PDA

View Full Version : Justice Scalia dead. Who should replace, and should it come this year or next?



garhkal
02-15-2016, 06:11 PM
So, the weekend and all today's news (so far) keeps focusing on the death of Justice Scalia and whether Obama should or shouldn't appoint a replacement (keeping with tradition), or hold off so the voters can have a say via nominating the next president..

What say you all?

Mjölnir
02-15-2016, 07:47 PM
The President has a Constitutional duty to appoint a replacement (no mention in the Constitution on the length of time left in the President's term having anything to do with it).

The Senate has a Constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to any appointee to the Court. The Senate is not intended to be a rubber stamp to a nominee.

In 2007 Democrats suggested President Bush should not name an appointee since he was a lame duck; IMO that was incorrect. Republicans doing the same thing now would be (IMO) just as incorrect. Granted, the Republicans control the Senate, so they can sit on a nomination or reject it by a floor vote ... Both methods are Constitutional. Delaying an appointment until President Obama is no longer in office would not freeze the Court (only six Justices are required for a quorum) but would be unprecedented (almost triple any previous gap).

Appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court is one of (if not THE) most long reaching exercise of Executive power the President has.

I will be interested to see who is named (knowing Republicans) are likely to reject any appointee named first); the first nominee is likely not the one he will really want/intend on being seated.

MikeKerriii
02-16-2016, 02:04 AM
So, the weekend and all today's news (so far) keeps focusing on the death of Justice Scalia and whether Obama should or shouldn't appoint a replacement (keeping with tradition), or hold off so the voters can have a say via nominating the next president..

What say you all?
The voters already had their say on who was supposed to nominate SC justices already, at least for the period from 2012 to 2016. That "say" was the Presidential election, they get their say again at the ballot box in November for the period of 2017 to 2021.

sandsjames
02-16-2016, 02:17 AM
The voters already had their say on who was supposed to nominate SC justices already, at least for the period from 2012 to 2016. That "say" was the Presidential election, they get their say again at the ballot box in November for the period of 2017 to 2021.

You are correct...and unfortunately that means we're gonna get some Quinoa eating, Prius driving, gender neutral, "don't tell your kids they're bad", guns are evil judge for the next 40 years.

retiredAFcivvy
02-16-2016, 05:28 PM
You are correct...and unfortunately that means we're gonna get some Quinoa eating, Prius driving, gender neutral, "don't tell your kids they're bad", guns are evil judge for the next 40 years.
Wait a minute now, I own two Prius!!

sandsjames
02-16-2016, 05:32 PM
Wait a minute now, I own two Prius!!

I believe the plural is "Prii"...

Rainmaker
02-17-2016, 01:24 AM
I will be interested to see who is named

The next nominee will likely be a Mexican, lesbian-transgender, jewish, Black Lives Matters activist that has recently converted to Islam.

The MSM will spend the next year script-reading lies, like the supreme court being made up of non-partisan/non-political, wise sages. But, also lecturing us that it's very important to have a court that "looks like America" (meaning no White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males are allowed)


Wait a minute now, I own two Prius!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q9tPxcMDzg

garhkal
02-17-2016, 04:45 AM
That would royally suck imo to have someone hitting even 1 of those items you mentioned, especially the last part (converted to Islam)..

MikeKerriii
02-18-2016, 03:41 PM
That would royally suck imo to have someone hitting even 1 of those items you mentioned, especially the last part (converted to Islam)..

I hate to break it to ya, but there is already a Jewish person on the SC, I know that royally sucks for you but it it true, Hispanics are a threat to the Nation on the SC? The secret to being a bigot anf getting away with it is not to say such openly bigoted BS

BTW what is wrong with having a Gay justice on the SC?

You do know that religious test for that postilion are Unconstitutional and un-American? Anyone who has read the Constitution would know that.

That is as clueless as you famous statement about a black patients and the Klan doctor.

sandsjames
02-18-2016, 03:48 PM
I hate to break it to ya, but there is already a Jewish person on the SC, I know that royally sucks for you but it it true, Hispanics are a threat to the Nation on the SC? The secret to being a bigot anf getting away with it is not to say such openly bigoted BS

BTW what is wrong with having a Gay justice on the SC?

