Why not wait until the election in 2016 to nominate a supreme court justice

[Obiwan]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

The People chose the person they wanted to pick the nominee in 2012.

And they picked the people to stop him in 2014, Dumbass....
View attachment 68246

Obama didn't run in 2014. Presidents are elected for 4 years. Look it up.

But those Republicans in the Senate did, and they are doing what the American people ELECTED them to do....

So suck it up, loser.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Obama can and should nominate someone

The Senate has no obligation to confirm and Obama is far short of the 60 votes needed

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Because the supreme court nominee was democratically chosen by the people in 2012.

Indeed, for Senate republicans to refuse to vote to confirm the president’s nominee is for them to disregard the will of the people, who through the democratic process reelected Obama to be president until January 20, 2017 – to execute his duties as president in accordance with the will of the majority of the American people until that time, including nominating justices to the Supreme Court.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Because the constitution says the president is supposed to nominate supreme court justices and the congress is supposed to vote on that nomination. Do you really want to ignore the constitution to potentially have Trump nominate his sister?

I don't think their is any kind of time limit to nominating a supreme court juror or even a requirement. I think it just says that the president has that power to do so. And if we wait until the next election cycle then the president is still nominating someone and the congress will still be voting on it just like the constitution says. The only difference is that the people will have more of a say over who will get nominated because of the timing of Scalia's death.

========
The ONLY reason Republicans are whining about people electing / nominating the next SCJ is because they hope they can pack the Supreme Court with ultra right wingers.

The Founding Fathers didn't play dat game homie.

The people ELECT their Senators whose job it is under the Constitution --- which righties claim to love ... until it doesn't fit their ideology --- to " advise and consent ".

They have already " advised " when they told Obama not to nominate anyone because they were refusing to do their job under the Constitution.

But he told them to shove it up their ass --- it was his job to nominate the next justice according to the Constitution and HE DID HIS JOB.

He even nominated a conservative --- not a big time liberal.

And still the Republicans refuse to do their job.

They should interview the nominee as has always been done in the past and then they are perfectly within their rights to vote no and show their ass again.

But they must vote on the nominee. The Constitution does not call for waiting another year to elect a new justice so that right wingers can pack the court with their fellow ideologues.

I suppose if a Democrat wins the Repubicans will DEMAND to wait 4 more years so they can have another chance to pack the court.

 

[peach174]

the us elected obama...for two terms....he is doing his job..congress is not

Sure they are doing their job.
They have the right to wait till after the Nov. elections, because they have control of congress.
Dems would do the exact same thing if it had happened under their control of the Senate and a Republican President, who was right of center and it had been one of their own beloved Court Justices like Ruth Ginsburg.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Because the constitution says the president is supposed to nominate supreme court justices and the congress is supposed to vote on that nomination. Do you really want to ignore the constitution to potentially have Trump nominate his sister?

I don't think their is any kind of time limit to nominating a supreme court juror or even a requirement. I think it just says that the president has that power to do so. And if we wait until the next election cycle then the president is still nominating someone and the congress will still be voting on it just like the constitution says. The only difference is that the people will have more of a say over who will get nominated because of the timing of Scalia's death.

In the mean time we have a court who isn't able to make a definitive ruling on anything.

========
Wrong again moose breath.

An 8 member court CAN make rulings and they will.

If they have tie vote then the ruling of the lower court that was appealed to them stands.
But if they vote 5-3 they can make NEW rulings and they likely will without Scalia acting as a roadblock.

 

[peach174]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Because the supreme court nominee was democratically chosen by the people in 2012.

Indeed, for Senate republicans to refuse to vote to confirm the president’s nominee is for them to disregard the will of the people, who through the democratic process reelected Obama to be president until January 20, 2017 – to execute his duties as president in accordance with the will of the majority of the American people until that time, including nominating justices to the Supreme Court.

As far as I know Obama will still be our President even after the November elections and then the Senate will bring up his nomination and vote on it.
Both are still doing their jobs.

 

[Arizona Willie]

the us elected obama...for two terms....he is doing his job..congress is not

Sure they are doing their job.
They have the right to wait till after the Nov. elections, because they have control of congress.
Dems would do the exact same thing if it had happened under their control of the Senate and a Republican President, who was right of center and it had been one of their own beloved Court Justices like Ruth Ginsburg.

