What could be the reason for a president...constitutionally...choosing a SC nominee?

[g5000]

Republican candidates really don't want President Obama to nominate a Supreme Court justice

"I do not believe the president should appoint someone," Sen. Marco Rubio said. "It's been over 80 years since a lame-duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice."

But Kasich, too, ended up by concluding that Obama shouldn't nominate someone for the Supreme Court vacancy. "I believe the president should not move forward," Kasich said.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Why dont' you read up on Reagans nominees, especially when replacing Justice Lewis Powell?

You'll look less of a fool

Stupid response as usual......
Kennedy was confirmed after a senate fight...this does NOT mean that any democrat told Reagan that he could NOT nominate him as McConnell is telling Obama not to do....

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain to understand.....

The controversy here is NOT about the senate's prerogative to reject a nominee.....Rather, the controversy is about your moronic ilk telling Obama to not even nominate someone.

Find a grown up to explain the difference to you.

No one has told Obama not to nominate someone, dumbass.

Oh yes they have, dumbass.

There have been SEVERAL topics on this forum started by rubes parroting what they have heard on their favorite propaganda channels about the "precedent" of a "lame duck President" appointing someone.

Furthermore, before Scalia's body was even cold, Mitch McConnell told the world that Obama should not bother since he, McConnell, is going to obstruct ANY nomination.

You really are willfully blind sometimes.

Please quote someone saying Obama should not nominate a replacement for Scalia.

McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under Obama

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said

There’s ample precedent for rejecting lame duck supreme court nominees




The Unprecedented 'Precedent'

"It has been over 80 years since a lame duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said in the Republican presidential debate Saturday night; "We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz echoed.

Take your hands off your eyes, willfully blind monkey!

Constitutional authority sucks for you people, huh?...lol

 

[bendog]

Chosen by the president and confirmed acceptable by the Congress is The manner of checks and balances that The Founders built into THE Constitution.

Why is it so fucking hard for you right wingers to understand that the above is NOT what we are disputing....

What is being disputed is the fact that morons like McConnell want for the president to not even nominate someone to save senate republicans the embarrassment of rejecting, obfuscating and stalling ANY of Obama's nominees in front of the voters who will soon have to make a decision on 1/3 of the senate.

Why dont' you read up on Reagans nominees, especially when replacing Justice Lewis Powell?

You'll look less of a fool

Nominated on 11-11-87. 3 days of hearings commencing on 12-14-87. Confirmed 97-0 on 2-3-88.

Was Kennedy Reagans first choice?

Of course not. However, your assertion that the dems were going to oppose anyone is not only baseless but .... untrue. Bork's nomination was always in doubt with the dems, but when he said he didn't see a right to privacy in the const he was done. The dems didn't have a duty to simply confirm someone whose view of the const was out of step with 25 years of history. Reagan then nominated Ginsberg. I've heard he withdrew after knowledge of his marijuana use while in law school became public, but my recollection was that it was more that he'd participated in disseminating marijuana.

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. The gop has no duty to rubberstamp. If Obama nominated someone so extreme to the left as Estarada was to the right, I doubt he'd even get an up or down vote. If Obama nominated someone even more moderately to the left like Kagan, I think the gop might vote it down, because they like their chances on winning the WH. I think the Founders expected compromise, but they didn't expect purely altruistic behavior either. Now if he appointed a moderate goper ... then if the gop didn't confirm .... that would have consequences. Not unlike the conservatives filibuster of Fortas.

 

[g5000]

Constitutional authority sucks for you people, huh?...lol

The Constitution says the President's term of office is four years, not three. And the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court Justices.

Those who are opposing a nomination are going against the Constitution. And that includes my man Kasich, in whom who I am disappointed right now.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Republican candidates really don't want President Obama to nominate a Supreme Court justice

"I do not believe the president should appoint someone," Sen. Marco Rubio said. "It's been over 80 years since a lame-duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice."

But Kasich, too, ended up by concluding that Obama shouldn't nominate someone for the Supreme Court vacancy. "I believe the president should not move forward," Kasich said.

Nothing improper about that.

 

[bripat9643]

Why dont' you read up on Reagans nominees, especially when replacing Justice Lewis Powell?

You'll look less of a fool

Stupid response as usual......
Kennedy was confirmed after a senate fight...this does NOT mean that any democrat told Reagan that he could NOT nominate him as McConnell is telling Obama not to do....

Here, I'll make it simple for your half brain to understand.....

The controversy here is NOT about the senate's prerogative to reject a nominee.....Rather, the controversy is about your moronic ilk telling Obama to not even nominate someone.

Find a grown up to explain the difference to you.

No one has told Obama not to nominate someone, dumbass.

Oh yes they have, dumbass.

There have been SEVERAL topics on this forum started by rubes parroting what they have heard on their favorite propaganda channels about the "precedent" of a "lame duck President" appointing someone.

Furthermore, before Scalia's body was even cold, Mitch McConnell told the world that Obama should not bother since he, McConnell, is going to obstruct ANY nomination.

