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

Supreme Court Appointment

Page 2 of 15 [ 239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 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

15 Feb 2016, 2:48 pm

MDD123 wrote:
Until then, Obama will nominate a reasonable replacement, and the Senate will have to provide reasons for denying those appointments. If their plan works and they can block everything for 11 months, this will be a brand new precedent. History would show that out of all of the previous presidents, Obama was the only one who couldn't select a new SC justice because the Senate didn't like him.


Not really, it's happened a bunch of times. The balance of the court being in question with it being so close to an election, it's an easy sell. Conservatives, independents, even those on the further left would be better served waiting and reasonable people see the value in democracy and being able to vote for your choice. The stakes of this election are lot higher now, there is a senate and White House to fight over. Good luck.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

15 Feb 2016, 2:54 pm

MDD123 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
We'll see about reasonable replacement.
There's a reason the senate doesnt like him. Past presidents have managed to work with a house with an opposing party majority. He either doesn't know how to or simply refuses to negotiate.


What's reasonable to you, another Scalia? Someone who unapologetically favors right-wing causes?
What makes Obama so much worse than other presidents? Is there anything specific?

Reasonable to you is a biased liberal. That's not reasonable to me.

Do you see any non biased in the court? Or is there 4 democrat/left/liberals and 4 republican/right/conservatives?
The idea of either side is to appoint another from their side thus gaining the majority, thus laws mean what you want now not what they were written to mean. I'd rather have a non biased neutral party but that never happen, so I'd rather have another conservative yes. Get s another liberal and they'd redefine gun rights as only applying to military, politicians and the rich.

The senate has every right to opposed an appointment of a biased judge. Likening Obama or not. Anyone he appoints will be biased towards the left, he's not going appoint a conservative, no way in hell. He hates guns so he'll appoint a anti gun judge so he can get his way in the upcoming cases against him in the Supreme Court.

Heck those cases against him and his actions are reason enough to oppose him appointing a judge. Would a criminal get to pick his judge?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2016, 2:55 pm

here's what Chuck Schumer had to say back in 2007



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

15 Feb 2016, 4:41 pm

sly279,

(Especially in response to the analogy of the criminal picking his judge,)

When last I checked, Obama is President of the United States and his term does not end until noon Eastern on January 20, 2017. It is his job to put forward a nomination for the Supreme Court vacancy. When he names a nominee, as the Constitution requires him to do, is when the Senate comes in and considers whether to confirm the appointment.

There's a big difference between going through the process and turning down the nominee the President puts forward, and more or less saying the President might as well just neglect his Constitutional duties and not bother to nominate anyone.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

15 Feb 2016, 4:45 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Not really, it's happened a bunch of times. The balance of the court being in question with it being so close to an election, it's an easy sell. Conservatives, independents, even those on the further left would be better served waiting and reasonable people see the value in democracy and being able to vote for your choice. The stakes of this election are lot higher now, there is a senate and White House to fight over. Good luck.


When did it happen in the past? The closest thing I can find, at least recently, is Reagan's nomination of Anthony Kennedy in February 1988, when he had less than a year to go, but the Democratic Congress confirmed him.

EDIT: Looking here, it appears that if the GOP gets their way, this could be the longest vacancy on the Supreme Court since 1869, when it went to 9 justices, assuming the next President can't get the seat filled before March 2017 (due to the time it takes to go from nomination to confirmation):

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/466723547 ... reme-court


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2016, 5:06 pm

beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Not really, it's happened a bunch of times. The balance of the court being in question with it being so close to an election, it's an easy sell. Conservatives, independents, even those on the further left would be better served waiting and reasonable people see the value in democracy and being able to vote for your choice. The stakes of this election are lot higher now, there is a senate and White House to fight over. Good luck.


When did it happen in the past? The closest thing I can find, at least recently, is Reagan's nomination of Anthony Kennedy in February 1988, when he had less than a year to go, but the Democratic Congress confirmed him.

EDIT: Looking here, it appears that if the GOP gets their way, this could be the longest vacancy on the Supreme Court since 1869, when it went to 9 justices, assuming the next President can't get the seat filled before March 2017 (due to the time it takes to go from nomination to confirmation):

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/466723547 ... reme-court

Kennedy's nomination took a whole year was a the third person nominated for the position, Democrats politicized the process so it is pretty silly for them to try to appeal to civility now. The GOP has the majority, they get to approve whoever they want and can wait it out if they want. Elections matter, deal with it.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

15 Feb 2016, 5:08 pm

beneficii wrote:
sly279,

(Especially in response to the analogy of the criminal picking his judge,)

When last I checked, Obama is President of the United States and his term does not end until noon Eastern on January 20, 2017. It is his job to put forward a nomination for the Supreme Court vacancy. When he names a nominee, as the Constitution requires him to do, is when the Senate comes in and considers whether to confirm the appointment.

