Elizabeth Warren on Replacing Scalia

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

[from her Facebook page]

 

[The Tradition]

Why should I care what "Sitting Bull" Warren has to say?

 

[ottumwan in tx]

is she a natural native born citizen?

 

[BlazinHawk]

Of course, dems felt differently in the early 60's.... But that's different, right, WWJD?

 

[jscott78]

Warren just now realizes the gop's talk of protecting the constitution is "empty." Give me a break. This has been obvious for years. People can't differentiate political strategy from what the gop really believes.

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

[from her Facebook page]

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did

Yes they did in the mid-term landslide. Total repudiation of all of Obama's policies. And now it continues with Trump and B.S.

 

[pablow]

Since when did Warren and her buddies become concerned above the actual text of the constitution.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

 

[IaHawk44]

Either way the Republicans are screwed. They've alienated Latinos, American Muslims, women, blacks and even former POWs. The GOP base won't stand for making amends to these minorities and no sensible Independent will vote for an extremist GOP presidential nominee. If the Democrats have a great turnout in November they'll keep the presidency and win back the Senate. I've also read some conspiracy theories about Scalia being murdered, so expect the Republicans to add another murder to Hillary's list.

 

[The Tradition]

Either way the Republicans are screwed. They've alienated Latinos, American Muslims, women, blacks and even former POWs. The GOP base won't stand for making amends to these minorities and no sensible Independent will vote for an extremist GOP presidential nominee. If the Democrats have a great turnout in November they'll keep the presidency and win back the Senate. I've also read some conspiracy theories about Scalia being murdered, so expect the Republicans to add another murder to Hillary's list.

Two of the GOP candidates are Latinos. One is black.

Compare and contrast with Ma' and Pa' Kettle in the other party.

Trump doesn't represent the GOP. Trump represents Trump.

 

[22*43*51]

View embedded media

I'm shocked.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Why should I care what "Sitting Bull" Warren has to say?

No reason. You generally don't let facts or reasoned opinions get in your way. Why make an exception for Lizzie?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Of course, dems felt differently in the early 60's.... But that's different, right, WWJD?

As I said when this was raised in another thread, just because both parties have been hypocrites on this in the past is not really a good reason to be obstructionist and dishonest about it now.

 

[The Tradition]

Does the Constitution set forth a deadline for the Senate's advice and consent?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

[from her Facebook page]

We should look to precedent. What did the Democrats do with bush judicial nominations in 2008?

 

[TexMichFan]

This issue holds pitfalls for both parties.

If the Republicans follow thru on the threat to not vote on an Obama nominee the Dems will be able to use that as motivation for their base to get out and vote for a Democratic senate. IMHO it was a mistake for the Republicans to come out with this line. If they want to vote down someone for holding to liberal views then that is their right and would be far less of a motivation tool.

If Obama nominates just liberal candidates then the Republicans will be able to use that as motivation for their base to get and vote for a Republican president.

 

[mstp1992]

We should liok at precedent. What did the Democrats do with bush judicial nominations in 2008?

Frankly, the GOP would make themselves look good if they don't forcibly block Scalia's replacement. They could go to their constituents and say "look, we did our constitutional duty and did so for the good of America, rather than block appointments like the democrats did in 2008."

 

[Herkmeister]

Whether we like it or not BHO is going to make a nomination. And he's going to do it quickly. IMHO there's been plan in place for some time. I predict you'll see a nomination by March 1st and I'll now say the odds of the nominee being an Iowan are 33%.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Yes they did in the mid-term landslide. Total repudiation of all of Obama's policies. And now it continues with Trump and B.S.

Yes they won enough seats to take control of the Senate. And they can use their majority to block Obama's nominee if they want.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Obama, however, is still the people's choice for President. Not just because he won the last election but also based on polls suggesting he would win today if he could run.

What's going on here is perfectly clear. The GOP doesn't want to confirm an Obama nominee because they expect they can get a nominee they like better from a GOP president - and probably also from the more conservative Hillary. Fair enough. Just vote down his nominee(s).

BUT they don't want to own the criticism they'll get (and deserve) when they are seen trashing and rejecting what you can sure will be squeaky clean, admirable nominees.

So instead of doing their job, they are making up reasons not to do their job.

This should come as no surprise. The GOP has been making up reasons not to do their job for nearly 8 years.

 

[mstp1992]

This issue holds pitfalls for both parties.

If the Republicans follow thru on the threat to not vote on an Obama nominee the Dems will be able to use that as motivation for their base to get out and vote for a Democratic senate. IMHO it was a mistake for the Republicans to come out with this line. If they want to vote down someone for holding to liberal views then that is their right and would be far less of a motivation tool.

If Obama nominates just liberal candidates then the Republicans will be able to use that as motivation for their base to get and vote for a Republican president.

Absolutely. I think what Obama will do is nominate a very middle of the road candidate, one who had strong bipartisan support in being confirmed at the federal level and without significantly controversial rulings.

