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

[bendog]

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.

Obama has the power to affect immigration with EOs, but arguably he shouldn't do so. Power is not the same as duty.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The quote is in response to the claim that McConnell said Obama shouldn't nominate anyone. He didn't say that. Your theory of government is a non sequitur.

 

[g5000]

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.

It's Kagan, not Kagen. And I doubt you could, right now off the top of your head, explain how you came to the conclusion someone whose name you don't even know how to spell is a Marxist.

You're probably just fellating Michael Savage.

 

[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?

Which candidate is that?

there have been several unanimously confirmed district court judges.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

He can nominate anyone he likes, fool.

He could nominate you

No one is saying he can't nominate someone.

But if they don't pass Senate muster, like Bork and Ginsberg, he has to pick another, and another, etc.

and you're seriously proving that you're the moron, not me.

What is it about that you don't understand?

 

[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.

It's Kagan, not Kagen. And I doubt you could, right now off the top of your head, explain how you came to the conclusion someone whose name you don't even know how to spell is a Marxist.

Attacking technical gaffs is the sure sign of someone who knows he's losing.

More than enough has been published about Kagan to know what her views are. She's a Marxist who supports everything Obama does.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

there have been several unanimously confirmed district court judges.

Name one

 

[g5000]

No one is saying he can't nominate someone.

See posts 60 and 61.

It is precisely because a lot of people are saying he can't nominate someone that this topic exists.

 

[g5000]

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.

It's Kagan, not Kagen. And I doubt you could, right now off the top of your head, explain how you came to the conclusion someone whose name you don't even know how to spell is a Marxist.

Attacking technical gaffs is the sure sign of someone who knows he's losing.

More than enough has been published about Kagan to know what her views are. She's a Marxist who supports everything Obama does.

So you have nothing. You are just making shit up. Again.

I knew it.

 

[g5000]

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?

there have been several unanimously confirmed district court judges.

Name one

Roberto Lange.

Richard Seeborg.

Abdul Kallon.

 

[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.

It's Kagan, not Kagen. And I doubt you could, right now off the top of your head, explain how you came to the conclusion someone whose name you don't even know how to spell is a Marxist.

Attacking technical gaffs is the sure sign of someone who knows he's losing.

More than enough has been published about Kagan to know what her views are. She's a Marxist who supports everything Obama does.

So you have nothing. You are just making shit up. Again.

I knew it.

Puhleeze. Kagan's radical leftwing views were discussed quite extensively during the confirmation hearings.

 

[Auld Phart]

No one is saying he can't nominate someone.

See posts 60 and 61.

It is precisely because a lot of people are saying he can't nominate someone that this topic exists.

I see the words shouldn't, not can't.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

there have been several unanimously confirmed district court judges.

Name one

Roberto Lange.

Richard Seeborg.

Abdul Kallon.

If he's a commie like Kagan, then he shouldn't be confirmed. End of story.

 

[g5000]

Other unanimously consented district judges:

Dolly Gee.

J. Michelle Childs.

Richard Gergel.

Leonard Stark.

Catherine Eagles.

Kimberly Mueller.

John Gibney.

James Bredar.

Susan Richard Nelson.

Denise Caspar.


And many more. All appointed since 2009.

 

[bendog]

No one is saying he can't nominate someone.

See posts 60 and 61.

It is precisely because a lot of people are saying he can't nominate someone that this topic exists.

I see the words shouldn't, not can't.

I think it's more that some say the gop should not even consider the merits of any nominee. Yesterday various RW loons were trying to spin that there was some rule or precedent for not considering a nominee in a potus's last year. That is simply false.

 

[g5000]

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?

there have been several unanimously confirmed district court judges.

Name one

Roberto Lange.

Richard Seeborg.

Abdul Kallon.

If he's a commie like Kagan, then he shouldn't be confirmed. End of story.

First, you have not proven Kagan is a Marxist. Nice try. You don't get to make a claim, and have that claim challenged, and go blithely on as if it is fact.

You like making claims which are completely unfounded, as has been demonstrated TWICE in this topic alone!

Second, if any of the many, many unanimously approved judges were Marxists, they should have been opposed when they were made district and circuit judges.

After all, they make hundreds of decisions which are the final say. Most of their decisions never go on appeal to a higher authority. Many, many, many more decisions than the Supremes make.

 

[bendog]

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.

He can nominate anyone he likes, fool.

He could nominate you

No one is saying he can't nominate someone.

But if they don't pass Senate muster, like Bork and Ginsberg, he has to pick another, and another, etc.

and you're seriously proving that you're the moron, not me.

What is it about that you don't understand?

Oh, I think Ginsberg would have been confirmed if not for the pot story. He pulled the plug on his own nomination. Ginsberg clerked for Thurgood Marshall.

 

[bripat9643]

Other unanimously consented district judges:

Dolly Gee.

J. Michelle Childs.

Richard Gergel.

Leonard Stark.

Catherine Eagles.

Kimberly Mueller.

John Gibney.

James Bredar.

Susan Richard Nelson.

Denise Caspar.


And many more. All appointed since 2009.

I couldn't care less. Just because the senate may no object to them in a lower court, that doesn't mean they are fit for the Supreme Court. A bad pick can do a lot more damage on the Supreme Court, as the leftwing justices on the court have already shown.

 

[Auld Phart]

No one is saying he can't nominate someone.

See posts 60 and 61.

It is precisely because a lot of people are saying he can't nominate someone that this topic exists.

I see the words shouldn't, not can't.

I think it's more that some say the gop should not even consider the merits of any nominee. Yesterday various RW loons were trying to spin that there was some rule or precedent for not considering a nominee in a potus's last year. That is simply false.

I try not to pay attention to loons from either side.

 

[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.

Obama has the power to affect immigration with EOs, but arguably he shouldn't do so. Power is not the same as duty.

No, he doesn't have that power. Only Congress can make laws. Obama's illegall EO's are a violation of The Constitution. He isn't, "faithfully executing the law".