejecting any nominees?

No, you don't understand that either.

How about the difference between rejecting a nominee based on their record and their position on the issues versus rejecting all nominees because the president only has a year remaining in his term?

No, you don't understand that either.

What is your point? I understand perfectly that the Senate has the duty to reject or accept any nominee. If they don't like his haircut they can vote no and they have fulfilled their constitutional duty. Is that too difficult for you?

Thanks for confirming you truly don't understand what is wrong with what Republicans say they want to do.

Wasn't necessary, but thanks just the sane.

 

[Faun]

========

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.

========
Gawd are you ignorant.

It IS written in the Constitution that the President has the DUTY to nominate a replacement Justice and the Senate ADVISES AND CONFIRMS. Right now they are giving him advice ( bad advice ) telling him to not nominate ANYONE because hey will deny his nominees and saying he should wait until after the next election so they GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUT A CONSERVATIVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO WILL ABSOLUTELY NOMINATE AN ULTRA CONSERVATIVE.

you ignorance is quite apparent. "advises and confirms" does not mean "confirm whoever he nominates".

Holyfuckingshit!

Exactly how many times do you need to be reminded that now one is saying the Senate must confirm whomever Obama puts up?

Just throw out a number so I can remind you again that many times so that hopefully, we can get past your idiotic strawman....

 

[Faun]

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

Certainly the Constitution does not state that senators need to APPROVE anyone.....however, a time frame is implied....Even the position description for someone hired by Wendy's does not have to specifically state that it shouldn't take 4 or 6 hours to serve a hamburger.

when was the last time a SCOTUS nominee was voted on by the senate in an election year? Don't know? Look it up. There is nothing new taking place in 2016.

1988

Guess which party the president belonged to...

Guess which party controlled the Senate...

 

[Faun]

when was the last time a SCOTUS nominee was voted on by the senate in an election year? Don't know? Look it up. There is nothing new taking place in 2016.

A Senate controlled by Democrats confirmed President Reagan’s nomination of Anthony Kennedy on a 97 to 0 vote in February 1988, which happened to be an election year.

OK, good job, 28 years ago. You may pass the class yet. Now, Kennedy is/was which of the following: conservative, liberal, moderate?

Kennedy has been the swing vote on many issues, do you think Obama will nominate someone like him?

What difference does it make who he nominates?? Republicans have already dug their heels in to not confirming whomever he puts up.

 

[nat4900]

Kennedy has been the swing vote on many issues, do you think Obama will nominate someone like him?

YES....and, "you're welcome"

 

[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.

Replacing a SC justice requires the president and the Senate. Some Republicans have declared they will not participate in that process.

If they go through with that, it will be unprecedented.

No, I don't think any of them said that. I think that's just your typical warped and twisted interpretation of what was said. Besides, it's not up to "some Republicans" because the nominee goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. That's 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. They will decide if the nominee is rejected or if the nominee moves to the floor for a vote. If the nominee moves to the floor, the Republicans can filibuster and require a super majority in order to have a vote. If there is a vote, Republicans are free to not participate in that but I don't think they would do so. And that's how the process works.

Now... Cruz has said that he will not approve any Obama justice. Some say he shouldn't have made such a bold statement without knowing who Obama would nominate but there is nothing "unprecedented" about not approving a president's nominee. Cruz is on the SJC along with Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions, so there are three votes who will probably reject anyone Obama will likely nominate. On the other hand, if the 9 Dems can get 2 Republicans to side with them, they can move the nominee to the floor and that's not unlikely. Still, they will have to overcome the filibuster to have a vote. In order to do that, a lot of Republicans are going to have to support the nominee. If it's someone like Sotomayor or Kegan, that's not going to happen. If it's someone more like a Roberts or Kennedy, perhaps it will... we'll have to see. I think there is going to be a political price to pay for Republicans who support anyone who isn't a Constitutional originalist like Scalia.

 

[nat4900]

Republicans have already dug their heels in to not confirming whomever he puts up

Just to watch McConnell's head explode along with his many chins, Obama should perhaps nominate Ted Cruz. LOL

 

[nat4900]

On the other hand, if the 9 Dems can get 2 Republicans to side with them, they can move the nominee to the floor and that's not unlikely

True.....If you look up which republicans sit on the judiciary committee you can see that they come from the reddest of states....Grassley is (maybe) the only one that has a shade of purple in his state.

 

[Faun]

....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.

Replacing a SC justice requires the president and the Senate. Some Republicans have declared they will not participate in that process.

If they go through with that, it will be unprecedented.

No, I don't think any of them said that. I think that's just your typical warped and twisted interpretation of what was said. Besides, it's not up to "some Republicans" because the nominee goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. That's 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. They will decide if the nominee is rejected or if the nominee moves to the floor for a vote. If the nominee moves to the floor, the Republicans can filibuster and require a super majority in order to have a vote. If there is a vote, Republicans are free to not participate in that but I don't think they would do so. And that's how the process works.

Now... Cruz has said that he will not approve any Obama justice. Some say he shouldn't have made such a bold statement without knowing who Obama would nominate but there is nothing "unprecedented" about not approving a president's nominee. Cruz is on the SJC along with Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions, so there are three votes who will probably reject anyone Obama will likely nominate. On the other hand, if the 9 Dems can get 2 Republicans to side with them, they can move the nominee to the floor and that's not unlikely. Still, they will have to overcome the filibuster to have a vote. In order to do that, a lot of Republicans are going to have to support the nominee. If it's someone like Sotomayor or Kegan, that's not going to happen. If it's someone more like a Roberts or Kennedy, perhaps it will... we'll have to see. I think there is going to be a political price to pay for Republicans who support anyone who isn't a Constitutional originalist like Scalia.

Like the perspective of a fucking deranged idiot like you matters.

The strategy of shutting down the Senate's Constitutional obligation starts at the top and filters down.