Antonin Scalia Dies

[KSB2424 3,172]

 

Lame Duck = an official (especially the president) in the final period of office, after the election of a successor.

 

So, not until November, HTH.

 

Fine take that moniker off to avoid confusion.

 

But this is the last year for Obama, and under that scenario this has only happened once. The precedent I said still is true.

 

I'm not arguing he shouldn't by the way. Just noting the only precedent in this scenario.

[MDC 7,836]

I'm guessing Obummer nominates some left leaning candidate who is technically qualified, the GOP stonewalls and saber rattles for a few months to make the base happy, then when polls turn on then they have and give Obummer what he wanted in the first place.

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

 

Fine take that moniker off to avoid confusion.

 

But this is the last year for Obama, and under that scenario this has only happened once. The precedent I said still is true.

 

I'm not arguing he shouldn't by the way. Just noting the only precedent in this scenario.

 

Johnson nominated somebody. So this scenario has really only happened once. Not much precedent either way.....

 

So, it did happen once, and the president made a nomination...that's precedent...not "not much either way". And it wouldn't matter if it had never happened, the constitution is clear on this point.

 

 

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.

 

 

It is a requirement of the job of president.

[KSB2424 3,172]

 

 

So, it did happen once, and the president made a nomination...that's precedent...not "not much either way". And it wouldn't matter if it had never happened, the constitution is clear on this point.

 

It is a requirement of the job of president.

 

Again, you're arguing with a figment of your imagination. I said (the one quote of mine you left out):

 

Obama has every right to nominate somebody.

 

I was merely pointing out this scenario has only happened once so its very rare. Sheesh.

 

Even when I agree with some of you, y'all still want to argue.

[jerryskids 7,054]

I'm a Repubtard and the idea that Obama shouldn't nominate someone is mindbogglingly dumb.

 

I'd like another moderate, hopefully this Indian judge is the real deal.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

You think the president should hold off for a year?

 

Yes. He should add this to his laundry list of things he's passed on to the next president to deal with.

[MDC 7,836]

 

Yes. He should add this to his laundry list of things he's passed on to the next president to deal with.

Like pulling out if Iraq and the global recession?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

Like pulling out if Iraq and the global recession?

 

I was thinking closing Guantanamo, all of those shovel ready jobs he had lined up to fix our aging infrastructure, and fixing Obamacare.

[MDC 7,836]

 

I was thinking closing Guantanamo, all of those shovel ready jobs he had lined up to fix our aging infrastructure, and fixing Obamacare.

I can't wait til the GOP president closes Gitmo and replaces Obummercare with "something terrific."

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

I can't wait til the GOP president closes Gitmo and replaces Obummercare with "something terrific."

 

Me too.

[Reality 3,121]

Schumer's take in 2007.

 

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

 

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.

“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.

"This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer," Perino said. "He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days."

Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.

“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”

While no retirements appear imminent, Bush still could have the opportunity to fill another vacancy on the court. Yet the two oldest members – Justice John Paul Stevens, 87, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 74 – are part of the court's liberal bloc and could hold off retirement until Bush leaves office in January, 2009.

Earlier this week, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, said he was persuaded by a conversation with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who spoke with Specter at the Aspen Institute gathering in Colorado this month, to study the decisions of the Roberts Court. The term that ended in June was notable for several rulings that reversed or chipped away at several long-standing decisions, delighting conservatives but enraging liberals.

Breyer has publicly raised concerns that conservative justices were violating stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave precedents undisturbed.

“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench in June to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.

Schumer said there were four lessons to be learned from Alito and Roberts: Confirmation hearings are meaningless, a nominee’s record should be weighed more heavily than rhetoric, “ideology matters” and “take the president at his word.”

“When a president says he wants to nominate justices in the mold of [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas,” Schumer said, “believe him.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

 

Nothing new here fellas, Schumer was preemptively striking before one of these SCOTUS's had even keeled over less than a decade ago.

[MDC 7,836]

 

Me too.

Children will frolic in rivers of chocolate.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

 

I was thinking closing Guantanamo, all of those shovel ready jobs he had lined up to fix our aging infrastructure, and fixing Obamacare.

Wow, pretty weak. I'm afraid you have zero credibility on political topics, bunny

[PIK 95 2]

 

 

So, it did happen once, and the president made a nomination...that's precedent...not "not much either way". And it wouldn't matter if it had never happened, the constitution is clear on this point.

 

It is a requirement of the job of president.

I'm just passing through, but I like this Honcho fella. Do I know you?

[drobeski 3,061]

I'm just passing through, but I like this Honcho fella. Do I know you?

do you visit rest area's often ?

[KSB2424 3,172]

do you visit rest area's often ?

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

Again, you're arguing with a figment of your imagination. I said (the one quote of mine you left out):

 

 

 

I was merely pointing out this scenario has only happened once so its very rare. Sheesh.

 

Even when I agree with some of you, y'all still want to argue.

