Supreme Court Appointment

Post Reply New Topic

that HYPOCRITE McConnell who was all in favor of Nixon changing the court but not Obama.

The last time I checked the calendar date is 2016 not 1970. People are allowed to change their views unlike some people (hint,hint)

Why does Obama need their approval at all?

McConnell's still a GD hypocrite POS pol and nothing more, and his supporters IMHO are no better.

Last edited by auntblabby on 17 Feb 2016, 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

the constitution is just a piece of paper to those GD hypocrites.

Because he will be in violation of the Constitution.Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution gives the president the right to negotiate foreign treaties and to nominate individuals to high-ranking government positions, including cabinet members, ambassadors, and federal judges. However, these powers are conditioned upon the advice and consent of the Senate. Section 2 requires the Senate to approve treaties by a two thirds majority, while presidential appointments require a simple majority. The advice and consent requirement is an example of one of the checks and balances built into the Constitution. The provision seeks to limit presidential power.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.
.

Last edited by frenchmanflats on 17 Feb 2016, 4:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Depends on your definition of nearly all, several SC appointments have been made with an opposition party in the senate, not a few, but several.

Both parties have denied particular nominees, but they've confirmed others, Democrats confirmed Thomas and Kennedy while in the majority. Sure there isn't a law saying the senate has to do their job, but it is voting season, and this issue isn't another Benghazi or Kenya Muslim conspiracy theory that voters will ignore, its a supreme court nomination, and I for one am paying attention and getting this information out. This is an amoral power play by a party that doesn't get called out nearly enough.

Wouldn't it be entertaining if Obama threw a spanner in the works by nominating a principled constitutionalist? Ha ha, I crack me up. He'd rather stick a rusty nail in his eye! But I can dream!

those GD hypocrite POS pols would do the same obstructionist crap to Obama even if he somehow yanked scalia outta the grave and reanimated him and nominated HIM. they would cut off their noses to spite their faces.

I agree with this guy:

"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 all-around 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."

– Senator Barack Obama, 2006

All his appointments have been. That's what the court does, interpret the Constitution.

I see you're a dreamer too!

LOL. Very good point

I'm a realist.

Obviously, Supreme Court Justices "interpret the Constitution" in various ways, coming from various angles.

Basically, some want to adhere to the notions which the 18th century compilers adhered to. They are called "strict constructionists."

Basically, others believe that the Constitution is dynamic, and must adapt to the times.

Before John Marshall, it should be noted, the Supreme Court had no power to declare anything "unconstitutional."

i dont what in the law could stop him.being a lameduck president does not bar you from any presidential power.i dont see a legal basis for stoping him.other than going bork on everyone he nominates untill he gets sick of nominating people