With Obama as president, that assures the balance will slant to a 5-4 liberal majority, and a push to advance a liberal agenda by activist-liberal fiat, rather than by the Constitutional standard. Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor have both made comments and actions that make their scorn for the Constitution in favor of their own agenda quite clear.
After 8 years of no accomplishments and ramming things through as executive orders rather than rallying consensus and passing laws, Obama finally has a chance to have a legacy after his presidency ends, through his good fortune of being able to appoint another justice, who will give liberals/Dems their partisan majority. (As opposed to a conservative majority that respects the Constitution and the rule of law over their own agenda.)
The SCOTUS was not really a conservative majority in the first place, but this makes things ten times worse.
However, if Obama thinks it's going to be a cake walk to install another fellow traveler without a congressional majority in both branches, then he's wrong.....unless McConnell and Ryan decide to cave and concede like the useful puppets they are--which is absolutely possible.
Well, yeah, while technically until Scalia died it was a 5-4 Republican-appointed majority, John Roberts has not acted as a Republican/Conservative appointee, and for reasons not clear has passed up TWO rulings that could have overturned Obamacare as unconstitutional.
There are limits to how radical a nominee Obama can get through Senate appoval, but it's still his call who gets appointed.
Well, yeah, while technically until Scalia died it was a 5-4 Republican-appointed majority, John Roberts has not acted as a Republican/Conservative appointee, and for reasons not clear has passed up TWO rulings that could have overturned Obamacare as unconstitutional.
There are limits to how radical a nominee Obama can get through Senate appoval, but it's still his call who gets appointed.
From what I'm reading republicans are already saying they won't even consider a nomination. There isn't a principled argument for doing that but I see it playing out that way. Regardless I'm sure Obama will choose a nominee.
Republicans are in a bind with this, though. If they hold up an appointment, then they risk turning the issue into a turnout drive for Democrats and--historically speaking--Dems do better with a larger turnout than the GOP does. On the flip side, they could probably only get so much movement on an agreeable "consensus choice." It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Politically Scalia's death could be a quite the gift for dems. Republican leadership being so honest about not even considering a nomination is bad optics because everybody can see what shitwads they truly are. Works for me, Scalia in death may balance some of his "achievements" in life. Tie votes mean the lower courts decisions stand and that is now more liberal controlled. And than it's very possible that republicans lose both the senate and the presidency this year.
Obama and democrats' approval numbers are in the shitter with people absolutely pissed off at the government--in an election year--and you think blocking his nomination is somehow underhanded/shitheaded even in the face of 80 year precedent where judges have not been appointed during these periods?
Here's a better question: do you honestly believe that dingy Harry wouldn't block a Republican appointment regardless of the antecedents?
So how many times has a partisan congress told a President not to make a nomination despite his constitutional duty to do so? Also people hate the GOP more than Obama and the dems. For good reason btw. Liberty isn't just for straight wealthy men anymore motherfuckers, lol
I'm all for the GOP choosing to not advise or consent from here until January 20, 2017 if they so choose. But, let's not pretend this argument really holds any water...
Politically Scalia's death could be a quite the gift for dems. Republican leadership being so honest about not even considering a nomination is bad optics because everybody can see what shitwads they truly are. Works for me, Scalia in death may balance some of his "achievements" in life. Tie votes mean the lower courts decisions stand and that is now more liberal controlled. And than it's very possible that republicans lose both the senate and the presidency this year.
Oddly for M E M, it wasn't bad optics when Democrats did the exact same thing. The difference being, Obama has about 10 months left, and Sen. Schumer and other Democrats wanted to obstruct any W. Bush nominees, when Bush still had 18 months of his term left!
Also, then-Senator Obama voted against Roberts' USSC nomination, despite that he could cite nothing in Roberts' legal history to justify Obama's not confirming Roberts. And yet ironically, in the years since, Roberts has voted twice in favor of Obama on 2 separate cases before the USSC, in not finding Obamacare unconstitutional (despite that it is).