There's a big difference between going through the process and turning down the nominee the President puts forward, and more or less saying the President might as well just neglect his Constitutional duties and not bother to nominate anyone.

No one is saying he can't. We saying his nominees won't get approved and that's that. And it's congresses right nor duty to do so. This is a serious all important , will effect 320 million plus people for the next 40 or more years decision. I support congress in opposing another biased liberal being appointed.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

15 Feb 2016, 5:10 pm

Jacoby wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Not really, it's happened a bunch of times. The balance of the court being in question with it being so close to an election, it's an easy sell. Conservatives, independents, even those on the further left would be better served waiting and reasonable people see the value in democracy and being able to vote for your choice. The stakes of this election are lot higher now, there is a senate and White House to fight over. Good luck.


When did it happen in the past? The closest thing I can find, at least recently, is Reagan's nomination of Anthony Kennedy in February 1988, when he had less than a year to go, but the Democratic Congress confirmed him.

EDIT: Looking here, it appears that if the GOP gets their way, this could be the longest vacancy on the Supreme Court since 1869, when it went to 9 justices, assuming the next President can't get the seat filled before March 2017 (due to the time it takes to go from nomination to confirmation):

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/466723547 ... reme-court

Kennedy's nomination took a whole year was a the third person nominated for the position, Democrats politicized the process so it is pretty silly for them to try to appeal to civility now. The GOP has the majority, they get to approve whoever they want and can wait it out if they want. Elections matter, deal with it.


Did the Democrats tell Reagan that he might as well not bother to nominate anyone, that they would reject all his nominees out of hand?


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2016, 5:57 pm

beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Not really, it's happened a bunch of times. The balance of the court being in question with it being so close to an election, it's an easy sell. Conservatives, independents, even those on the further left would be better served waiting and reasonable people see the value in democracy and being able to vote for your choice. The stakes of this election are lot higher now, there is a senate and White House to fight over. Good luck.


When did it happen in the past? The closest thing I can find, at least recently, is Reagan's nomination of Anthony Kennedy in February 1988, when he had less than a year to go, but the Democratic Congress confirmed him.

EDIT: Looking here, it appears that if the GOP gets their way, this could be the longest vacancy on the Supreme Court since 1869, when it went to 9 justices, assuming the next President can't get the seat filled before March 2017 (due to the time it takes to go from nomination to confirmation):

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/466723547 ... reme-court

Kennedy's nomination took a whole year was a the third person nominated for the position, Democrats politicized the process so it is pretty silly for them to try to appeal to civility now. The GOP has the majority, they get to approve whoever they want and can wait it out if they want. Elections matter, deal with it.


Did the Democrats tell Reagan that he might as well not bother to nominate anyone, that they would reject all his nominees out of hand?


Reagan did not have a majority in the senate at that time, the Democrats won back the senate in 86 and used that mandate to oppose his nominees. They didn't win in 88 so there wasn't any point of obstructing Reagan anymore at that point when they got a fairly liberal Justice in Anthony Kennedy. The GOP controls the House and Senate by similar majorities as Democrats in the 100th Congress, if Hillary or especially Bernie get elected in November then Obama can get his nominee if he wants but they might want to wait by then. If they don't get elected then there is zero reason cooperate with Obama, would he try to make a recess appointment in the middle of a general election? I seriously doubt it.

Third of the Senate is up for reelection this year, mostly Republicans and their voters will demand they oppose any Obama nominee or else they'll be primaried and lose grassroots support. The base will not tolerate anymore weaklings. McConnell has already stated his position, even Jeb Bush says it should be opposed, multiple Senators have already declared they will filibuster any nominee so the threshold is 60 votes. It's just not happening no matter how much gnashing of the teeth Obama and the media does.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

15 Feb 2016, 6:55 pm

Jacoby,

I stopped here:

Quote:
They didn't win in 88 so there wasn't any point of obstructing Reagan anymore at that point when they got a fairly liberal Justice in Anthony Kennedy.


This is incorrect. They confirmed Kennedy in February 1988, 8-9 months before the general election.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

15 Feb 2016, 7:01 pm

MDD123 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
We'll see about reasonable replacement.
There's a reason the senate doesnt like him. Past presidents have managed to work with a house with an opposing party majority. He either doesn't know how to or simply refuses to negotiate.


What's reasonable to you, another Scalia? Someone who unapologetically favors right-wing causes?

What did he do that favors right wing causes, and in which way did he depart from the constitution in doing so.

Quote:
What makes Obama so much worse than other presidents? Is there anything specific?

