Supreme Court Appointment

Post Reply New Topic

...The Constitution does not say " The last year of a POTUS's term Does Not Count " . Period . Re the ACA and Iraq , it does not say " a fully legal victory doesn't count unless at least a couple other-party votes join in " either . Period .
McConnell is announcing , piggy thumb in his mouth , that he will let cases go undecided for a year's time , just to score political points .

In the last 8 years the atmosphere has been toxic between Obama and Congress. Obama is frustrated that his bills have not passed. Its his way or the highway. What major bills has he passed in the last four years? He can get a simple gun bill or immigration through. He used a questionable executive order which only backed existing laws that were on the books. His immigration executive order is court.He has not learned the art of compromise. All he does is complain all the time. So the Republicans are in control of both Houses and they are going to hold Obama's feet to the fire and wait until they give them an acceptable candidate.Remember, the Republican majority have that right under the "advise and consent" clause in the Constitution. Remember both House and Senate Judiciary committees are very conservative and they see their chance to see him squirm as a lame duck.

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter knew how to horse trade with the Republicans. Clinton signed a lot of Republican bills in exchange of some of his pet projects. Then he blew it, figuratively and literally. This guy that is currently in office has no clue how to compromise. Politics is the art of compromise and Obama has not learned this. If Obama wants to be an ideologue the Republicans can return it back in spades.

...So you would be 100% behind a Dem Senate head doing this to a Rep Prez ? Right. . And BTW , I have never heard of a Dem Senate saying " We won't even consider anything you suggest ! " to a Rep , before said Rep has even hinted whom his choice may be .
.




]...The Constitution does not steay " The last year of a POTUS's term Does Not Count " . Period . Re the ACA and Iraq , it does not say " a fully legal victory doesn't count unless at least a couple other-party votes join in " either . Period .
McConnell is announcing , piggy thumb in his mouth , that he will let cases go undecided for a year's time , just to score political points .

The president isn't owed that his nominees get approved to the court, the GOP has the majority in both houses and has a very good chance of taking back the White House so it is totally with in their right to oppose any and all Obama appointments. Checks and balances, our president is not a dictator and there simply is nothing Obama or Democrats can do to convince the GOP the approve his nominees if they oppose them. There are dozens of lower court vacancies right now and other appointments, Obama is a lame duck at this point and there is no long any reason to cooperate with him especially in light of his use of executive orders. The election is in November, the people will vote for how they want the make up of the court and it is as simple as that. If Hillary or Bernie were to win in November then they could start negotiating then during the lame duck session, otherwise the nominee to the court will be a lot different and more in mold of another Alito. Lame ducks don't get to make lifetime appointments right before an election, sorry nothing you can do but cry.

Obama is never going to get 60 votes in the senate in an election year, sorry it's not Christmas for all the gun grabbers and abortion enthusiasts. The only reason Obama didn't get more opposition on his SCOTUS appointments is because he was replacing liberal justices with a Democratic majority in the Senate. I saw the Sotomayor vote in person, Obama had a supermajority in both Houses at the time.

...


Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter knew how to horse trade with the Republicans. Clinton signed a lot of Republican bills in exchange of some of his pet projects. Then he blew it, figuratively and literally. This guy that is currently in office has no clue how to compromise. Politics is the art of compromise and Obama has not learned this. If Obama wants to be an ideologue the Republicans can return it back in spades.

It's a desperation move from an increasingly irrelevant party. The president gets to appoint Supreme Court justices, EVEN IF HE'S BLACK.

This happened plenty of times before, the Democrats in the 80s would of delayed Reagan's SCOTUS appointments until the next president if he didn't play ball with them. They spent months and months on hearings and that's where the term "Borking" came from. Like I said, the Democrats reap what they sow so they can't cry now that the shoe is on the other foot. What is desperate is to try to bring race into it.

President Obama has constitutional and historical precedent on his side and should announce a nominee.

Article II of the Constitution directs the president to nominate and, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” appoint judges of the Supreme Court. (“He shall,” it says.) Nothing in the Constitution stipulates that this power does not apply in an election year.