 

[IaHawk44]

Yes they did in the mid-term landslide. Total repudiation of all of Obama's policies. And now it continues with Trump and B.S.

As if that carries any weight in November, lol. The silver lining of the Democrats losing the Senate in '14 is that they only have to defend 10 seats while the Republicans have to defend 24 seats. The Congressional approval rating is at 20, while President Obama's is at 47 - which pretty much makes your point moot. Also, Trump is heavily disliked by both Democrats and Independents - so things don't look good at all for the GOP come November when liberals have historically large voter turnout for general elections.

 

[mstp1992]

Whether we like it or not BHO is going to make a nomination. And he's going to do it quickly. IMHO there's been plan in place for some time. I predict you'll see a nomination by March 1st and I'll now say the odds of the nominee being an Iowan are 33%.

The White House has had a short list for quite some time, I'm sure, given Ginsberg's health issues.

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

Why should I care what "Sitting Bull" Warren has to say?

Were you confused by the thread title?

 

[IaHawk44]

Since when did Warren and her buddies become concerned above the actual text of the constitution.

Perhaps an example of Warren's constitutional neglect is necessary here, opinionated generalities don't cut it.

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

I'm shocked.

By what?

 

[The Tradition]

The White House has had a short list for quite some time, I'm sure, given Ginsberg's health issues.

Ginsberg is key. If she can hold on for another year then the next president can offset Obama's nominee and maintain the four cons, four libs, and one swing vote balance (assuming the next president is conservative).

Now, when Kennedy goes, we'll really see fireworks.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

As I said when this was raised in another thread, just because both parties have been hypocrites on this in the past is not really a good reason to be obstructionist and dishonest about it now.

Are you referring to Obamas filibuster of justice Alito?

 

[Herkmeister]

The White House has had a short list for quite some time, I'm sure, given Ginsberg's health issues.

Correct. And the Washington Post's short list of 5 includes an Iowan. She was also mentioned today on CBS Radio.

 

[IaHawk44]

Two of the GOP candidates are Latinos. One is black.

Compare and contrast with Ma' and Pa' Kettle in the other party.

Trump doesn't represent the GOP. Trump represents Trump.

It doesn't make any difference what minority the GOP props up, what matters is the GOP platform they represent. Independents tend to be sensible, responsible voters and they're the ones that will vote that bigoted platform down.

Trump does represent the GOP, polling of Republican voters reinforce that.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Absolutely. I think what Obama will do is nominate a very middle of the road candidate, one who had strong bipartisan support in being confirmed at the federal level and without significantly controversial rulings.

Given his history of nominations I'm struggling to believe that.

 

[TexMichFan]

Absolutely. I think what Obama will do is nominate a very middle of the road candidate, one who had strong bipartisan support in being confirmed at the federal level and without significantly controversial rulings.

If Obama wants to make a nomination that can be confirmed then he will go the route you suggested. The question would be does Obama want this or does he want to make a campaign issue out of it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This issue holds pitfalls for both parties.

If the Republicans follow thru on the threat to not vote on an Obama nominee the Dems will be able to use that as motivation for their base to get out and vote for a Democratic senate. IMHO it was a mistake for the Republicans to come out with this line. If they want to vote down someone for holding to liberal views then that is their right and would be far less of a motivation tool.

If Obama nominates just liberal candidates then the Republicans will be able to use that as motivation for their base to get and vote for a Republican president.

Yep, this is pressure on Obama to nominate a high quality moderate. Which is what may do - assuming he can find one who wants the job enough to be willing to put up with the attacks.

But there's another possible consequence of the GOP refusal to do its job. What if the GOP wins the White House and doesn't improve its slim majority in the Senate? And what if the Dems decide to play this game, too?

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the current 8-member Supreme Court without Scalia is better (from a liberal perspective) than the previous 9-member Court with Scalia. The same will be true of the current 8-member Court vs a 9-member Court if the 9th Justice is nominated by Cruz, Trump or probably any Republican president.

Where is the incentive to consider any GOP nominee? Ever?

Even if Ginsberg or another liberal should retire or die in the next few years, why would the Dems then let any GOP president add 2 more conservative Justices? Better to just toddle along with a 7-person court.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

IIRC there was a West Wing episode (or series of episodes) dealing with replacing a Justice. Initially it was thought that the only way for the Dem president to get a nominee through would be to nominate a safe candidate. Where "safe" meant middle of the road, moderate, boring, unlikely to bring any new or interesting thinking to the court....

Then another Justice died or left. So the opportunity existed to add a really good liberal and a really good conservative as a compromise. The president wouldn't get the 2 liberals he might want, but the nation wouldn't have to settle for mediocrity, either.

I wonder if something like that might happen if this drags out.