You do know that religious test for that postilion are Unconstitutional and un-American? Anyone who has read the Constitution would know that.

That is as clueless as you famous statement about a black patients and the Klan doctor.

Why, why, why did you respond to his obvious trolling? We'd made it almost a full day without someone biting.

MikeKerriii
02-18-2016, 05:51 PM
Why, why, why did you respond to his obvious trolling? We'd made it almost a full day without someone biting.
I don't think Garhkal, Is trolling I think he actually believes his comments make sense. But Poe's law may apply.

Rainmaker
02-18-2016, 06:54 PM
I hate to break it to ya, but there is already a Jewish person on the SC, I know that royally sucks for you but it it true

Actually there's 3 Jews and 6 (now 5) Catholics on the SCOTUS. Which considering that the Majority of Americans (53%) are protestants. seems curious don't you think?


The secret to being a bigot anf getting away with it is not to say such openly bigoted BS

You're not really getting away with it Mike. Your Anti-White bias is obvious.


BTW what is wrong with having a Gay justice on the SC?

Absolutely nothing. In fact, homosexuals tend to be skilled at lying and are oftentimes narcissistic, which are good qualities for supreme court justices to have.


you do know that religious test for that postilion are Unconstitutional and un-American? Anyone who has read the Constitution would know that

The fact that not one Protestant serves on the court shows that there's already a religious test.

Obviously the court has been corrupted and It's main purpose is to serve as front to justify the overreach of federal gov't. power.

A good argument can be made that it's a relic of the past and it should probably be disbanded and replaced with something better.

garhkal
02-18-2016, 07:02 PM
So what's everyone's thoughts in Obama not wanting to show up at Scalia's funeral?

sandsjames
02-18-2016, 08:07 PM
A good argument can be made that it's a relic of the past and it should probably be disbanded and replaced with something better.I agree with this 100%. The Supreme Court should not be a political tool. It should exist outside of politics. For almost every big case to be determined based on political affiliation of the Justice's shows that it's not a legal system, it's a political system. There is no "judicial branch" of the government as was intended by the founders. If it was ran properly, it wouldn't matter which President appointed which Justices because they would base opinions on the law.

sandsjames
02-18-2016, 08:07 PM
So what's everyone's thoughts in Obama not wanting to show up at Scalia's funeral?

Don't give a shit either way.

MikeKerriii
02-18-2016, 11:03 PM
So what's everyone's thoughts in Obama not wanting to show up at Scalia's funeral?

I'm thinking that that is fairly normal.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/obama-following-precedent-not-attending

garhkal
02-19-2016, 05:48 AM
I agree with this 100%. The Supreme Court should not be a political tool. It should exist outside of politics. For almost every big case to be determined based on political affiliation of the Justice's shows that it's not a legal system, it's a political system. There is no "judicial branch" of the government as was intended by the founders. If it was ran properly, it wouldn't matter which President appointed which Justices because they would base opinions on the law.

I agree. And imo its partially cause they ARE there for life (well till they pick to retire), that they have gotten political..


Don't give a shit either way.

So you don't think its bad form for a sitting Potus to not go to the funeral of a Scotus judge?

sandsjames
02-19-2016, 10:32 AM
So you don't think its bad form for a sitting Potus to not go to the funeral of a Scotus judge?Nope. Funerals are an individual thing. Where would the line be drawn? Should he attend the funeral of everyone in Congress? Every governor? Everyone in government at all?

What I do think is bad form is for a man's death to immediately turn in to a political issue. Can you imagine being a family member and all you hear, immediately after your loved one's death, is about finding a replacement for him? I thought that was all pretty inappropriate.

efmbman
02-19-2016, 12:32 PM
What I do think is bad form is for a man's death to immediately turn in to a political issue. Can you imagine being a family member and all you hear, immediately after your loved one's death, is about finding a replacement for him? I thought that was all pretty inappropriate.
True, but there is a practical aspect to it. In the military we certainly mourn the loss of our comrades but the fact of the matter is - a replacement must be named and named quickly to ensure mission accomplishment and continuity of operations. Those with cases pending before the court deserve that. The other 8 court members deserve that. It is possibly most important branch of our government so the people and the country deserve it. By that I mean a functioning SCOTUS is what is deserved.