You really are willfully blind sometimes.

No they haven't, dumbass. They have said the Senate shouldn't confirm any Obama nominee.

This is what McConnell actually said:

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” ​

 

[nat4900]

I can see you didn't look it up.

Here, since you can't seem to operate Google, I'll help.

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him,"

Think you can fit that somewhere in the quarter of the brain you use?

(If I have half a brain, you obviously only use a quarter of yours)

The difference, moron, is that Bork was a WELL KNOWN ideologue conservative and therefore democrats called for an immediate opposition.......Whereas NONE of your fellow imbeciles have any idea of who Obama would nominate BUT STILL PLAN TO OPPOSE.......Again, find a grown up to explain it to you.

 

[Auld Phart]

Chosen by the president and confirmed acceptable by the Congress is The manner of checks and balances that The Founders built into THE Constitution.

Why is it so fucking hard for you right wingers to understand that the above is NOT what we are disputing....

What is being disputed is the fact that morons like McConnell want for the president to not even nominate someone to save senate republicans the embarrassment of rejecting, obfuscating and stalling ANY of Obama's nominees in front of the voters who will soon have to make a decision on 1/3 of the senate.

Why dont' you read up on Reagans nominees, especially when replacing Justice Lewis Powell?

You'll look less of a fool

Nominated on 11-11-87. 3 days of hearings commencing on 12-14-87. Confirmed 97-0 on 2-3-88.

Was Kennedy Reagans first choice?

Of course not. However, your assertion that the dems were going to oppose anyone is not only baseless but .... untrue. Bork's nomination was always in doubt with the dems, but when he said he didn't see a right to privacy in the const he was done. The dems didn't have a duty to simply confirm someone whose view of the const was out of step with 25 years of history. Reagan then nominated Ginsberg. I've heard he withdrew after knowledge of his marijuana use while in law school became public, but my recollection was that it was more that he'd participated in disseminating marijuana.

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. The gop has no duty to rubberstamp. If Obama nominated someone so extreme to the left as Estarada was to the right, I doubt he'd even get an up or down vote. If Obama nominated someone even more moderately to the left like Kagan, I think the gop might vote it down, because they like their chances on winning the WH. I think the Founders expected compromise, but they didn't expect purely altruistic behavior either. Now if he appointed a moderate goper ... then if the gop didn't confirm .... that would have consequences. Not unlike the conservatives filibuster of Fortas.

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. The gop has no duty to rubberstamp

That is my point

 

[bripat9643]

Constitutional authority sucks for you people, huh?...lol

The Constitution says the President's term of office is four years, not three. And the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court Justices.

It's the tards of the Gnu Right who are hating the Constitution right now. Again.

The Constitution also says the Senate has to consent to any nominee.

 

[ogibillm]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

If they believe Obama's choice is not a good one, then their duty is to not confirm him. I can't imagine Obama nominating anyone who isn't intent on destroying the Constitution.

cant decide if you lack imagination or suffer from too much...

how will the senate say a candidate they unanimously approved for a seat on a lower court is unworthy of consideration? if they have objections why wouldn't they have already voiced them?

 

[Auld Phart]

I can see you didn't look it up.

Here, since you can't seem to operate Google, I'll help.

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him,"

Think you can fit that somewhere in the quarter of the brain you use?

(If I have half a brain, you obviously only use a quarter of yours)

The difference, moron, is that Bork was a WELL KNOWN ideologue conservative and therefore democrats called for an immediate opposition.......Whereas NONE of your fellow imbeciles have any idea of who Obama would nominate BUT STILL PLAN TO OPPOSE.......Again, find a grown up to explain it to you.

NO, idiot.

the Senate decided that BEFORE they knew Bork was the nominee.

There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with your reading skills

 

[bripat9643]

I can see you didn't look it up.

Here, since you can't seem to operate Google, I'll help.

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him,"

Think you can fit that somewhere in the quarter of the brain you use?

(If I have half a brain, you obviously only use a quarter of yours)

The difference, moron, is that Bork was a WELL KNOWN ideologue conservative and therefore democrats called for an immediate opposition.......Whereas NONE of your fellow imbeciles have any idea of who Obama would nominate BUT STILL PLAN TO OPPOSE.......Again, find a grown up to explain it to you.

Of course we know who he would nominate: another radical Marxist who hates the United States, just like Kagen and Sotomayor.

 

[g5000]

Constitutional authority sucks for you people, huh?...lol

The Constitution says the President's term of office is four years, not three. And the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court Justices.

It's the tards of the Gnu Right who are hating the Constitution right now. Again.

The Constitution also says the Senate has to consent to any nominee.

Yes, but the assholes have made it very plain they are going to oppose any nominee out of sheer political hackery rather than on the basis of the nominee's qualifications.

They are circumventing the purpose of their role of advice and consent.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Constitutional authority sucks for you people, huh?...lol

The Constitution says the President's term of office is four years, not three. And the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court Justices.