Dude, when you question in one post and say soemthing else in another post--it's not really agreeing.

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

do you visit rest area's often ?

Please keep me out of your sick fantasies. TIA.

[PIK 95 2]

do you visit rest area's often ?

"slurrrppppp:

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

Children will frolic in rivers of chocolate.

Paid for by EBT cards that those who produce pay for.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

Wow, pretty weak. I'm afraid you have zero credibility on political topics, bunny

That's an amusing analogy. The first sign of adversity for Obama in his final year dealing with partisanship and the reality of Washington politics and this is what the leftist sheep argue with. What's weak is you. Your side is being challenged with tactics they use to enhance the party and now, somehow, the right are the obstructionist arseholes.

 

I get it. The right aren't allowed to use the same procedures as the left. It's ok for one party but not the other. :rollseyes:

[peenie 1,949]

racist much, you should stop using racism as a crutch. Maybe you'll grow up and get a job. maybe you can kiss my black ass!

 

oh hell to the naw!

put on your glasses old man and learn to read!

i was responding to the posts that stated that obama was going to nominate a black person!

that is what is racist!

[gocolts 300]

Sure, Obama can nominate someone. However, since the GOP controls the senate, just do like Reid use to do, let it sit there and get to it whenever, if ever.

 

Or, just vote them down. Didn't Obama vote against Roberts, even though he admitted he was fully qualified???

 

Hell, when Obama was just a state senator, he supported filibustering Alito.

 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

I highly doubt the GOP leadership has the sack to do anything to stop this though.

 

 

[IGotWorms 4,062]

That's an amusing analogy. The first sign of adversity for Obama in his final year dealing with partisanship and the reality of Washington politics and this is what the leftist sheep argue with. What's weak is you. Your side is being challenged with tactics they use to enhance the party and now, somehow, the right are the obstructionist arseholes.

 

I get it. The right aren't allowed to use the same procedures as the left. It's ok for one party but not the other. :rollseyes:

When has the left ever done what the right is proposing to do here? Give me an example

[gocolts 300]

 

i was responding to the posts that stated that obama was going to nominate a black person!

that is what is racist!

I bet Obama nominates a black woman so he can cry and use his favorite go to excuse when he doesn't get his way, racism.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Sure, Obama can nominate someone. However, since the GOP controls the senate, just do like Reid use to do, let it sit there and get to it whenever, if ever.

 

Or, just vote them down. Didn't Obama vote against Roberts, even though he admitted he was fully qualified???

 

Hell, when Obama was just a state senator, he supported filibustering Alito.

 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

I highly doubt the GOP leadership has the sack to do anything to stop this though.

 

 

At least let the nominee come up for a vote. If they're voted down, fine. If they're filibustered, okay but a whole year is a long time to filibuster

[IGotWorms 4,062]

I bet Obama nominates a black woman so he can cry and use his favorite go to excuse when he doesn't get his way, racism.

That's rich coming from a Birther

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Hey Gary, home come it's okay that your boy Cruz wasn't born in the US? After you spent years speculating about Obama's "true" birthplace?

 

What is the difference between the two?

 

I'll give you a hint: race.

[MedStudent 56]

Obama should be able to appoint the Supreme Court justice period since he died in his term. In order to make the Senate confirm a nominee in a reasonable amount of time, Obama should not lose this appointment power when his term ends. If the senate filibusters this appointment for a year, then the government gridlock wil now extend to the courts.

[peenie 1,949]

I bet Obama nominates a black woman so he can cry and use his favorite go to excuse when he doesn't get his way, racism.

 

that is called strategy.

 

eta

if obama nominates a black man or woman first, knowing full well he or she won't make it through, then he'll nominate who he truly wanted in the first place: sri srinivasan.

lastly, i think obama has been very careful NOT to use racism as a reason for anything that has happened to him personally during his white house tenure. perhaps your memory is clouded by your own perceptions. you'd need to show me proof where he blamed racism for his problems. even though you and i both know that is the case, he's never said it out loud...not that i know of.

[gocolts 300]

Obama should be able to appoint the Supreme Court justice period since he died in his term. In order to make the Senate confirm a nominee in a reasonable amount of time, Obama should not lose this appointment power when his term ends. If the senate filibusters this appointment for a year, then the government gridlock wil now extend to the courts.

Actually, all courts do not stop all proceedings simply because there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS. In fact, there are even plans in place for this situation.

[MedStudent 56]

Actually, all courts do not stop all proceedings simply because there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS. In fact, there are even plans in place for this situation.

I know that. But a 4-4 vote means it reverts to the lower courts ruling and by that would basically take decisions away from the highest court in the land.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

When has the left ever done what the right is proposing to do here? Give me an example

Filibuster a nominee? Control the nomination process with political posturing? Use partisan politics to nominate or not nominate a prospective nominee who was qualified? Never, right? They never left it in committee for any period of time? Those Fawking leftist angels never crossed any lines like this, right?