In this case it's his inability to work with congress.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2016, 9:55 pm

beneficii wrote:
Jacoby,

I stopped here:

Quote:
They didn't win in 88 so there wasn't any point of obstructing Reagan anymore at that point when they got a fairly liberal Justice in Anthony Kennedy.


This is incorrect. They confirmed Kennedy in February 1988, 8-9 months before the general election.


That is not the point I was making, I guess I don't know but did Dukakis ever have a chance? He only won 10 states, better than Mondale but I'd say the Democratic Party in the 80s was in disarray to say the least so their was no point in trying to hold out until after the election if they were going to lose anyways. Obama's nominees can be considered in about 9 months time, the general election deciding what direction the Senate goes.

Obama needs 60 votes in the senate, so they would have to peel off 5 GOP senators in an election year to get a nominee thru and if guys like Jeb Bush and Mitch McConnell are saying it then the actual conservative part of the party surely feel even strong. It's possible but unlikely, Obama has never shown any ability at being able attract bipartisan support. There was zero Republicans for Obamacare, there were zero Republicans for his Iran deal(which I supported fwiw) A Supreme Court justice is a lifetime appointment, nobody is going to go along with it in an election year.

I think it's pretty amazing that we will actually have a consequential election that might bring real change, the stakes have never been higher and now the balance of the SCOTUS hangs in its midst. The most important election in our lifetimes, this is scaring the **** out of the ruling oligarchy .



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

15 Feb 2016, 10:27 pm

sly279 wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
We'll see about reasonable replacement.
There's a reason the senate doesnt like him. Past presidents have managed to work with a house with an opposing party majority. He either doesn't know how to or simply refuses to negotiate.


What's reasonable to you, another Scalia? Someone who unapologetically favors right-wing causes?
What makes Obama so much worse than other presidents? Is there anything specific?

Reasonable to you is a biased liberal. That's not reasonable to me.

Do you see any non biased in the court? Or is there 4 democrat/left/liberals and 4 republican/right/conservatives?
The idea of either side is to appoint another from their side thus gaining the majority, thus laws mean what you want now not what they were written to mean. I'd rather have a non biased neutral party but that never happen, so I'd rather have another conservative yes. Get s another liberal and they'd redefine gun rights as only applying to military, politicians and the rich.

The senate has every right to opposed an appointment of a biased judge. Likening Obama or not. Anyone he appoints will be biased towards the left, he's not going appoint a conservative, no way in hell. He hates guns so he'll appoint a anti gun judge so he can get his way in the upcoming cases against him in the Supreme Court.

Heck those cases against him and his actions are reason enough to oppose him appointing a judge. Would a criminal get to pick his judge?

First, there is other issues in life that gun laws. A GOP nominate will defend your "gun rights" and thus your special interest true, but they would also favourings corporations and religious nuts to the depend of individual freedom, the environment, education, science progress, sound economic policies and social safety net.

Second, a judge appointed by Obama can only be less biased that a judge chosen by the GOP, as the GOP under the influences of such as the Koch brothers has become thoroughly fanatical and cut from reality.

Raptor wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
Until then, Obama will nominate a reasonable replacement, and the Senate will have to provide reasons for denying those appointments. If their plan works and they can block everything for 11 months, this will be a brand new precedent. History would show that out of all of the previous presidents, Obama was the only one who couldn't select a new SC justice because the Senate didn't like him.


We'll see about reasonable replacement.
There's a reason the senate doesnt like him. Past presidents have managed to work with a house with an opposing party majority. He either doesn't know how to or simply refuses to negotiate.

Those past presidents didn't had to work with a party opposing them on a matter of "The president is "evil" and we must oppose him on everything, everything". There is just no way for Obama to negotiate with the GOP.



frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

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

15 Feb 2016, 11:51 pm

Jacoby

I am shocked. We agree



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Feb 2016, 12:04 am

Tollorin wrote:
Raptor wrote:
We'll see about reasonable replacement.
There's a reason the senate doesnt like him. Past presidents have managed to work with a house with an opposing party majority. He either doesn't know how to or simply refuses to negotiate.

Those past presidents didn't had to work with a party opposing them on a matter of "The president is "evil" and we must oppose him on everything, everything". There is just no way for Obama to negotiate with the GOP.


You've got it all wrong. You've been on this forum long enough to know that it's the conservatives that are are evil (and hard hearted), not the liberals. :shameonyou:


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


frenchmanflats
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 12:35 am

Tollorin


Its the other way around. The President is a cry baby who will not get his way. Reagan crossed the aisle on major issues. Clinton signed numerous bills that were Republican issues. King Obama Ist is his way or the highway.