Pres. Obama to Appoint a US Supreme Court Justice? Scalia dead at 79

[LennyTheBat]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-supreme-court-scalia-dead-20160213-story.html

 

How long does the selection/approval process take?  Will the republicans try to delay until after November's election?

 

So it looks like makeup of the bench will be going from a 5/4 conservative majority to a 5/4 liberal majority.

 

Please discuss.

[12еr]

I'm not sure how long it takes, but I imagine Obama won't take long to nominate someone. It's February, there's no way in hell Congress can delay a confirmation for 11 months until maybe a Republican is inaugerated.

[LennyTheBat]

Pretty much my thoughts ^^^.  But at this point nothing would surprise me.

[Mcmax3000]

Will the republicans try to delay until after November's election?

It's a 100% guarantee that they will try. More than one of them have already gotten out there, and said that nobody should be appointed until the next president is elected.

 

The real question is will they succeed.

[MoZZez]

I'm not sure how long it takes, but I imagine Obama won't take long to nominate someone. It's February, there's no way in hell Congress can delay a confirmation for 11 months until maybe a Republican is inaugerated.

They have delayed other posts much longer. They will find excuses why to do it again.

[LennyTheBat]

It's a 100% guarantee that they will try. More than one of them have already gotten out there, and said that nobody should be appointed until the next president is elected.

 

The real question is will they succeed.

For sure they'll want to fight it, but I think the Constitution says the sitting president selects the nominee(s) for appointment.  The next president would take office next January -- can't delay for a whole year.

[MoZZez]

Obama would be smart to fund a black woman who is more centrist.

 

Then the demo can continue to push the war on women when the Republicans try and obstruct with any excuse going into the election.

[LennyTheBat]

Obama would be smart to fund a black woman who is more centrist.

 

Then the demo can continue to push the war on women when the Republicans try and obstruct with any excuse going into the election.

I just saw on CNN that he may nominate a lawyer (judge?) from Kansas who is of Indian descent -- and who was approved  by the Senate via a 97% yes vote for some appointment.  This was in 2013.  I didn't catch his name.

 

But... Mitch McConnell has already declared that NO vote will reach the floor until the next president.

[12еr]

I just saw on CNN that he may nominate a lawyer (judge?) from Kansas who is of Indian descent -- and who was approved  by the Senate via a 97% yes vote for some appointment.  This was in 2013.  I didn't catch his name.

 

But... Mitch McConnell has already declared that NO vote will reach the floor until the next president.

lol. Congress is worthless. All they do is obstruct each other and sell us out to business interests.

[LennyTheBat]

lol. Congress is worthless. All they do is obstruct each other and sell us out to business interests.

There's going to be a showdown over this, and it'll take months to unfold.

[MoZZez]

I would vote against any politician whose idea is to obstruct to hope to get their way over letting the process unfold as it is supposed to.

 

 

So what happens now, republicans obstruct, someone sues, supreme court hears arguments and will split 4 - 4 down party lines. So who breaks the tie? Does the tie let the President push forward or would the tie allow congress to do nothing for the next 11 months before a nomination is even allowed and months upon months of bull vetting?

[LennyTheBat]

I would vote against any politician whose idea is to obstruct to hope to get their way over letting the process unfold as it is supposed to.

 

 

So what happens now, republicans obstruct, someone sues, supreme court hears arguments and will split 4 - 4 down party lines. So who breaks the tie? Does the tie let the President push forward or would the tie allow congress to do nothing for the next 11 months before a nomination is even allowed and months upon months of bulls hit vetting?

Good nutshell.on the situation.  And a I agree with the bold.

[Mcmax3000]

I would vote against any politician whose idea is to obstruct to hope to get their way over letting the process unfold as it is supposed to.

So what happens now, republicans obstruct, someone sues, supreme court hears arguments and will split 4 - 4 down party lines. So who breaks the tie? Does the tie let the President push forward or would the tie allow congress to do nothing for the next 11 months before a nomination is even allowed and months upon months of bull vetting?