Rainmaker
02-19-2016, 12:43 PM
So what's everyone's thoughts in Obama not wanting to show up at Scalia's funeral?

Law of Omerta. Out of respect for the family, It's considered a violation, for the mafia boss that orders the hit to show up at the victim's funeral.

Rainmaker
02-19-2016, 04:45 PM
a replacement must be named and named quickly to ensure mission accomplishment and continuity of operations.

No biggie. The msm's all panicky because the globalists just wanna ram another No borders, no guns commie down America's throat.

The people last spoke in 2014, so it Ain't happening. Which is likely divine intervention since Scalia took his marching orders from Rome.

Now the court will keep hearing cases & in the event of a tie it will just revert to the lower court's decision, meaning 5.5 Million illegal invaders will have to get off the public dole and go back to Guatemala or wherever the hell they came from.

SCOTUS stopped giving a rat's ass about what the constitution actually says and what the Founding Fathers intended years ago anyway.

garhkal
02-19-2016, 06:11 PM
What I do think is bad form is for a man's death to immediately turn in to a political issue. Can you imagine being a family member and all you hear, immediately after your loved one's death, is about finding a replacement for him? I thought that was all pretty inappropriate.

Now that i agree with. IMO they should have waited at least till the body got interred before harping on replacements.

LOAL-D
02-20-2016, 03:56 PM
Now that's good

LOAL-D
02-20-2016, 03:59 PM
I meant the Prii post

Rainmaker
02-21-2016, 03:41 PM
Broke Back Barry ain't got time for attending Scalia's funeral because he's busy spending all his remaining days in office planning with the parasites on how to get a nationwide race riot off the ground

http://time.com/4229987/obama-black-lives-matter-meeting/

“A lot of the conversation was not just about what can happen in the next ten months, but in the next 10 years as we come together and continue to do the work,”

We can utilize so many tactics. Protest is incredibly important. Policy is incredibly important,”

After the meeting, President Obama also called it a robust conversation, saying “there’s no better way for us to celebrate Black History Month.”

Mjölnir
02-24-2016, 06:42 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee/



President Barack Obama said Wednesday it would be "difficult" for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to explain his decision not to consider a Supreme Court nominee without looking like he's motivated by politics.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested a Republican, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, as a potential nominee. A source confirmed to CNN that the White House is vetting Sandoval.

Obama's pointed remarks and Reid's unconventional suggestion come amid a bitter standoff between Senate Republicans and the White House over naming a Supreme Court replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, whose death this month launched an epic election-year fight over constitutional powers and precedent.

"I recognize the politics are hard for them because the easier thing to do is to give in to the most extreme voices within their party and stand pat and do nothing," Obama said. "But that's not our job. Our job is to fulfill our constitutional duties."

Claiming he felt sympathy for Republican lawmakers making "sheepish" arguments for blocking his court choice, Obama insisted he would "nominate somebody and let the American people decide as to whether that person is qualified."

In a blog post early Wednesday, Obama reiterated again the broad outlines of what he's looking for in a candidate to replace Scalia, despite hardening resistance among Senate Republicans toward considering his eventual Supreme Court nominee.

Writing on the SCOTUSBlog website, Obama repeated his desire for a candidate who could bring life experience to the bench, along with an unassailable job history.

"A sterling record. A deep respect for the judiciary's role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That's what I'm considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court," Obama wrote. "And as senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they'll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength."

Obama's entreaty to lawmakers came a day after Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee vowed in a letter to forgo hearings on the White House's selection, a move unprecedented in Supreme Court nomination history. McConnell showed little sign he would retreat from his position that Obama's successor should select Scalia's replacement on the high court.

"I don't know how many times we need to keep saying this: The Judiciary Committee has unanimously recommended to me that there be no hearing. I've said repeatedly and I'm now confident that my conference agrees that this decision ought to be made by the next president, whoever is elected," McConnell said Tuesday, adding later he was unlikely to even meet with Obama's nominee.

