Supreme Court Appointment

Post Reply New Topic

He can nominate but there is no promises that the nominee will be confirmed by the Senate

I have never said anything to the contrary. Any, nomination, MUST be confirmed by the senate by a simple majority. That is why Robert Bork never became an associate justice.

You are correct. Now it is our turn

Frenchmanflats, I have studied the American Constitution during my law studies. I have never disagreed with you that a senate confirmation is neccesary. And the word 'nominate' means to bring someone into a candidate stage, all of my replies on the thread are correct.

And no, I disagree on the last sentence. I think another William Douglas or John Paul Stevens is necessary.

I am not arguing with the nomination process. You are the one getting bent out of shape. The President can nominate a person until doomsday does not mean that person will be automatically confirmed. That person can be denied in the committee process

I was not getting 'bent' out of shape. I think you assumed that I was ignorant of the fact that any nomination must be confirmed by the senate.

No. You did not mentioned it until I did

Fair enough. But the ultimate question of this thread was whether the President should nominate the next jurist to the Supreme Court.

Whether the senate will approve the nominee is a different matter.

You cannot argue with Article 2 Section 2.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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html

Jesus Christ.

Have I said anything to the contrary? Why are you trying to disagree with me on a matter that is settled not only by law, but by us as well?

exactly right.the president may nominate anyboby but only the senate has control over confirmation.

its the belief some have that a president in his last term cant make a nomination that is wrong

Why ask for congressional Republicans, when I said Republican? Are you being disingenuous...?


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... th/397742/
quote:
"Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

Baucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option. "
(bolding mine)

Here's more, from a right-center-right site:
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view ... eID=004182
Note that Obama was initially opposed to the private insurance, individual mandate plan.

A little more left, but with references to original doccuments:
http://americablog.com/2013/10/original ... ndate.html

Three Republicans out of out of all the Republicans there. The Democrats could only muster three lousy votes .WOW HUGE MARGIN.McConnell’s hardball strategy certainly worked as a political weapon. The narrative of Obama steamrollering over Republicans and enacting an unconstitutional bill that brought America much closer to socialism worked like a charm to stimulate conservative and Republican anger, according to the article

As Marco Rubio said a few days ago, according to the constitution Obama has the right to nominate a replacement. However, congress also has the right to vote against whoever is nominated. I haven't looked up the actual history myself, but I have heard it said several times that it is historically very rare for a president to nominate a justice in the last year of his presidency, however that doesn't mean he can't do it.

He is one person out of many. He does not speak for the Republican leadership that sets the rules.

You seem to be missing the point completely. I agree wholeheartedly that the *current* Republican legislature wouldn't cooperate with Obama to keep the Capitol building from falling down on their own heads for lack of repair. What I said was that Obamacare started as a Republican idea, in opposition to Hillarycare, implemented in fact first by Romney.
Can you understand that basic difference, or do I need to explain it again?