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

Supreme Court Appointment

Page 7 of 15 [ 239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 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

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 7:07 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
it wasn't the same thing actually. the GOP never raised any objections when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito on his last term. as for your comments about the 2nd amendment being inviolate, maybe you should reread Article 2 of the constitution.

advice and consent

the senate has to approve whoever the president names, checks and balances

This is pretty simple US government, you might not like the politics of it but it is completely legal and with in their right. There is nothing Obama or the Democrats can do but whine so go ahead. Our president is not a king, he does not get to rule by decree, I know Obama has a hard time with this but luckily for us he will not be president much longer. Don't like it, vote harder. :lol:
so you can't list any precedent, you just want to endlessly move the goalposts.
it's also completely legal for the president to appoint Scalia's replacement. it's spelled out in the constitution in Article 2. There's nothing the GOP can do but whine about it so go ahead.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 7:09 pm

Jacoby wrote:
With all the unprecedented executive orders and unconstitutional actions taken by Obama it would be a conflict of interest for him to name a justice to SC as many of his policies are at stake before the high court. There is zero reason to work with Obama, he has to give something up and compromise to even get the GOP to the table. How important is that SCOTUS seat and how confident are you winning in November?

What kind of concession would Obama give for his nominee to having a fair hearing?
why does he need concessions to exercise his Constitutional powers?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 7:12 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
With all the unprecedented executive orders and unconstitutional actions taken by Obama it would be a conflict of interest for him to name a justice to SC as many of his policies are at stake before the high court. There is zero reason to work with Obama, he has to give something up and compromise to even get the GOP to the table. How important is that SCOTUS seat and how confident are you winning in November?

What kind of concession would Obama give for his nominee to having a fair hearing?
why does he need concessions to exercise his Constitutional powers?


you don't seem to grasp the concept of checks and balances

the GOP controls the United States Senate

all Supreme Court nominee come thru them

there is nothing in law requiring them to listen to the president

there is nothing law that the president can do about it

The executive branch doesn't rule supreme, our 3 branches are government are suppose to be equal but obviously they're not. Congress needs to stand up to this collectivization of power in the executive branch, the time is now.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 7:14 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
it wasn't the same thing actually. the GOP never raised any objections when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito on his last term. as for your comments about the 2nd amendment being inviolate, maybe you should reread Article 2 of the constitution.

advice and consent

the senate has to approve whoever the president names, checks and balances

This is pretty simple US government, you might not like the politics of it but it is completely legal and with in their right. There is nothing Obama or the Democrats can do but whine so go ahead. Our president is not a king, he does not get to rule by decree, I know Obama has a hard time with this but luckily for us he will not be president much longer. Don't like it, vote harder. :lol:
so you can't list any precedent, you just want to endlessly move the goalposts.
it's also completely legal for the president to appoint Scalia's replacement. it's spelled out in the constitution in Article 2. There's nothing the GOP can do but whine about it so go ahead.


I already said LYNDON JOHNSON 1968, if you don't accept that then too bad. The GOP can do a lot about who the President nominates, they can approve or reject them or not even consider them. That's the law.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 7:19 pm

Jacoby wrote:

you don't seem to grasp the concept of checks and balances

the GOP controls the United States Senate

all Supreme Court nominee come thru them

there is nothing in law requiring them to listen to the president

there is nothing law that the president can do about it

The executive branch doesn't rule supreme, our 3 branches are government are suppose to be equal but obviously they're not. Congress needs to stand up to this collectivization of power in the executive branch, the time is now.
ah ok. so there's no legal precedent, the GOP is just being a bunch of obstructive jackasses. got it.



Last edited by Fugu on 16 Feb 2016, 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

16 Feb 2016, 7:21 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I already said LYNDON JOHNSON 1968, if you don't accept that then too bad. The GOP can do a lot about who the President nominates, they can approve or reject them or not even consider them. That's the law.
you didn't say that, sorry I can't accept things you've never actually said.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 7:28 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
With all the unprecedented executive orders and unconstitutional actions taken by Obama it would be a conflict of interest for him to name a justice to SC as many of his policies are at stake before the high court. There is zero reason to work with Obama, he has to give something up and compromise to even get the GOP to the table. How important is that SCOTUS seat and how confident are you winning in November?

What kind of concession would Obama give for his nominee to having a fair hearing?
why does he need concessions to exercise his Constitutional powers?


you don't seem to grasp the concept of checks and balances

the GOP controls the United States Senate

all Supreme Court nominee come thru them

there is nothing in law requiring them to listen to the president

there is nothing law that the president can do about it

The executive branch doesn't rule supreme, our 3 branches are government are suppose to be equal but obviously they're not. Congress needs to stand up to this collectivization of power in the executive branch, the time is now.
ah ok. so there's no legal precedent, the GOP is just being a bunch of obstructive jackasses. got it.