The chairman of the Judiciary panel, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, spoke with Obama about the selection process last week, but has so far declined invitations to meet with Obama in person, a White House official said late Tuesday.

Speaking in the Oval Office Wednesday, Obama said none of the country's founding fathers believed a president should stop doing his job in his final year in office. And he argued that Republicans risked damaging the ability of any president to appoint judges if they proceed with blocking his Supreme Court pick.

"If, in fact, the Republicans in the Senate take a posture that defies the Constitution, defies logic, is not supported by tradition simply because of politics, then invariably what you're going to see is a further deterioration in the ability of any president to make any judicial appointments," Obama said.

"Appointments to the Supreme Court as well as the federal bench suddenly become a complete extension of our polarized politics," he added.

And he sought to dispel any damage from archival video showing Vice President Joe Biden, then a senator, arguing against approving a Supreme Court nominee during the 1992 election year.

"They've suggested there have been times that Democrats have said it would be wise for a president not to nominate someone," Obama said. "We know senators say stuff all the time."

Obama revealed little about his process in selecting a nominee, either during his remarks or in his online posting. He repeated the broad criteria for a candidate that he cited during his past two Supreme Court nomination opportunities.

"Needless to say, this isn't something I take lightly," Obama wrote. "It's a decision to which I devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation with legal experts, members of both political parties, and people across the political spectrum."

Obama's aides said he spent last weekend delving into detailed packets about potential candidates. He was seen carrying a large black binder, divided into nine sections, as he returned to his residence Friday evening.

In his post, Obama made no indication of what ideology he was seeking in a Supreme Court nominee, and the White House insists he remains open to a spectrum of candidates.

But in recent days his allies have suggested Obama select a moderate who has gained support in the past from Republicans, even as it appears increasingly unlikely that any nominee will gain traction among GOP lawmakers.

Vice President Joe Biden suggested in interviews last week Obama pick a "consensus candidate" and not the most "liberal jurist" he could muster. Without naming specific judges, he said there were plenty of names on the federal bench who had enjoyed broad support from Republicans during their confirmation processes.

Many of those names currently serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, one of the nation's most important panels since it hears challenges to certain federal agencies.

While the court is sometimes regarded as a stepping-stone for judges to eventually serve on the Supreme Court, a former top adviser to Obama suggested Tuesday the President may avoid picking a name from that lower panel.

"Because those cases are critical cases and there are several of them before them right now, I think he'll look elsewhere for a nominee," David Axelrod, now a CNN senior political commentator, said on "The Situation Room."

It would be doubling down & calling the Republican led Senate to nominate a Republican governor.

Rainmaker
02-24-2016, 07:21 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee/



It would be doubling down & calling the Republican led Senate to nominate a Republican governor.

Because, of their unwillingness to do what the Tea Party (who put them in power) asked and oppose Obamao's Marxist agenda in any meaningful way,
Shit birds like Mitch McConnell and his whole wing of the RINO party is toast.

Like, I told you guys last Summer....From The 1st Minute Der Trumper announced that He was going to take steps to Seal the border, enforce the law of the land and Bring back our manufacturing base (in-spite of Billie Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and the rest of the "we need more cheap foreign workers" crowd) the 2016 Election was effectively over.

And for this imposter in the White House (and the rest of the 5th column Piece of Shit media) to be lecturing Congress about Constitutional duties is ridiculous. I don't recall any of them talking about the Constitution back when this Communist was going to the extent of actively prosecuting border states for trying to supplement border security in the face of a deliberate federal abandonment of the national (hence state borders).

Mjölnir
02-24-2016, 07:48 PM
Because, of their unwillingness to do what the Tea Party (who put them in power) asked and oppose Obamao's Marxist agenda in any meaningful way,
Shit birds like Mitch McConnell and his whole wing of the RINO party is toast.

I get what you are saying. I do believe that being a total obstructionist is not useful.

Now, for President Obama, like it or not he has done a really good job of getting his agenda through many times without compromise. I think a consequence of that is now being seen with the Republican stonewall on a Supreme Court nominee.