You overlook that the dems did consider nominations though and Roberts did get confirmed. Big difference because the repubs have already said they won't budge and even told Obama not to bother. Your party will pay for that.
I'm all for the GOP choosing to not advise or consent from here until January 20, 2017 if they so choose. But, let's not pretend this argument really holds any water...
You overlook that the dems did consider nominations though and Roberts did get confirmed. Big difference because the repubs have already said they won't budge and even told Obama not to bother. Your party will pay for that.
M E M, I just proved with videotaped comments how Sen. Chuck Schumer wanted to not consider any Bush nominee, during the remaining 18 months of W.Bush's term.
And how Barack Obama himself demonstrated such incivility that he voted to not confirm Justice Roberts, despite his not being able to cite any basis for rejecting Roberts' nomination.
The Republicans are not doing anything the Democrats didn't do in 2007 when they had a majority. And the Republicans are absolutely within their rights in doing so. As every Senate of either party has done for decades.
So how many times has a partisan congress told a President not to make a nomination despite his constitutional duty to do so? Also people hate the GOP more than Obama and the dems.
You're missing the point entirely. The people aren't see a principle difference between the two anymore. More and more often you're going to hear the phrase "one party system", and you can't argue it to be anything other than a leftist one.
Quote:
For good reason btw. Liberty isn't just for straight wealthy men anymore motherfuckers, lol
No. It's for wealthy white liberal men. All of those rent-seekers and cronies you actively supported with every vote for the DEMs.
Originally Posted By: iggy
I'm all for the GOP choosing to not advise or consent from here until January 20, 2017 if they so choose. But, let's not pretend this argument really holds any water...
Cruz didn't twist anything. Illustrating precedent is not the same as claiming a rule. And that's especially effective against the administration since Obama has used precedent as a principle reason for argument more than any others. He only claims "constitutional responsibility" now that he doesn't have to BS that precedent actually matters.
You overlook that the dems did consider nominations though and Roberts did get confirmed. Big difference because the repubs have already said they won't budge and even told Obama not to bother. Your party will pay for that.
M E M, I just proved with videotaped comments how Sen. Chuck Schumer wanted to not consider any Bush nominee, during the remaining 18 months of W.Bush's term.
And how Barack Obama himself demonstrated such incivility that he voted to not confirm Justice Roberts, despite his not being able to cite any basis for rejecting Roberts' nomination.
The Republicans are not doing anything the Democrats didn't do in 2007 when they had a majority. And the Republicans are absolutely within their rights in doing so. As every Senate of either party has done for decades.
Apples and oranges. Yes there has been some partisan stuff before but A President hasn't been told not to bother nominating anybody because the other party wasn't even going to consider it. Repubs over reacted and they'll pay as they should. We just had a bunch of old white men tell the black President that they were not even going to consider his nomination. And unlike Bush your party actually isn't going to let Obama replace Scalia. Remember all those black voters in 2008 and '12
And it's that kind of threatening, coercion, intimidation, and all around hot air that has made people who ignore such things--such as Trump and Cruz--so fucking popular.
And if Europe is anything to judge, their type of insurgent attitudes against such bullshit tactics--such as your own--is going to make even more people fed up.
Just stating the obvious repercussions of what will happen election wise if republicans actually not let Obama replace Scalia on the court. I think it's a safe bet that is going to happen too.
…it is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
The Senate, too, Mr. President must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents [Millard] Fillmore and [Andrew] Johnson, and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.
Yeah, stuff said from both sides change depending on the circumstances. Despite that a Supreme Court slot hasn't sat unfilled for as long as what it will this time. And how many times has a majority party actually just refused to consider a President's nomination? This is being done out of desperation and not out of principle.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that except for the supermajority votes required by the Constitution (treaties, veto override, constitutional amendments), all other votes require only a simple majority.
The Constitution does not specify a supermajority for presidential nominations.
The current Senate rule, which effectively requires a supermajority for nominations is, therefore, on its face, unconstitutional.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
I've never been in favor of filibustering judicial nominees. As such, I don't oppose what Reid did today....
Please stop assuming everyone is as a big a hypocrite as you.