From what I've seen people saying, in the event of a tie, the ruling from the lower court stands.

[12еr]

From what I've seen people saying, in the event of a tie, the ruling from the lower court stands.

I think he meant in terms of appointing a new member of the supreme court.

[MoZZez]

I think he meant in terms of appointing a new member of the supreme court.

McMod actually answered what I was asking.

 

So depending on which federal judge and which party sues first will depend on if Congress has to act or not.

 

Interesting conundrum if that's how it plays out.

[Yerbo]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-supreme-court-scalia-dead-20160213-story.html

 

How long does the selection/approval process take?  Will the republicans try to delay until after November's election?

 

So it looks like makeup of the bench will be going from a 5/4 conservative majority to a 5/4 liberal majority.

 

Please discuss.

Mitch McConnell has already said he wouldn't put any Obama nominee up for a vote. Ever wonder why nothing gets done in the US of A?

[UFCCagerattler]

http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/cruz-we-are-one-justice-away-from-the-second-amendment-being-written-out-of-the-constitution/

 

Ted Cruz putting into words what so many fear deep down in their hearts. "We are one justice away from the second amendment being written out of the constitution."

 

Not sure why this needs to be said but whether Obama nominates one or not it is going to be a Dem president doing the nominating. Do they think Hillary is going to put a red neck in there? Bernie? 

 

On the unthinkable chance that Trump actually becomes POTUS I would expect to see Oprah nominated before the end of his first week. 

[TruthBringer]

Those supreme court judges are no better than the politicians.  In truth, they have no power over us.  They're nothing more than mere mortals, flesh and blood.  Who are they to challenge our God-given rights?  To even question our freedom through those politicians and judges is foolish.  Our rights are given by God, and they have no right to challenge our rights and force us to do things against our will!  My condolences to the man who passed away, but I will never acknowledge the government to be above God, the people, and the U.S. Constitution.

[chons]

I nominate Mitch McConnell to receive a severe beating, this guy is one of the biggest POS in Washington. 

 

 

 

 

On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year.

[UFCCagerattler]

Its going to be a leftie.

[LennyTheBat]

Obama:

 

"The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now," Obama said Tuesday at a press conference following the U.S.-Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Rancho Mirage, California. "When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the president of the United States is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination, and either they disapprove of the nominee or that nominee is elevated to the Supreme Court."

"Historically, this has not been viewed as a question," Obama said.

 

"There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years, that's not in the constitutional text," Obama said. "I'm amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it provisions that are not there."

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-scotus-pick-constitution-pretty-clear-n519686

[MoZZez]

Those supreme court judges are no better than the politicians. In truth, they have no power over us. They're nothing more than mere mortals, flesh and blood. Who are they to challenge our God-given rights? To even question our freedom through those politicians and judges is foolish. Our rights are given by God, and they have no right to challenge our rights and force us to do things against our will! My condolences to the man who passed away, but I will never acknowledge the government to be above God, the people, and the U.S. Constitution.

Oh?

What god gave you those rights? I'm curious which fairytale you believe in and what magical book I can see where your right to own a gun that you yourself are to chicken to actually own.

[UFCCagerattler]

The same people who are frantic to see that Obama does not alter the precious constitution in any way re the 2nd amendment don't care very much of the constitution is followed for nominating a justice.

 

 

This is because they do not believe in democracy. 

[TruthBringer]

Democracy has nothing to do with freedom.  Democracy means that the majority rules over the minority, meaning the majority can take away the freedom and the rights of the minority!  There's a reason why our Founding Fathers demonized democracy.  Democracy promotes tyranny and control, not freedom.  We are suppose to be an American Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.  Majority should not rule over anyone!  As Karl Marx once said: democracy is the road towards socialism.