In fact, history supports Mr. Obama. On 13 occasions, a vacancy on the nation’s highest court has occurred — through death, retirement or resignation — during a presidential election year. This does not include the most recent and frequently cited example, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan in November 1987 to fill a vacancy and won confirmation from a Democratic-controlled Senate in February 1988.

In 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court included two justices, Benjamin Cardozo (standing, far left) and Louis Brandeis (seated, second from right) who filled vacancies that occurred during a presidential election year.

In 11 of these instances, the Senate took action on the president’s nomination. In all five cases in which a vacancy occurred during the first quarter of the year the president successfully nominated a replacement.

In the first of these instances, in January 1804, Justice Alfred Moore resigned from the court, and President Thomas Jefferson, who was running for a second term, successfully nominated a successor. In January 1892, the death of Justice Joseph Bradley prompted President Benjamin Harrison to nominate George Shiras Jr. to take his place. Although Mr. Harrison was locked in a race for re-election against Grover Cleveland, the Senate confirmed Mr. Shiras at the end of July. Mr. Harrison lost, but Justice Shiras remained on the court for the next decade.

In January 1916, as President Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election, the death of Justice Joseph Rucker Lamar created one vacancy on the court, and that summer the resignation of Justice Charles Evans Hughes created another. Mr. Wilson filled both seats: the January opening with Louis D. Brandeis, and the July vacancy with John H. Clarke. Mr. Wilson won a second term.

In January 1932, when few expected Herbert Hoover to win a second term, Justice Oliver W. Holmes retired from the court. Rather than wait until after the election, President Hoover nominated and the Senate confirmed Benjamin N. Cardozo, a great justice. Even the Great Depression did not prevent the president and the Senate from fulfilling their constitutional duties.

In March 1888, when Chief Justice Morrison Waite died suddenly and unexpectedly — not unlike Justice Scalia — just as President Grover Cleveland was running for a second term, the president nominated a new chief justice, Melville W. Fuller, to replace him. The Senate confirmed the nomination at the end of July.

Of course, none of these represents an exact parallel to today’s situation. In all but one of these instances, the president and Senate majority were of the same political party, unlike today. Only Mr. Cleveland (a Democrat) faced a Senate controlled by the opposition party, while President Hoover’s Republican Party held only a one-vote majority in the Senate. Still, in both of these instances, the nominees were confirmed by wide margins. In fact, the 1932 confirmation of Justice Cardozo was unanimous.

Three times presidents who were on their way out of office — “lame ducks” in the truest sense — appointed justices to the court. In December 1800, the resignation of Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth allowed John Adams, who had already lost to Thomas Jefferson, the chance to select the justice’s successor. Mr. Adams chose John Marshall, who went on to serve 34 years as the nation’s fourth and greatest chief justice. In February 1845, a month before he left office, John Tyler nominated Samuel Nelson, who won Senate confirmation and served for the next 27 years.

And when the resignation of Justice William Strong occurred after the 1880 election, the departing president, Rutherford B. Hayes — not his successor, James A. Garfield — nominated Justice Strong’s successor, Justice William B. Woods.

In the Adams and Tyler examples, two unpopular departing executives carried out their constitutional duties and overcame political factionalism from inside and outside of their own parties.

To be sure, the Senate has rejected nominees for political reasons, increased the size of the court (for instance, during the Civil War) or reduced it (immediately after the Civil War). But in cases when vacancies have arisen during election years, the weight of history is clearly on the side of the president naming a successor and the Senate acting on that nomination.

The Republicans, who frequently cite the Constitution and look to historical precedent, have an opportunity to be true to their principles. They should ignore Donald Trump’s urging to “delay, delay, delay,” and help ensure our Constitution functions as it should — and as it has in the past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opini ... inees.html

Actually, the unwillingness to compromise is overwhelmingly a Republican position among voters.



Source:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/02/ ... gh-stakes/

This is also supported by the record number of filibusters in Congress by the GOP in recent years.