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

[Iti oj]

I don't think anyone is saying the republicans shouldn't be involved in the process. Generally in this situation a moderate candidate would be the answer, which is what Bush did for his last nomination. If he had a republican senate at the time I'm sure his nomination would have been different.

The problem I have is with this notion that they will simply reject anyone he sends up. It is the same tact they have been pursuing since Obama took office. Obstruct everything, instead of actually judging based upon the merits or qualifications in this case.

well said. *claps*

 

[Ingledsva]

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?

Different scenario, - by LAW the President has a right to nominate the Supreme Court Justice. AFTER that - in Senate HEARINGS - they can voice opposition.

Blocking the Presidents from making that choice, and no hearings, - is against the law, - and they should be prosecuted.

*

 

[McBell]

There are. But those definitions are virtually all politically motivated. The whole point of a lame duck is that he is a placeholder for the new guy. If the election were a month of two away, you might make that argument. But in this case the talk about a lame duck started 9 months before the election and are completely political.

interesting how you would jump to that particular assumption.
Especially given the context of its use in that particular post.
I took it to mean that Obama has been a lame duck due to congress living up to the literal definition of the word.

 

[Underhill]

interesting how you would jump to that particular assumption.
Especially given the context of its use in that particular post.
I took it to mean that Obama has been a lame duck due to congress living up to the literal definition of the word.

By that definition he has been a lame duck for 6 years. I see that as handing congress a win.

They are obstructing the president. It's the difference between a guy with no legs trying to run a race and a guy being tripped every 3 feet as he tries to run to the finish line. The second guy may not be a cripple but he still isn't getting anywhere fast.

 

[Mister Emu]

Of course Obama has the right, one might even say the obligation, to submit someone for application. I don't think it is any less fair to warn the President that the Senate will not be considering his nomination. That is their right, and one might even say, if they believe that Obama will not be nominating someone who safeguards the Constitution, their obligation.

I applaud every effort to ensure that as few as possible "living" interpretation judges are on the bench and damaging and/or usurping our rights and powers.

edit: If this is any more than a warning on nominating anyone other than a true centrist, the GOP must feel very confident in the election coming up.

I see where they are coming from. If the republican wins, they are golden and you'll some form of constitutionalist nominated. If Bernie wins, you might still see a strict interpretation judge, I don't get him as someone who wants to surrender any of our rights like many of the new "progressives" do. If Hillary wins, that would be perhaps a little worse, but as long as they keep the Senate they won't be in too different a situation. But I think they are confident that if Hillary wins the democratic nod that they can beat her.

If your worst case scenario is projected to be about where you are now and you could come out roses, you should take the opportunity.

Now they could get a Trump nomination, lose to Hillary, lose the Senate, and lose any hope of having a real say in the appointment.

 

[esmith]

Different scenario, - by LAW the President has a right to nominate the Supreme Court Justice. AFTER that - in Senate HEARINGS - they can voice opposition.

Blocking the Presidents from making that choice, and no hearings, - is against the law, - and they should be prosecuted.*

I don't understand where you are getting your information that the Senate is stopping the Obama from putting forth a nomination. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that says the Congress has to act on that nomination. Article II Section 2 of the Constitution covers this as follows: Source

Article II Section 2
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't understand where you are getting your information that the Senate is stopping the Obama from putting forth a nomination. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that says the Congress has to act on that nomination. Article II Section 2 of the Constitution covers this as follows: Source .

Article II Section 2
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

This has been interpreted by Constitutional lawyers to mean the President has the power to NOMINATE his choice of judge. THEN in Senate hearings, - the Senate can "give advice" against, - perhaps stopping the actual appointment.

Part of the Senate cannot decided ahead of the debate process, to block the rest of the Senate from having the debate, or block the President from his Constitutional right to nominate, and have his nominee go through the appointment debates process.

And of course the Obamas were lawyers, and President Barack Obama, was former editor of the Harvard Law Review.

*

 

[esmith]

This has been interpreted by Constitutional lawyers to mean the President has the power to NOMINATE his choice of judge. THEN in Senate hearings, - the Senate can "give advice" against, - perhaps stopping the actual appointment.

Part of the Senate cannot decided ahead of the debate process, to block the rest of the Senate from having the debate, or block the President from his Constitutional right to nominate, and have his nominee go through the appointment debates process.

And of course the Obamas were lawyers, and President Barack Obama, was former editor of the Harvard Law Review.

*

Oh but they can stop any debate. All it takes is Senate Majority Leader not to bring it to the floor. The Democrats can **** and moan all they want but can not do a damn thing about it. So what if Obama is/was a lawyer and editor of a university student journal; what does this have to do with the "price of tea in China.

FYI the Constitution does not say the Supreme Court has to have 9 justices. It is left up to the Congress.

 

[Sunstone]

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?

