Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Supreme Court Appointment

Page 10 of 15 [ 239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 15  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Should Obama Select the next Supreme Court Justice?
Yes 76%  76%  [ 29 ]
No 24%  24%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 38

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

17 Feb 2016, 12:09 am

It's all politics, there are no principles except what is in their own best interest at that given moment.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,247
Location: the island of defective toy santas

17 Feb 2016, 12:23 am

...except in the best interest of the owners of the vest pockets in which those POS pols reside.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

17 Feb 2016, 12:53 am

AuntBlabby

Concerning Mitch McConnell's comment.That was then, this is now



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

17 Feb 2016, 12:54 am

Fugu



There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics-Mark Twain



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

17 Feb 2016, 1:44 am

Jacoby wrote:
It's all politics, there are no principles except what is in their own best interest at that given moment.


Sigh, at least you're admitting that.


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

17 Feb 2016, 3:55 am

MDD123 wrote:
Simple question. I personally did not like Scalia or his decisions. The sitting president normally nominates a new SC justice and has the senate confirm or deny the decision within a few months. In the handful of cases that the senate denies the president's pick, the president simply nominates a different justice and tries again.

The senate has never blocked or stalled a nomination with the intent of waiting for a new president to take office. And the notion that waiting for a new POTUS election is more democratic than allowing our currently serving POTUS to make the nomination doesn't is just a lie. The only thing such a measure would do is create a possibility that a republican POTUS will make the nomination, this is a power play, nothing more.


The Senate does not HAVE to vote on the nominee at all. They can go along with their regular business. The only thing that is required is that before the nominee can take the position, the Senate must vote in his favor.

President Obama has no right to demand the Senate to vote on his nominee.

By the way, don't forget that during President G W Bush's second term, the Democrats in the Senate were geared up to block any Supreme Court nominee that the President might make should a justice resign or pass away. The Democrats are just showing themselves to be their usual hypocritical selves.

And for what it's worth, I think that nearly all appointments of Supreme Court justices in the 20th century went smoothly is largely because the Senate and the President in those cases were usually the same party.

But I guarantee you that if we currently had a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, the Senate would be even less likely to vote for the nominee. You have to give the Democrats respect on one thing: they keep fighting for what they want while the Republicans often give up and let the Democrats have what they want.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,247
Location: the island of defective toy santas

17 Feb 2016, 3:57 am

if that last point were factual, I'd be thankful :mrgreen: but I have my doubts. :shrug:



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

17 Feb 2016, 3:58 am

beneficii wrote:
I remember reading a Canadian, of all people, notice this increasing strength of ideology in the U.S. becoming a problem back in 2010:


2010? I guess it must take a long time for news to reach into Canada.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

17 Feb 2016, 3:59 am

MDD123 wrote:
Until then, Obama will nominate a reasonable replacement, and the Senate will have to provide reasons for denying those appointment.


The Senate has no duty to provide a reason for voting against the nominee.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

17 Feb 2016, 4:26 am

eric76 wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
Simple question. I personally did not like Scalia or his decisions. The sitting president normally nominates a new SC justice and has the senate confirm or deny the decision within a few months. In the handful of cases that the senate denies the president's pick, the president simply nominates a different justice and tries again.

The senate has never blocked or stalled a nomination with the intent of waiting for a new president to take office. And the notion that waiting for a new POTUS election is more democratic than allowing our currently serving POTUS to make the nomination doesn't is just a lie. The only thing such a measure would do is create a possibility that a republican POTUS will make the nomination, this is a power play, nothing more.


The Senate does not HAVE to vote on the nominee at all. They can go along with their regular business. The only thing that is required is that before the nominee can take the position, the Senate must vote in his favor.

President Obama has no right to demand the Senate to vote on his nominee.

By the way, don't forget that during President G W Bush's second term, the Democrats in the Senate were geared up to block any Supreme Court nominee that the President might make should a justice resign or pass away. The Democrats are just showing themselves to be their usual hypocritical selves.