========
The Dems HAVE NEVER DONE THAT.

Biden suggested it once but they did not follow through.

The Dems DID approve a new justice in the last year of a Republican's term.

 

[Obiwan]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Because the supreme court nominee was democratically chosen by the people in 2012.

Indeed, for Senate republicans to refuse to vote to confirm the president’s nominee is for them to disregard the will of the people, who through the democratic process reelected Obama to be president until January 20, 2017 – to execute his duties as president in accordance with the will of the majority of the American people until that time, including nominating justices to the Supreme Court.

The American people didn't elect Obungles as emperor....

He has to work within the framework of the U S CONSTITUTION, which gives the democratically elected Senate the power to REFUSE any appointments they choose....

So let Obungles recommend idiots to his little heart's content...

While the Senate tells him "Hell, No!!!", just like the Constitution allows....

 

[BULLDOG]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Because the constitution says the president is supposed to nominate supreme court justices and the congress is supposed to vote on that nomination. Do you really want to ignore the constitution to potentially have Trump nominate his sister?

I don't think their is any kind of time limit to nominating a supreme court juror or even a requirement. I think it just says that the president has that power to do so. And if we wait until the next election cycle then the president is still nominating someone and the congress will still be voting on it just like the constitution says. The only difference is that the people will have more of a say over who will get nominated because of the timing of Scalia's death.

In the mean time we have a court who isn't able to make a definitive ruling on anything.

========
Wrong again moose breath.

An 8 member court CAN make rulings and they will.

If they have tie vote then the ruling of the lower court that was appealed to them stands.
But if they vote 5-3 they can make NEW rulings and they likely will without Scalia acting as a roadblock.

A tie vote prevents the court from functioning as intended.

 

[Obiwan]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Because the constitution says the president is supposed to nominate supreme court justices and the congress is supposed to vote on that nomination. Do you really want to ignore the constitution to potentially have Trump nominate his sister?

I don't think their is any kind of time limit to nominating a supreme court juror or even a requirement. I think it just says that the president has that power to do so. And if we wait until the next election cycle then the president is still nominating someone and the congress will still be voting on it just like the constitution says. The only difference is that the people will have more of a say over who will get nominated because of the timing of Scalia's death.

In the mean time we have a court who isn't able to make a definitive ruling on anything.

========
Wrong again moose breath.

An 8 member court CAN make rulings and they will.

If they have tie vote then the ruling of the lower court that was appealed to them stands.
But if they vote 5-3 they can make NEW rulings and they likely will without Scalia acting as a roadblock.

A tie vote prevents the court from functioning as intended.

A tie vote means the lower court ruling stands, so the system still functions....

 

[peach174]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Because the constitution says the president is supposed to nominate supreme court justices and the congress is supposed to vote on that nomination. Do you really want to ignore the constitution to potentially have Trump nominate his sister?

I don't think their is any kind of time limit to nominating a supreme court juror or even a requirement. I think it just says that the president has that power to do so. And if we wait until the next election cycle then the president is still nominating someone and the congress will still be voting on it just like the constitution says. The only difference is that the people will have more of a say over who will get nominated because of the timing of Scalia's death.

In the mean time we have a court who isn't able to make a definitive ruling on anything.

Sure they have.
They have been ruling since Jan. of 2016.
Home - Supreme Court of the United States
Recent Decisions

• 3/07/16 - V.L. v. E.L.
• 3/07/16 - Wearry v. Cain
• 3/07/16 - Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.
• 3/01/16 - Lockhart v. United States
• 3/01/16 - Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
• 1/25/16 - Amgen Inc. v. Harris
• 1/25/16 - James v. Boise
• 1/25/16 - FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn.
• 1/25/16 - Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States
• 1/25/16 - Musacchio v. United States

 

[Iceweasel]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

The People chose the person they wanted to pick the nominee in 2012.

And they picked the people to stop him in 2014, Dumbass....
View attachment 68246

Then the Senate can vote the guy down and face those consequences.