The question of whether the Republican Senators are guilty of sedition in no logical way depends on speculations that the Left would not condemn as seditious Democratic Senators, if they were as bad as Republicans.

 

[Ingledsva]

Oh but they can stop any debate. All it takes is Senate Majority Leader not to bring it to the floor. The Democrats can **** and moan all they want but can not do a damn thing about it. So what if Obama is/was a lawyer and editor of a university student journal; what does this have to do with the "price of tea in China.

FYI the Constitution does not say the Supreme Court has to have 9 justices. It is left up to the Congress.

If it goes to a court case they will lose, - as the President putting forth his nominee as per the Constitution, - does NOT stop the Senate from choosing not to appoint such.

*

 

[Rainbow Mage]

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.

Which might be Obama. She hasn't ruled it out.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I will never understand the Republican ire for our president. He is a good, compassionate man. He's shown that over and over. He truly loves this people, and he believes in the rights of the Constitution. He cried over the victims of gun violence in schools, and I don't know how many politicians would. McCain himself said of Obama in all respect that he is a 'good man, a family man'.

 

[esmith]

If it goes to a court case they will lose, - as the President putting forth his nominee as per the Constitution, - does NOT stop the Senate from choosing not to appoint such.

*

Why would it go to court. The Obama can nominate anyone he so desires and the Senate could care less. They will not even attempt to stop him because they can't. Neither can the Obama or the courts force the Senate to take up the nomination. I don't know maybe that is what you are attempting to put forward. Is it a possibility that you agree that the Senate does not have to bring the nomination to the floor?

 

[esmith]

The question of whether the Republican Senators are guilty of sedition in no logical way depends on speculations that the Left would not condemn as seditious Democratic Senators, if they were as bad as Republicans.

So are you saying that the Republican Senators are guilty of "sedition". First let's look at the Definition Sedition

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Given the above how do you construe that if the Obama makes a nomination say for a ambassador and the Senate does not bring the nomination to the floor is "sedition". Please give the article of the Constitution that says that Congress has to act on any nomination brought froward by the President?
As I mentioned above the Constitution does not mandate the number of Supreme Court justices, that is left to the Congress.

 

[Sunstone]

So are you saying that the Republican Senators are guilty of "sedition". First let's look at the Definition Sedition

Given the above how do you construe that if the Obama makes a nomination say for a ambassador and the Senate does not bring the nomination to the floor is "sedition". Please give the article of the Constitution that says that Congress has to act on any nomination brought froward by the President?
As I mentioned above the Constitution does not mandate the number of Supreme Court justices, that is left to the Congress.

Please. Esmith, read my post again -- this time, with comprehension.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I applaud every effort to ensure that as few as possible "living" interpretation judges are on the bench and damaging and/or usurping our rights and powers.

Even Thomas Jefferson thought we should periodically, and rather frequently, update the constitution.

Which might be Obama. She hasn't ruled it out.

Wouldn't that just glorious and delicious irony? They refused to work with him, so they got stuck with him as he gained even more power, LOL!

 

[esmith]

Please. Esmith, read my post again -- this time, with comprehension.

The problem with your statement, in my opinion, leaves the door open to interpretation that Republicans are guilty of sedition due the following statement by you::
"question if Republican Senators are guilty of sedition in no logical way depends on speculations that the Left would not condemn as seditious Democratic Senators if they were as bad as Republicans "
what you are basically saying, in my interpretation of that is: whether or not the Republicans are guilty of sedition does not hing of the "Left" condemning Democrats of seditious acts"

Interpretation of a statement is dependent on the person reading the statement.

 

[metis]

Well, it the Republican-controlled Congress does not even act on whom Obama may submit, won't this be interesting because you know darn well the Democrats will use this during this election year as just another example of the "Do-Nothing Congress" that has the worst record for efficiency since this nation was formed. It probably won't convince the hard-core Republican base, but it may play a significant factor with independents who are fed up with all this stalemate and childish arguing. And if Cruz were to get nominated with his record of even offending the Senators in his own party, why would anyone expect a "President Cruz" to work with Democrats to do much of anything?

 

[Revoltingest]

Another perspective on who we want nominating & who we want becoming USSC justices......
Consider the following item.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2016/03/05/probable-cause/
We see warrantless (they claim otherwise, but the searches do lack specific warrants) searches....extremely violent ones.
This happens under the authority of the DC mayor, Muriel E. Bowser.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e57656-4b64-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html
Consider also that Bill Clinton sought these same abridgements of civil liberties, & more.
And that Hillary worked with him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102588.html

To dislike Trump is perfectly reasonable.
There are many reasons to do so.
But be careful whom you vote for... the Democratic party has a mixed record on civil liberties.
And Hillary is as establishment as they come.....she might be even worse than Trump.

 

[Mister Emu]

Even Thomas Jefferson thought we should periodically, and rather frequently, update the constitution.

So do I. That doesn't change my statement.