What do you mean legal precedent? This isn't something decided by the courts, these are the powers of president and senate as laid out in the US Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. There is plenty of historical precedent. Yes, Obama can nominate whoever he wants to the court but the US Senate is given the power to approve or not approve any nominee. To start harping on legal precedent now to me is a non-sequitur and you moving the goal post.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 7:33 pm

Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I already said LYNDON JOHNSON 1968, if you don't accept that then too bad. The GOP can do a lot about who the President nominates, they can approve or reject them or not even consider them. That's the law.
you didn't say that, sorry I can't accept things you've never actually said.


In the other thread, you are familiar with it as you mentioned this 'Thurmond Rule' so it confuses me why you are demanding I state precedent even tho you know it. To say you want 'legal precedent' makes no sense at all for what we are talking about.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 7:39 pm

also fwiw Obama filibustered Samuel Alito's nomination to court in 2006, what goes around comes around



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

16 Feb 2016, 7:45 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There is no moderate position on the 2nd Amendment, you are either for it or against it because the words "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. ......... It is not a living document, it isn't something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.
if it's not a living document, why does it have 27 extra bits that weren't there when it was written?


That's exactly the point, there is a whole process to amending the constitution and it doesn't include arbitrary redefinition for political expediency. The 2nd Amendment is clear in what it says, the 27th amendment is clear in what it says. We can't risk Obama naming an activist judge to bench for a lifetime appointment 9 months before an election, we don't have to and don't want to.
so you have legal precedent for not allowing the president to perform his proscribed duties?(the Thurmond rule isn't precedent, before you trot that out.)


There is precedent but it's not needed anyways since this president and this election are without precedent. I don't care either way since it would be the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. The balance of the court is at stake so it worth it to have this fight. The GOP has the majority, they get to ultimately decide. Elections matter. End of story.


The constitution matters, and the constitution says that the president appoints justices.

Elections matter, and the people elected Obama.

It's that simple.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 7:49 pm

LKL wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
There is no moderate position on the 2nd Amendment, you are either for it or against it because the words "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. ......... It is not a living document, it isn't something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.
if it's not a living document, why does it have 27 extra bits that weren't there when it was written?


That's exactly the point, there is a whole process to amending the constitution and it doesn't include arbitrary redefinition for political expediency. The 2nd Amendment is clear in what it says, the 27th amendment is clear in what it says. We can't risk Obama naming an activist judge to bench for a lifetime appointment 9 months before an election, we don't have to and don't want to.
so you have legal precedent for not allowing the president to perform his proscribed duties?(the Thurmond rule isn't precedent, before you trot that out.)


There is precedent but it's not needed anyways since this president and this election are without precedent. I don't care either way since it would be the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. The balance of the court is at stake so it worth it to have this fight. The GOP has the majority, they get to ultimately decide. Elections matter. End of story.


The constitution matters, and the constitution says that the president appoints justices.

Elections matter, and the people elected Obama.

It's that simple.


so how is obama going to appoint a judge without them being confirmed? you guys really are struggling with this checks and balances thing.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

16 Feb 2016, 7:49 pm

frenchmanflats wrote:
Obama acts like a monarch. Circumventing the Constitution by abusing his executive order rights instead of taking it to Congress for debate and an up or down vote.

Image



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

16 Feb 2016, 7:54 pm

Quote:
so how is obama going to appoint a judge without them being confirmed? you guys really are struggling with this checks and balances thing.

oh, no: I'm fine with the senate voting nominees down. That's their right. What is asinine is the R's demand that the president not even nominate someone, and their refusal to even allow actual votes on administrative and judicial nominees throughout this administration-even of people to whom they have no actual objection.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,691
Location: Houston, Texas

16 Feb 2016, 7:58 pm

I want to nominate Elihu Smails for Scalia's seat.

While I don't know what his views on the hot topics are, he will make sure that the entire pool is scrubbed, sterilized, and disinfected.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

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

16 Feb 2016, 8:02 pm

LKL wrote:
Quote:
so how is obama going to appoint a judge without them being confirmed? you guys really are struggling with this checks and balances thing.

oh, no: I'm fine with the senate voting nominees down. That's their right. What is asinine is the R's demand that the president not even nominate someone, and their refusal to even allow actual votes on administrative and judicial nominees throughout this administration-even of people to whom they have no actual objection.


They can't stop Obama from "nominating" someone, it's a free country. They(the senate) just don't have to act on it. There is no set number Supreme Court justices, there isn't anything saying they have to fill this seat now or else. Waiting 9 months or allowing Obama to name another ideologue to a lifetime appointment, seems like an easy call to me. The Democrats wouldn't act any different if the shoe was on the other foot, they haven't and they were the ones that started all the funny business with politicizing these confirmation hearings.

They could have hearings I suppose, it would make for some nice political theater but what is the point if the GOP will vote down anyone nominated? Just leaving to the voters to decide in November seems like the winner to me, you're not going to lose the people with that stance.



AntDog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,967
Location: Riding on a Dragon

16 Feb 2016, 8:04 pm

LKL wrote:
frenchmanflats wrote:
Obama acts like a monarch. Circumventing the Constitution by abusing his executive order rights instead of taking it to Congress for debate and an up or down vote.

Image

Obama however has issued the most Memos of any president. They are used in place of executive orders making him seem like he isn't using many orders but with the way he makes them have similar effect.