It's the tards of the Gnu Right who are hating the Constitution right now. Again.

And, no one is telling Obama not to nominate a replacement.

I think we're witnessing a full blown meltdown, because The Messiah isn't getting his way. Its people like you that put Hitler in power.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Constitutional authority sucks for you people, huh?...lol

The Constitution says the President's term of office is four years, not three. And the Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court Justices.

It's the tards of the Gnu Right who are hating the Constitution right now. Again.

The Constitution also says the Senate has to consent to any nominee.

Yes, but the assholes have made it very plain they are going to oppose any nominee out of sheer political hackery rather than on the basis of the nominee's qualifications.

They are circumventing the purpose of their role of advice and consent.

It's within their authority to oppose any nominee.

 

[bripat9643]

Many fellow posters on here have repeatedly posted Article 2 of the Constitution CLEARLY deliniating a president's duty to nominate someone to the SC when a vacancy arises.

But WHY did our Founders give this authority to a president?

Could it be that the sometime trite aphorism that "elections have consequences" applies in the rationale of the Founders?

Obama was re-elected and entrusted to fulfill his duties for the entire 4 years of his 2nd term.

Let's face it, republicans in the last couple of congressional elections have both won a majority AND rendered congress inoperative......Now, it seems, they may want to make the judicial branch inoperative also unless the SC can further their ideology.l.

No one is stopping Obama from nominating whomever he wants. Getting his nomination approved is another matter.

How about they perform their duties in good faith? And not just go thru the motions wh the sole intent of spiting Obama .

If they believe Obama's choice is not a good one, then their duty is to not confirm him. I can't imagine Obama nominating anyone who isn't intent on destroying the Constitution.

cant decide if you lack imagination or suffer from too much...

how will the senate say a candidate they unanimously approved for a seat on a lower court is unworthy of consideration? if they have objections why wouldn't they have already voiced them?

Which candidate is that?

 

[bendog]

Why is it so fucking hard for you right wingers to understand that the above is NOT what we are disputing....

What is being disputed is the fact that morons like McConnell want for the president to not even nominate someone to save senate republicans the embarrassment of rejecting, obfuscating and stalling ANY of Obama's nominees in front of the voters who will soon have to make a decision on 1/3 of the senate.

Why dont' you read up on Reagans nominees, especially when replacing Justice Lewis Powell?

You'll look less of a fool

Nominated on 11-11-87. 3 days of hearings commencing on 12-14-87. Confirmed 97-0 on 2-3-88.

Was Kennedy Reagans first choice?

Of course not. However, your assertion that the dems were going to oppose anyone is not only baseless but .... untrue. Bork's nomination was always in doubt with the dems, but when he said he didn't see a right to privacy in the const he was done. The dems didn't have a duty to simply confirm someone whose view of the const was out of step with 25 years of history. Reagan then nominated Ginsberg. I've heard he withdrew after knowledge of his marijuana use while in law school became public, but my recollection was that it was more that he'd participated in disseminating marijuana.

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. The gop has no duty to rubberstamp. If Obama nominated someone so extreme to the left as Estarada was to the right, I doubt he'd even get an up or down vote. If Obama nominated someone even more moderately to the left like Kagan, I think the gop might vote it down, because they like their chances on winning the WH. I think the Founders expected compromise, but they didn't expect purely altruistic behavior either. Now if he appointed a moderate goper ... then if the gop didn't confirm .... that would have consequences. Not unlike the conservatives filibuster of Fortas.

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. The gop has no duty to rubberstamp

That is my point

Then, if Obama were to name someone even a bit left of center, as Kennedy was considered at the time to be a bit right of center, the nominee should be confirmed.

(aside: Gay marriage aside, Kennedy walked in lockstep on Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, and Scalia was the vote for the left on limits on the States' power to search)

 

[nat4900]

This is what McConnell actually said:

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,”

Moron, both you and McConnell should re-read Article 2.....It is NOT a referendum by the "American people" to have a direct voice in a justices' selection......Rather, as the thread's title indicates, when a president has been elected, it is up to the president to nominate.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

I can see you didn't look it up.

Here, since you can't seem to operate Google, I'll help.

"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell was a moderate, and even before his expected retirement on June 27, 1987, Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him,"

Think you can fit that somewhere in the quarter of the brain you use?

(If I have half a brain, you obviously only use a quarter of yours)

The difference, moron, is that Bork was a WELL KNOWN ideologue conservative and therefore democrats called for an immediate opposition.......Whereas NONE of your fellow imbeciles have any idea of who Obama would nominate BUT STILL PLAN TO OPPOSE.......Again, find a grown up to explain it to you.

That door swings both ways, sport.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

This is what McConnell actually said:

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,”

Moron, both you and McConnell should re-read Article 2.....It is NOT a referendum by the "American people" to have a direct voice in a justice selection......Rather, as the thread's title indicates, when a president has been elected, it is up to the president to nominate.

Congress IS our voice.