 

Dumb question to ask someone with your expertise, but I will: what is the nuclear option and why will it come into play? And why do you now not support a houses decision when the party in control is not the party you support? You were fine with any decision Reed and Pelosi made before. What happend? That letter next to their named changed?

 

You know damn well that the left would do the same Fawking sh!t the right is doing now. To say otherwise is a Fawking lie. Reed would be doing the same thing. And he'd have the media behind him every step of the way. And you know that. You applaud that. Now that the shoes on the other foot, you feign appalled ignorance to the system you are fully aware of. Fawk off. Tired of dealing with those like yourself and understand partisan politics and then pretend you're a moderate idiot that only pays attention at election time.

[gocolts 300]

Filibuster a nominee? Control the nomination process with political posturing? Use partisan politics to nominate or not nominate a prospective nominee who was qualified? Never, right? They never left it in committee for any period of time? Those Fawking leftist angels never crossed any lines like this, right?

 

Dumb question to ask someone with your expertise, but I will: what is the nuclear option and why will it come into play? And why do you now not support a houses decision when the party in control is not the party you support? You were fine with any decision Reed and Pelosi made before. What happend? That letter next to their named changed?

 

You know damn well that the left would do the same Fawking sh!t the right is doing now. To say otherwise is a Fawking lie. Reed would be doing the same thing. And he'd have the media behind him every step of the way. And you know that. You applaud that. Now that the shoes on the other foot, you feign appalled ignorance to the system you are fully aware of. Fawk off. Tired of dealing with those like yourself and understand partisan politics and then pretend you're a moderate idiot that only pays attention at election time.

POW!!!!

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

 

oh hell to the naw!

put on your glasses old man and learn to read!

i was responding to the posts that stated that obama was going to nominate a black person!

that is what is racist!

What would be racist about Obama nominating a black man? There are probably many qualified black judges.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

No one has ever filibustered a Supreme Court nominee for anywhere close to a year. It's ridiculous. To even suggest a President with a year left should not nominate a justice is preposterous. Nothing like THAT has ever happened.

So the goal post is now a year? Nominate all you want. But understand the process will be held up just like the other side would if they were put in the same predicament. This isn't rocket science people. It's one of the most powerful processes the two branches of government has in electing the third branch. It's as partisan as it gets. And the checks and balances that the constitution afford us with are in play at it's finest.

 

Somewhere up there, the man who just died, was room temperature just days ago while the left was celebrating his death, is smiling now. I Fawking love the irony. It drips with his love of his interpretation of the document he defended to his death. Checks and balances are the things he defended. And now, they will be argued by those that do not agree with his views and be shown to be the political ideologues he so wanted to out. His death has made him stronger.

 

Love it.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,908]

So the goal post is now a year? Nominate all you want. But understand the process will be held up just like the other side would if they were put in the same predicament. This isn't rocket science people. It's one of the most powerful processes the two branches of government has in electing the third branch. It's as partisan as it gets. And the checks and balances that the constitution afford us with are in play at it's finest.

 

Somewhere up there, the man who just died, was room temperature just days ago while the left was celebrating his death, is smiling now. I Fawking love the irony. It drips with his love of his interpretation of the document he defended to his death. Checks and balances are the things he defended. And now, they will be argued by those that do not agree with his views and be shown to be the political ideologues he so wanted to out. His death has made him stronger.

 

Love it.

Let's not act like he stormed the beaches of Normandy, ok?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,582]

Let's not act like he stormed the beaches of Normandy, ok?

I egged a liberals house once. OK?

[gutterslut 1]

Filibuster a nominee? Control the nomination process with political posturing? Use partisan politics to nominate or not nominate a prospective nominee who was qualified? Never, right? They never left it in committee for any period of time? Those Fawking leftist angels never crossed any lines like this, right?

 

Dumb question to ask someone with your expertise, but I will: what is the nuclear option and why will it come into play? And why do you now not support a houses decision when the party in control is not the party you support? You were fine with any decision Reed and Pelosi made before. What happend? That letter next to their named changed?

 

You know damn well that the left would do the same Fawking sh!t the right is doing now. To say otherwise is a Fawking lie. Reed would be doing the same thing. And he'd have the media behind him every step of the way. And you know that. You applaud that. Now that the shoes on the other foot, you feign appalled ignorance to the system you are fully aware of. Fawk off. Tired of dealing with those like yourself and understand partisan politics and then pretend you're a moderate idiot that only pays attention at election time.

 

THIS will piss off the electorate and THIS is exactly what is gonna get a Dem elected POTUS for 2016.

Good job RabbitBastard. You repubs just keep stepping in your own sh!t.

You sure you don't wanna shut down the Govt again. THAT worked wonderfully last time .. for the Dems.

Sh!t and step in it. And you're too dumb to keep sh!tting and stepping in your own sh!t.

[kutulu 1,701]

I egged a liberals house once. OK?

did you tell him what you were going to do before you did it?