Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[hadit]

He should go ahead and nominate the extremist he wants to nominate, then the Republican Senate should take months explaining exactly why the nominee is completely unsuitable, scaring the populace with tales of how much the nominee hates them and wants their puppies to die. You know, "Bork" him/her.

 

[mudwhistle]

The shameful treatment that conservative judges got at the hands of Democrats (Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas) only illustrates the depths that liberals are willing to sink to.

I would rather see Bernie Sanders elected president than let Big-ears put another activist judge on the bench. The gloves must come off. No more compromise. If the GOP Establishment bends one milimeter they're history.

 

[Faun]

Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")

I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.

 

[hadit]

Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")

I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.

Obama doesn't know moderation.

 

[nat4900]

We're talking about the Supreme Court. Even Bush's nominees averaged about two months.

Plenty of time.

My guess, is that Obama will have 1 or 2 nominees by the end of April...then the fun will begin with the senate judiciary committee....Bear in mind that the GOPers in the judiciary committee are all from red states therefore pretty safe in getting reelected....HOWEVER, their right wing colleagues in the senate will be in a frenzy to get the nominee out of the committee for a floor vote.

 

[nat4900]

I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.

PRECISELY.....The spectacle of rejecting someone they had already vetted and approved will be a tough rationale for McConnell to spew.

 

[Contumacious]

Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")

I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.

A nominee for a district court or appellate court will not do as much damage as one for SCOTUS , specially one which will disrupt the 5-4 balance.


.

 

[nat4900]

A nominee for a district court or appellate court will not do as much damage as one for SCOTUS , specially one which will disrupt the 5-4 balance.

The 5-4 balance has been RIGHT-leaning for over 2 decades...heck, the SCOTUS even gave you GWB.....Now its time for a change.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The shameful treatment that conservative judges got at the hands of Democrats (Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas) only illustrates the depths that liberals are willing to sink to.

Bork got a floor vote.

So did Thomas.


The Senate leadership is saying they don't want to allow that for a Dem President.



>>>>

 

[mudwhistle]

It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.

Well, no. In reality, the average time it takes to appoint a judge is little more than 2 months. So there is still plenty of time for Obama to get a judge on the bench.

Not with Republican presidents. Dingy Harry had many Bush nominees waiting for years. Many appointments stayed vacant.

We're talking about the Supreme Court. Even Bush's nominees averaged about two months.

Plenty of time.

Bush never nominated extremists either, as Obama has.

Reagan was a totally different story. Robert Bork for example. Bork was suggested before the process began. Democrats said no. Reagan nominated him anyway. They rejected him. Most of the time, presidents just want to fill the position, not have a long drawn out fight.
The Clarence Thomas hearings turned into a sexual-harassment circus. A total disgrace chaired by Sen Joe Biden. That was abnormal. I would love to see Obama's nominees stand up to that kind of harassment by Republicans. But I don't expect them to act so shitty.

However, since Obama doesn't like working with Congress, and regularly goes around them, I don't see why we need to keep with the average time, maybe a rejection or two are in order.. He deserves the same consideration he used to force Obamacare down our throats. None.

 

[mudwhistle]

The shameful treatment that conservative judges got at the hands of Democrats (Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas) only illustrates the depths that liberals are willing to sink to.

Bork got a floor vote.

So did Thomas.


The Senate leadership is saying they don't want to allow that for a Dem President.



>>>>

Well, tough-shit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, tough-shit.

Interesting, you mention Bork and I point out he got a floor vote. You mention Thomas who not only got a floor vote but was confirmed.

Enjoy appointments by President Clinton and a Dem Senate.


Sometimes I shake my head at the shortsightedness of my own party, just remember it's people with attitudes like yours that will put a dem in the Oval Office with a Dem Senate.


>>>>

 

[mudwhistle]

It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.

Well, no. In reality, the average time it takes to appoint a judge is little more than 2 months. So there is still plenty of time for Obama to get a judge on the bench.

========
Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.

And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.

Knock yourself out. A fight is what we want.

I think Obama deserves several kicks in the balls on national television.

 

[nat4900]

Reagan was a totally different story. Robert Bork for example. Bork was suggested before the process began. Democrats said no. Reagan nominated him anyway. They rejected him. Most of the time, presidents just want to fill the position, not have a long drawn out fight.

You should know that Bork, was the ONLY non-ethical one who actually sided with Nixon during the so-called Saturday night massacre.......Now THAT was a primary reason why democrats did not even want for the Bork nomination to even be raised by Reagan.....(BTW, Bork was "promised" a SC seat when he chose to side with Nixon.)

 

[nat4900]

I think Obama deserves several kicks in the balls on national television.

.....and we all know how "well" that little threat about kicking Obama worked out for you guys in the past. LOL

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, tough-shit.

Interesting, you mention Bork and I point out he got a floor vote. You mention Thomas who not only got a floor vote but was confirmed.

Enjoy appointments by President Clinton and a Dem Senate.


Sometimes I shake my head at the shortsightedness of my own party, just remember it's people with attitudes like yours that will put a dem in the Oval Office with a Dem Senate.


>>>>

The only reason Clarence Thomas got a floor vote and a confirmation was because Democrats didn't want to look like racists.

 

[mudwhistle]

Reagan was a totally different story. Robert Bork for example. Bork was suggested before the process began. Democrats said no. Reagan nominated him anyway. They rejected him. Most of the time, presidents just want to fill the position, not have a long drawn out fight.

You should know that Bork, was the ONLY non-ethical one who actually sided with Nixon during the so-called Saturday night massacre.......Now THAT was a primary reason why democrats did not even want for the Bork nomination to even be raised by Reagan.....(BTW, Bork was "promised" a SC seat when he chose to side with Nixon.)

That's not how I read it. The primary reason was his stance on Rove v. Wade.

 

[nat4900]

The only reason Clarence Thomas got a floor vote and a confirmation was because Democrats didn't want to look like racists.

Does that then mean that were Holder to be nominated, that right wingers in the senate would vote for him to "NOT be seen as racists"???? LOL

 

[nat4900]

That's not how I read it. The primary reason was his stance on Rove v. Wade.

You can "read it" any way you want, but Bork was a catastrophe.

 

[TooTall]

Who? Liberals keep repeating that yet none of you have been able to back it up

It was said at the beginning of the debate on CBS by Kasich and Rubio just hours after Scalia's death was announced.

The CBS News Republican debate transcript, annotated

I don't want to hear any more whining from Obama or his sheep.

"During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito."

Imbecile, those seats were filled by Bush.

Do you even know what the issue is? It appears not.

What issue has your tit in a wringer?

Why do you care now? You've been arguing your point until now without knowing what the issue is -- why start now?

I am interested in knowing what you think the issue is.