[chons]

Democracy has nothing to do with freedom.  Democracy means that the majority rules over the minority, meaning the majority can take away the freedom and the rights of the minority!  There's a reason why our Founding Fathers demonized democracy.  Democracy promotes tyranny and control, not freedom.  We are suppose to be an American Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.  Majority should not rule over anyone!  As Karl Marx once said: democracy is the road towards socialism.

WTF does this have to do with the President appointing a SC Justice? **** all, it's got **** all to do with it.

[chons]

And America is pretty much an Oligarchy at this point junior. 

[TruthBringer]

Oh?

What god gave you those rights? I'm curious which fairytale you believe in and what magical book I can see where your right to own a gun that you yourself are to chicken to actually own.

A TRUE coward wants to place strict laws on all Americans when it comes to guns.  If I were a coward, I'd be a gun-grabber that wants to either place stricter laws on gun-owners or ban guns altogether.  However, I have no desire to control anyone.  I choose not to own a gun because having a gun just isn't my style.  The real cowards are the ones who whine an complain about a nation having too many guns and all that bullcrap.  Your political correctness makes you WEAK AND SOFT.  There's nothing cowardly about upholding our U.S. Constitution and protecting freedom.

 

And whether you like it or not, God is real.  He's far more real than any of you political slaves.

[TruthBringer]

WTF does this have to do with the President appointing a SC Justice? **** all, it's got **** all to do with it.

I was replying to what UFCCagerattler was saying about democracy, you idiot.

[TruthBringer]

And America is pretty much an Oligarchy at this point junior. 

And you're pretty much okay with America being as it is: an oligarchy.  You're no American at all.

[chons]

I was replying to what UFCCagerattler was saying about democracy, you idiot.

I'm not the idiot claiming that democracy has nothing to do with America though. Winky wink.

[chons]

And you're pretty much okay with America being as it is: an oligarchy.  You're no American at all.

Yes, I said all that... lol 

[UFCCagerattler]

We are suppose to be an American Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.  

 

 

We are supposed to be both. We re neither.

[TruthBringer]

Wrong, cagerattler.  In a democracy, the individual is beneath the majority rule and the government.  In our Constitutional Republic, the individual is above the government and no majority can impose their will upon him.  We're suppose to be a free nation, not a democracy.  Karl Marx always said that democracy is the road towards socialism, and that's where we're heading right now.  And allowing the president to choose a politically correct judge to take a seat in the Supreme Court is wrong.  The president has no right to take away our freedom, blue or red or independent.

[fobar]

We are supposed to be both. We re neither.

Technical, you are not.  you are just a Republic

[UFCCagerattler]

As long as we are a republic that elects leaders by democratic vote we are also a democracy.

 

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are mutually inclusive. Being the one thing more or less makes you the other.

[chons]

 

 

If you want the most technical term, our country is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic. Our form of government, the constitution limits the power of government. We elect representatives, so it's not a pure democracy. But we do elect them by majority rule so it is democratic. And the form of, the infrastructure, the total form of government, is republican, it is a republic.

- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/03/usa-democracy-or-republic#sthash.jzgM96DG.dpuf

[TruthBringer]

That's the thing: we're suppose to elect representatives.  Not rulers or caretakers or controllers.  Only representatives.  Representatives are not suppose to interfere with our lives and take away our rights.  They SERVE the people, not rule.

[LennyTheBat]

Wrong, cagerattler.  In a democracy, the individual is beneath the majority rule and the government.  In our Constitutional Republic, the individual is above the government and no majority can impose their will upon him.  We're suppose to be a free nation, not a democracy.  Karl Marx always said that democracy is the road towards socialism, and that's where we're heading right now.  And allowing the president to choose a politically correct judge to take a seat in the Supreme Court is wrong.  The president has no right to take away our freedom, blue or red or independent.

In our Constitutional Democratic Republic,  the president chooses the nominee.  He's not just "allowed" to do this -- it's his job.  It's in the Constitution.

.