Why should they? You guys are pretending they are duty bound. Quote it up or look foolish.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Because the constitution says the president is supposed to nominate supreme court justices and the congress is supposed to vote on that nomination. Do you really want to ignore the constitution to potentially have Trump nominate his sister?

I don't think their is any kind of time limit to nominating a supreme court juror or even a requirement. I think it just says that the president has that power to do so. And if we wait until the next election cycle then the president is still nominating someone and the congress will still be voting on it just like the constitution says. The only difference is that the people will have more of a say over who will get nominated because of the timing of Scalia's death.

In the mean time we have a court who isn't able to make a definitive ruling on anything.

========
Wrong again moose breath.

An 8 member court CAN make rulings and they will.

If they have tie vote then the ruling of the lower court that was appealed to them stands.
But if they vote 5-3 they can make NEW rulings and they likely will without Scalia acting as a roadblock.

A tie vote prevents the court from functioning as intended.

How so? If it's that's close then it isn't a matter of law. A good law student can figure out the law. What 4 to 4 means is that there aren't enough liberals on the bench to ram their ideology down our throats.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As far as I know Obama will still be our President even after the November elections and then the Senate will bring up his nomination and vote on it.
Both are still doing their jobs.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, doubling down on his opposition to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, said Sunday that there’s no way the Republican-controlled Senate will hold a confirmation vote — not even after the November election.


McConnell says Obama's Supreme Court nominee won't even have a vote after the election


>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

As far as I know Obama will still be our President even after the November elections and then the Senate will bring up his nomination and vote on it.
Both are still doing their jobs.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, doubling down on his opposition to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, said Sunday that there’s no way the Republican-controlled Senate will hold a confirmation vote — not even after the November election.


McConnell says Obama's Supreme Court nominee won't even have a vote after the election


>>>>

I think you missed this part:
"Likewise, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said that Obama will not withdraw Garland’s name, no matter what happens in November."

 

[WorldWatcher]

As far as I know Obama will still be our President even after the November elections and then the Senate will bring up his nomination and vote on it.
Both are still doing their jobs.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, doubling down on his opposition to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, said Sunday that there’s no way the Republican-controlled Senate will hold a confirmation vote — not even after the November election.


McConnell says Obama's Supreme Court nominee won't even have a vote after the election


>>>>

I think you missed this part:
"Likewise, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said that Obama will not withdraw Garland’s name, no matter what happens in November."

That has nothing to do with what Peach174 about the SENATE taking up the nomination in November.

The White House not withdrawing the nomination doesn't mean McConnell will change his mind.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Well that is the argument of the GOP.

I don't see any 6th year Senators offering not to vote for their final year as Senator just to wait to see 'what the people' want.

Meanwhile- the people vote on the President every 4 years- and for a 4 year term- the people have spoken.

The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice- the Senate's job is to 'advise and consent'- it is the Senate that is refusing to to their job as per the U.S. Constitution.

He shall have Power,..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..... Judges of the supreme Court,

The President is doing his Constitutionally mandated job- the Senate is refusing to do their job.

 

[Iceweasel]

As far as I know Obama will still be our President even after the November elections and then the Senate will bring up his nomination and vote on it.
Both are still doing their jobs.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, doubling down on his opposition to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, said Sunday that there’s no way the Republican-controlled Senate will hold a confirmation vote — not even after the November election.


McConnell says Obama's Supreme Court nominee won't even have a vote after the election


>>>>

I think you missed this part:
"Likewise, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said that Obama will not withdraw Garland’s name, no matter what happens in November."

That has nothing to do with what Peach174 about the SENATE taking up the nomination in November.

The White House not withdrawing the nomination doesn't mean McConnell will change his mind.


>>>>

Huh? That was confusing.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah right--LOL We have seen the general public go bat shit crazy over Bernie Sanders a communist, and a maniac in Donald Trump. And you want to trust them with picking out a Supreme Court Justice.

I don't think so.

With such sentiments why trust the public with anything at all? Why even have democracy if the people can't handle it properly.

We don't elect Supreme Court Justices- we elect President's every 4 years- and they are President the entire 4 years- not just the first 3 years.

Why won't the GOP listen to the people?