When I was working in the Senate in 2013 and the Senate Democrats pushed the 'Nuclear Option' to change Senate parliamentary rules on nominees, they also laid the ground work for even worse bad blood in the chamber. Some of the staff I worked with (Democratic staff) understood this and didn't think the short term 'win' for the sake of lower court nominees was worth the long term ramifications of the change ... I think in part they were right.

sandsjames
02-24-2016, 07:51 PM
I get what you are saying. I do believe that being a total obstructionist is not useful.

Now, for President Obama, like it or not he has done a really good job of getting his agenda through many times without compromise. Via executive order...

Mjölnir
02-24-2016, 07:56 PM
Via executive order...

It is one of the tools in the tool kit.

Rainmaker
02-24-2016, 08:33 PM
It is one of the tools in the tool kit.

"When your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail"- Thor

sandsjames
02-24-2016, 08:47 PM
It is one of the tools in the tool kit.

Right, but you made it sound like he got things taken care of in a way that included the legislative branch. Any President could get things done the way Obama did, if they believe their personal position is more important than those he's supposed to be representing.

Mjölnir
02-24-2016, 08:57 PM
Right, but you made it sound like he got things taken care of in a way that included the legislative branch. Any President could get things done the way Obama did, if they believe their personal position is more important than those he's supposed to be representing.

That was not my intent, but ... He has (via the previous Democratic Congress) gotten a lot done legislatively.

garhkal
02-24-2016, 09:21 PM
And for this imposter in the White House (and the rest of the 5th column Piece of Shit media) to be lecturing Congress about Constitutional duties is ridiculous. I don't recall any of them talking about the Constitution back when this Communist was going to the extent of actively prosecuting border states for trying to supplement border security in the face of a deliberate federal abandonment of the national (hence state borders).

Or when he ignored the constitution to make the treaty with Iran going AROUND congress.. Or in several other things he has done. Obama seems to only acknowledge the constitution when he is wanting to use it to push others to HIS way of thought, otherwise he ignores it..

Rollyn01
02-24-2016, 11:12 PM
Or when he ignored the constitution to make the treaty with Iran going AROUND congress.. Or in several other things he has done. Obama seems to only acknowledge the constitution when he is wanting to use it to push others to HIS way of thought, otherwise he ignores it..

You mean like how Bush was able to declare war without the consent of Congress? Oh wait...

garhkal
02-25-2016, 04:03 AM
You like how Bush was able to declare war without the consent of Congress? Oh wait...

Which if we were able to check the older boards, you would have seen i Dingged bush for..

MikeKerriii
02-25-2016, 04:11 AM
Or when he ignored the constitution to make the treaty with Iran going AROUND congress.. Or in several other things he has done. Obama seems to only acknowledge the constitution when he is wanting to use it to push others to HIS way of thought, otherwise he ignores it..

Obama did not go around Congress, Obama did not do anything the Constitution doesn't say he can do.

What, in you imagination, did he do to get around Congress?

garhkal
02-25-2016, 06:09 PM
The constitution, says its Congresses duty to make and negotiate treaties.. Is that not what Obama and Kerry did?

MikeKerriii
02-26-2016, 01:03 AM
The constitution, says its Congresses duty to make and negotiate treaties.. Is that not what Obama and Kerry did? Making and negotiating treaties are duties specifically given to The POTUS.

Where did you get the idea that Congress dash that authority., wherever it came from you should ignore that idiot in the future, Ask a middle school kid who has taken civics

Article 2, Section 2 Clause 1

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...


The Senate voted against raising the political agreement with Iran to a treaty, this legally giving the president a free hand

From a RWNJ source:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/iran-congress-nuke-deal/2015/04/28/id/641339/#ixzz41EeKHd2O
The ballot came just hours after former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was national security adviser under President George W. Bush, said any Iran nuclear deal is an executive agreement that doesn't need to be a treaty.



(http://www.newsmax.com/US/iran-congress-nuke-deal/2015/04/28/id/641339/#ixzz41EeKHd2O)








The ballot came just hours after former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was national security adviser under President George W. Bush, said any Iran nuclear deal is an executive agreement that doesn't need to be a treaty.





I would suggest that you read the Constitution before telling others what is in that document, since the Constitution you imagine, is purely imaginary