[TruthBringer]

In our Constitutional Democratic Republic,  the president chooses the nominee.  He's not just "allowed" to do this -- it's his job.  It's in the Constitution.

.

It's also the president's job to keep this nation FREE, not safe.  As long as he and the other politicians claim that safety is more important than freedom, we'll be nothing more than slaves to the politicians.

[LennyTheBat]

It's also the president's job to keep this nation FREE, not safe.  As long as he and the other politicians claim that safety is more important than freedom, we'll be nothing more than slaves to the politicians.

This thread is for the SCOTUS appointment.  It's going to heat up once President O announces his selection.

.

 

Oh, and for the record:

 

Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

[UFCCagerattler]

The reality is that the republicans would get a better selection out of Obama than out of Hillary and definitely than out of Bernie.

 

It would be in their own interests to support Obama's right to select someone than to oppose it and hen be faced with an even leftier choice.

 

I have full confidence that the Republicans will **** it up as big as it can be ****ed up. 

[TruthBringer]

This thread is for the SCOTUS appointment.  It's going to heat up once President O announces his selection.

.

 

Oh, and for the record:

 

Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

As I stated earlier: the president along with the legislative branch and the judicial branch are suppose to SERVE the people and UPHOLD the Constitution.  The president obviously wants to elect a new judge to make sure the politicians are above the people and make the people easier to control.  There is no denying that.  The American people should be outraged about this.

[chons]

As I stated earlier: the president along with the legislative branch and the judicial branch are suppose to SERVE the people and UPHOLD the Constitution.  The president obviously wants to elect a new judge to make sure the politicians are above the people and make the people easier to control.  There is no denying that.  The American people should be outraged about this.

I'm pretty sure fobar has it right when his most common response to  you is **** off troll. 

[UFCCagerattler]

As I stated earlier: the president along with the legislative branch and the judicial branch are suppose to SERVE the people and UPHOLD the Constitution.  The president obviously wants to elect a new judge to make sure the politicians are above the people and make the people easier to control.  There is no denying that.  The American people should be outraged about this.

 

The American people should be outraged about the President serving the Poeple and upholding the constitution by nominating a judge in the way he is supposed to according to the constitution? 

[TruthBringer]

I'm pretty sure fobar has it right when his most common response to  you is **** off troll. 

You've been calling me troll ever since I started posting common-sense stuff around here.  Is that all you can do?  Just call me names like an 8-year-old?  Learn to be a real man and speak with logic instead of pointless name-calling.  If you think that control is more important than freedom, then explain it like a man.

[TruthBringer]

The American people should be outraged about the President serving the Poeple and upholding the constitution by nominating a judge in the way he is supposed to according to the constitution? 

Forcing us buy medical insurance and stripping us of our rights is NOT serving the people!

[chons]

You've been calling me troll ever since I started posting common-sense stuff around here.  Is that all you can do?  Just call me names like an 8-year-old?  Learn to be a real man and speak with logic instead of pointless name-calling.  If you think that control is more important than freedom, then explain it like a man.

You are... perhaps the most illogical poster here. I usually don't get high and mighty (seriously), but I would absolutely destroy you in a logical debate (seriously),. I don't for a minute take you seriously. 

[UFCCagerattler]

Forcing us buy medical insurance and stripping us of our rights is NOT serving the people!

 

Also NOT the topic here.

[chons]

The American people should be outraged about the President serving the Poeple and upholding the constitution by nominating a judge in the way he is supposed to according to the constitution? 

But... he's logical!!! lol!!!!!

[TruthBringer]

You are... perhaps the most illogical poster here. I usually don't get high and mighty (seriously), but I would absolutely destroy you in a logical debate (seriously),. I don't for a minute take you seriously. 

Oh, so you think that politicians having control over the people is more LOGICAL than allowing the American people to keep their rights and allow them to live as they please.  Electing a judge that promotes control over the people is more LOGICAL than electing a judge that is in favor of freedom.  Whatever you say, stupid.