 

[The Tradition]

It doesn't make any difference what minority the GOP props up, what matters is the GOP platform they represent. Independents tend to be sensible, responsible voters and they're the ones that will vote that bigoted platform down.

Trump does represent the GOP, polling of Republican voters reinforce that.

Only ~ 25 percent are big Trump supporters.

I'd bet 25 percent of Democrats would support nationalization of industry to attain various labor, income equality and environmental goals. Would such a demographic be deemed "representative" of the Democrat party at large?

 

[TexMichFan]

Yep, this is pressure on Obama to nominate a high quality moderate. Which is what may do - assuming he can find one who wants the job enough to be willing to put up with the attacks.

But there's another possible consequence of the GOP refusal to do its job. What if the GOP wins the White House and doesn't improve its slim majority in the Senate? And what if the Dems decide to play this game, too?

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the current 8-member Supreme Court without Scalia is better (from a liberal perspective) than the previous 9-member Court with Scalia. The same will be true of the current 8-member Court vs a 9-member Court if the 9th Justice is nominated by Cruz, Trump or probably any Republican president.

Where is the incentive to consider any GOP nominee? Ever?

Even if Ginsberg or another liberal should retire or die in the next few years, why would the Dems then let any GOP president add 2 more conservative Justices? Better to just toddle along with a 7-person court.

IMHO people pay more attention to actual situations way more than hypothetical ones. The issue of nominating someone to the court was in play the last election as a hypothetical but got little play.

Ginsberg probably will be replaced by the next President and could get some play in this election but I feel if someone is confirmed to replace Scalia then it becomes a very small issue.

 

[Herkmeister]

Yep, this is pressure on Obama to nominate a high quality moderate. Which is what may do - assuming he can find one who wants the job enough to be willing to put up with the attacks.

But there's another possible consequence of the GOP refusal to do its job. What if the GOP wins the White House and doesn't improve its slim majority in the Senate? And what if the Dems decide to play this game, too?

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the current 8-member Supreme Court without Scalia is better (from a liberal perspective) than the previous 9-member Court with Scalia. The same will be true of the current 8-member Court vs a 9-member Court if the 9th Justice is nominated by Cruz, Trump or probably any Republican president.

Where is the incentive to consider any GOP nominee? Ever?

Even if Ginsberg or another liberal should retire or die in the next few years, why would the Dems then let any GOP president add 2 more conservative Justices? Better to just toddle along with a 7-person court.

Interesting thought. And would the American people supply enough pressure to change things.

 

[pablow]

Perhaps an example of Warren's constitutional neglect is necessary here, opinionated generalities don't cut it.

Perhaps you could cite me to the birth control clause. Or the privacy clause, or the "evolving standards of decency" clause.

"Justice Scalia has said he is 'adamantly opposed' to Roe v. Wade and it is based on a theory that's 'simply a lie'," said the Warren campaign in an email interview. "He's said that there is no constitutional right to birth control….This once again shows that when it comes to the issues that matter – like who sits on the Supreme Court – women just can't count on Scott Brown." - Elizabeth Warren http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysi...gets-Scott-Brown-as-Roe-threat/3801350596042/

 

[IaHawk44]

Only ~ 25 percent are big Trump supporters.

I'd bet 25 percent of Democrats would support nationalization of industry to attain various labor, income equality and environmental goals. Would such a demographic be deemed "representative" of the Democrat party at large?

Of course they would, but both Hillary and Bernie support those positions as well. but when Democrats think Trump, they first think bigot, and that's why Democrats AND Independents dislike him.

Only ~ 25 percent are big Trump supporters.

I'd bet 25 percent of Democrats would support nationalization of industry to attain various labor, income equality and environmental goals. Would such a demographic be deemed "representative" of the Democrat party at large?

Only ~ 25 percent are big Trump supporters.



I'd bet 25 percent of Democrats would support nationalization of industry to attain various labor, income equality and environmental goals. Would such a demographic be deemed "representative" of the Democrat party at large?

You're missing the point, or rather you can't comprehend it. When Democrats AND Independents think Trump, they first think bigot, so those other things won't make a bit of difference. Besides, both Hillary and Bernie support those positions as well, if not more so. By the way, Trump is against raising the minimum wage - and when has he ever stated anything about being pro-environment?

 

[mstp1992]

Given his history of nominations I'm struggling to believe that.

He nominated someone Scalia suggested, so there's that.

 

[The Tradition]

Of course they would, but both Hillary and Bernie support those positions as well. but when Democrats think Trump, they first think bigot, and that's why Democrats AND Independents dislike him.




You're missing the point, or rather you can't comprehend it. When Democrats AND Independents think Trump, they first think bigot, so those other things won't make a bit of difference. Besides, both Hillary and Bernie support those positions as well, if not more so. By the way, Trump is against raising the minimum wage - and when has he ever stated anything about being pro-environment?

Hillary and Bernie support Communism?

(Clue: nationalization of industry is the definition of Communism)