And for what it's worth, I think that nearly all appointments of Supreme Court justices in the 20th century went smoothly is largely because the Senate and the President in those cases were usually the same party.

But I guarantee you that if we currently had a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, the Senate would be even less likely to vote for the nominee. You have to give the Democrats respect on one thing: they keep fighting for what they want while the Republicans often give up and let the Democrats have what they want.



Another thinking man at WP and not any of the WP sheep. The Dems "Borked" Rober Bork in 1987 now its the Republicans turn to "Borked" any of Obamas nominees.



Last edited by frenchmanflats on 17 Feb 2016, 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

17 Feb 2016, 4:26 am

eric76 wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
Until then, Obama will nominate a reasonable replacement, and the Senate will have to provide reasons for denying those appointment.


The Senate has no duty to provide a reason for voting against the nominee.


The Senate can take their sweet time in the nomination process.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

17 Feb 2016, 4:30 am

frenchmanflats wrote:
eric76 wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
Simple question. I personally did not like Scalia or his decisions. The sitting president normally nominates a new SC justice and has the senate confirm or deny the decision within a few months. In the handful of cases that the senate denies the president's pick, the president simply nominates a different justice and tries again.

The senate has never blocked or stalled a nomination with the intent of waiting for a new president to take office. And the notion that waiting for a new POTUS election is more democratic than allowing our currently serving POTUS to make the nomination doesn't is just a lie. The only thing such a measure would do is create a possibility that a republican POTUS will make the nomination, this is a power play, nothing more.


The Senate does not HAVE to vote on the nominee at all. They can go along with their regular business. The only thing that is required is that before the nominee can take the position, the Senate must vote in his favor.

President Obama has no right to demand the Senate to vote on his nominee.

By the way, don't forget that during President G W Bush's second term, the Democrats in the Senate were geared up to block any Supreme Court nominee that the President might make should a justice resign or pass away. The Democrats are just showing themselves to be their usual hypocritical selves.

And for what it's worth, I think that nearly all appointments of Supreme Court justices in the 20th century went smoothly is largely because the Senate and the President in those cases were usually the same party.

But I guarantee you that if we currently had a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, the Senate would be even less likely to vote for the nominee. You have to give the Democrats respect on one thing: they keep fighting for what they want while the Republicans often give up and let the Democrats have what they want.



Another thinking man at WP and not any of the WP sheep. The Dems "Borked" Robert Bork in 1987 now its the Republicans turn to "Borked" any of Obamas nominees.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,247
Location: the island of defective toy santas

17 Feb 2016, 4:33 am

I will hope for a recess appointment to get around those hypocritical obstructionist no-goodniks :x "that was then" is just a bunch of sympathy for the devil horseplop.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

17 Feb 2016, 4:35 am

auntblabby wrote:
I will hope for a recess appointment to get around those hypocritical obstructionist no-goodniks :x "that was then" is just a bunch of sympathy for the devil horseplop.



According to the Constitution, a president can can fill vacancies while the Senate is in recess but their appointment expires at the end of the Senate's next session. This recess-appointment power, however, was greatly curtailed by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

17 Feb 2016, 4:41 am

frenchmanflats wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
I will hope for a recess appointment to get around those hypocritical obstructionist no-goodniks :x "that was then" is just a bunch of sympathy for the devil horseplop.



According to the Constitution, a president can can fill vacancies while the Senate is in recess but their appointment expires at the end of the Senate's next session. This recess-appointment power, however, was greatly curtailed by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.


In that decision, the court said the Senate has wide discretion in deciding when it’s not in session, allowing it to avoid a recess by taking even the most trivial action with only a few senators in attendance.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2015
Age: 51
Posts: 1,052
Location: California

17 Feb 2016, 4:45 am

auntblabby wrote:
I will hope for a recess appointment to get around those hypocritical obstructionist no-goodniks :x "that was then" is just a bunch of sympathy for the devil horseplop.



Keep dreaming that Mitch McConnell will bring up any nominees for a vote.