58% of Americans say they'd like to see the President nominate someone to the Supreme Court

[Quetzal]

Obama has said he does plan to nominate someone for the seat, and has called on the Senate to vote on his nominee. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, has said the Senate Judiciary Committee would not hold hearings on any nominee put forward by Obama, nor would the full body vote on Obama's choice.

Let me guess, party politics?

The public's divisions by party are almost as deep as those found in Washington. While majorities of Democrats (82%) and independents (59%) want the President to nominate someone to fill the seat, just 29% of Republicans agree. And while Republicans see blocking a vote via Senate procedure as a justifiable move (77%), independents are more divided on that question (46% say it's justified), while Democrats are not on board, just 25% say it's justified.

Source.
Nailed it!

It gets me a frustrated. This is one of the benefits of being president, right? You get to nominate someone to fill a spot when it becomes open. Nope, the GOP has decided to stick to party politics. Constitutionally mandated responsibilities? Yeah, no big deal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would too....just not the current president or any of the leading candidates.
Let the seat remain vacant until there's a prez I find acceptable.
I'm willing to wait a spell if necessary.

 

[Quetzal]

I would too....just not the current president or any of the leading candidates.
Let the seat remain vacant until there's a prez I find acceptable.
I'm willing to wait a spell if necessary.

I'm tellin ya! Vote me in and I will appoint @Wirey. We like him well enough... right?

 

[Quintessence]

I say, if they don't do their jobs by making an appointment in a timely fashion, fire the whole lot of them.

 

[Quetzal]

I say, if they don't do their jobs by making an appointment in a timely fashion, fire the whole lot of them.

The problem is no matter who Obama picks, it would never be good enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm tellin ya! Vote me in and I will appoint @Wirey. We like him well enough... right?

The thought of him hitting on Ruth B Ginsburg...."How ya do'n, toots?".....is alone enuf to approve of your choice.

 

[bobhikes]

Let me guess, party politics?


Source.
Nailed it!

It gets me a frustrated. This is one of the benefits of being president, right? You get to nominate someone to fill a spot when it becomes open. Nope, the GOP has decided to stick to party politics. Constitutionally mandated responsibilities? Yeah, no big deal.

On his short list was the Republican Governor of Nevada. That would make an interesting choice and give the GOP a problem. He's a moderate Republican and I'm for more moderates in government whether they be Republican or Democrat.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It gets me a frustrated. This is one of the benefits of being president, right? You get to nominate someone to fill a spot when it becomes open. Nope, the GOP has decided to stick to party politics. Constitutionally mandated responsibilities? Yeah, no big deal.

Video you may like.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The Constitution provides for some options:
Obama can appoint, and the Senate refuse to consider the nomination
Obama can wait until they have recessed, then appoint someone...recess appointments have to be approved when Congress reconvenes
Obama can nominate someone, the Senate refuse to consider, adjourn for recess and elections...and he can call them back to session to consider matters he deems necessary--such as a Supreme Court nomination. I don't believe any President has ever done that, at least in the last few decades, but it would put the Republicans in the position of having to either come back to DC to hold the hearings, or to defy the Presidents power to convene Congress. It would certainly make for an interesting run up to the election...

 

[Valjean]

They're going to feel pretty silly when Hillary or Bernie takes office and appoints Barack Obama...

 

[Quetzal]

They're going to feel pretty silly when Hillary or Bernie takes office and appoints Barack Obama...

That would be hysterical.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

They're going to feel pretty silly when Hillary or Bernie takes office and appoints Barack Obama...

That would be hysterical.

That would be incredible. The Democrats would become the party of banter, which would be a marked improvement.

 

[Skwim]

The way things are shaping up in the political arena, if they don't confirm Obama's nominee they'll be faced with Clinton's nominee.

 

[Augustus]

That would be incredible. The Democrats would become the party of banter, which would be a marked improvement.

Would be even better if just after being sworn in he revealed that he actually was a Muslim after all.

 

[Ingledsva]

I say, if they don't do their jobs by making an appointment in a timely fashion, fire the whole lot of them.

I was thinking the same thing. LOL!

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, says the President has the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.

The Senate can disagree, - with hearings, - but - it is illegal for them to just not allow his choice to be put forward, - and thus they should lose their jobs, - perhaps even be incarcerated.

*

 

[esmith]

Even if he nominates someone nothing says the Senate has to confirm them. This also applies to any candidate nominated by the next president.

 

[Valjean]

I was thinking the same thing. LOL!

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, says the President has the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.

The Senate can disagree, - with hearings, - but - it is illegal for them to just now allow his choice to be put forward, - and thus they should lose their jobs, - perhaps even be incarcerated.
*

And yet this is exactly what senate Republicans have done. They've vowed not even to hear any nominations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nomination-obama.html?_r=0

I can't speak to the legality of this -- it seems to border on sedition -- but, since none of then was called on the carpet for the clearly seditious Caucus Room conspiracy, they probably feel they can get away with anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

And yet this is exactly what senate Republicans have done. They've vowed not even to hear any nominations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nomination-obama.html?_r=0

I can't speak to the legality of this -- it seems to border on sedition -- but, since none of then was called on the carpet for the clearly seditious Caucus Room conspiracy, they probably feel they can get away with anything.

Sedition?
No....just politics as usual.
http://aclj.org/supreme-court/guess...l-role-in-supreme-court-confirmationuntil-now

Then-Senator Obama actually voted against Justice Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, taking a leading role in an attempted filibuster against his nomination, something the White House now mysteriously says he “regrets.”
Regret was hardly the word to describe his position at the time. He eloquently described his view of the significant role played by the Senate in the Supreme Court confirmation process:
"There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable, and an allaround good guy. That once you get beyond intellect, and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise AND consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record."

https://tedtheeconomist.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/fact-check-conservative-scotus-nomination-meme/

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

And yet this is exactly what senate Republicans have done. They've vowed not even to hear any nominations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nomination-obama.html?_r=0

I can't speak to the legality of this -- it seems to border on sedition -- but, since none of then was called on the carpet for the clearly seditious Caucus Room conspiracy, they probably feel they can get away with anything.

Let's say it was the last election year of a Republican president, and a space appeared in the Supreme Court that was left by a Democrat. And if a conservative is put in, it would tip the balance heavily in the GOP's favour. So much so, that the same-sex marriage ruling now looks like it will be overruled, maybe even Roe vs Wade in abortion law, and a slew of other conservative objectives that would lock hardline conservative values into place for probably a generation.

Would you not be slightly sympathetic if a Democrat-controlled Senate wanted to block such a move which could affect America in their view catastrophically for a whole generation? Would you still accuse them of sedition?

 

[tytlyf]

Obama has already nominated 2 judges. You don't hear republicans crying about that. What's to say the 3rd appointment will be more decisive? Republicans will politicize everything. America suffers under republican rule.