Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Billy_Bob]

There is nothing that says a SCOTUS judge can't be appointed during an election year. Republicans simply don't want to see the court with a Democratic majority.

Yeah, especially when the SCOTUS is suppose to be non-partisan. If it is going to be partisan they then should become elected.

"supposed to be nonpartisan" IE: Strict Constitutionally Constructed..

Personally I don't know any left wing people who acknowledge that kind of thinking.. they all think that trampling on others rights is ok for some reason..

What you personally know or don't know is thankfully irrelevant; you obviously don't know anything about liberals.

And there is no such thing as 'strict constitutionally constructed,' it's a ridiculous fiction contrived by the partisan right hostile to settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence – jurisprudence that conflicts with subjective, errant, wrongheaded conservative dogma.

There is only the Constitution and its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution - case law that liberals support, defend, and apply consistently in accordance with the rule of law.

Indeed, it's conservatives who, for the most part, trample on the rights of others, in violation of the Constitution – conservatives who seek to deny women their right to privacy, gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, and minorities their right to vote.

Given the hostility most on the right have with regard to the protected liberties of others, it's imperative that the president nominate Scalia's replacement, and the Senate confirm that nominee.

Equal protections under the law are circumvented by hate crime legislation and "enhancements" which unjustly punish others. Your creation of 'groups' to protect more than others is a violation of that clause in our Constitution.

We are a Christian nation based on Judaeo Christian values which were an integral part of the founding of this nation. WE denied women and minorities nothing. That was the carry over of common law from Europe entwined in the thinking of the day. Human life has no price. But you seek to destroy it in the womb and kill those who you disagree with.

The equal protections under the law are for individuals.. to be treated the same as all others, to be judged the same.. Social justice is the active trampling on of others rights.

Everyone in the US has the same ability to go to school, get a job, and become a member of the community.. Liberals and Democrats are the ones creating groups, calling them victims and demanding they be treated differently.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.. You want a contract for same sex partners? Have at it.. The government should only be acknowledging the contract between a man and a woman as marriage is a religious event anyway. You should not be forcing a church to do things it deems wrong.

Obama may put up a nominee but the Senate has every right to reject his left wing nominee's..

 

[Vigilante]

Just say they do lose the Senate, they can't do shit UNTIL a new president is inaugurated, and a NEW Congress goes into session!

Which could lead to your WORST nightmare.....a Dem in the oval office and a Dem. led senate.

When you can piss UP a poll, that will happen!

 

[Freewill]

If 40 GOPers stand strong the nightmare of Obama getting to replace Scalia shall not pass.

I certainly hope so.......BTW how many of those 40 are ALSO up for re-election on a platform of doing nothing?

This congress is doing much more then the last democrat congress. You do what liberals always do, think that their views are the popular views.

 

[nat4900]

When you can piss UP a poll

Obviously you're much more the expert on how to piss UP a POLL....so I'll leave it up to your expertise on what you do best.

 

[MisterBeale]

With 28 contested seats that the GOP needs to defend this year, a do-nothing senate on Obama's nominee would pretty much ensure that the chamber turns a vivid blue.

Vivid blue eh? Sure you might not be dreamin' a bit there. . . ?

 

[Vigilante]

When you can piss UP a poll

Obviously you're much more the expert on how to piss UP a POLL....so I'll leave it up to your expertise on what you do best.

 

[nat4900]

Vivid blue eh? Sure you might not be dreamin' a bit there. . . ?

Here, I'll make it even easier for you.......

1. What constitutes a majority in the senate?
2. What is the current republican majority in the senate?
3. How many republicans seats do republicans need to defend this Nov.?

Address the above questions and you'll be just a tiny bit wiser.

 

[Tom Horn]

Crosses have never been burned for a HALFrican, moron.

OK, OK....so go burn a HALF-cross.

You mean while you burn a half-stick of incense and chant to SATAN?

Your puny little race card is tattered and torn, fool....

 

[nat4900]

BTW.....even your silly above poster is misspelled....

YOUR is a possessive adjective.......What you need to change on the cute little
poster is "your" to the contraction, YOU'RE (or "you are").......

I know, I know......YOUR junior high school diploma was a waste.

 

[Vigilante]

BTW.....even your silly above poster is misspelled....

YOUR is a possessive adjective.......What you need to change on the cute little
poster is "your" to the contraction, YOU'RE (or "you are").......

I know, I know......YOUR junior high school diploma was a waste.

THAT was the whole idea...you JakeAss!

 

[Geaux4it]

Obama can put in one of his but buddies and the 2A could be at risk

-Geaux

 

[eagle1462010]

BTW.....even your silly above poster is misspelled....

YOUR is a possessive adjective.......What you need to change on the cute little
poster is "your" to the contraction, YOU'RE (or "you are").......

I know, I know......YOUR junior high school diploma was a waste.

 

[nat4900]

THAT was the whole idea

So the while idea is to double down on your illiteracy? Interesting tactic!!!

 

[Vigilante]

THAT was the whole idea

So the while idea is to double down on your illiteracy? Interesting tactic!!!

What is that third word?....

 

[candycorn]

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.

It's his duty to do so. He has no choice.

Let the Senate do whatever it is going to do and let the Public Opinion destroy what's left of the GOP?

 

[RandallFlagg]

He'll nominate one, knowing the Republicans will hold it up or shoot it down, and he'll hope for some political mileage out of that in November.

Such is politics.
.

Indeed he will. The nomination will go nowhere, as it shouldn't. This is the perfect example of why a republican MUST win the White House. This crap of judges legislating HAS TO STOP. The next president will likely nominate 2-3 justices. They CAN NOT be limp-wristed liberals.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

It's his duty to do so. He has no choice.

Let the Senate do whatever it is going to do and let the Public Opinion destroy what's left of the GOP?

That is an assumption on the will of the public. Perhaps the public doesn't want Obama selecting another one..............Tis yet to be seen.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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...

Moderate from Obama..............LOL

Yes a Moderate, not right leaning, not left leaning, as a Justice is SUPPOSE TO BE.

A moderate is a misnomer for just another liberal where liberals are concerned.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

America will decide the next justice with the election. (as it should be)

In other words the last year of an administration is really a sabbatical for all of congress?

The House has nothing to do with SCOTUS confirmation.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

So you agree that the Democrats were wrong when they shot down nominees made by Republican presidents or is that (D)ifferent?