So if Cruz/Trump/Rubio is elected are you ok with Democrats not voting on a replacement?
Justice Scalia
- Thread starter Err.
- Start date
So if Cruz/Trump/Rubio is elected are you ok with Democrats not voting on a replacement?
Interesting blurb on CNN about Scalia. He and David Axlerod were seated next to each other at a state dinner and Axlerod said that Scalia lived up to his reputation for being a lively conversationalist in social settings. This was at the time the Souter seat was open and no replacement had been named. As the night wore on Scalia leaned over to Axlerod and said that he knew Obama would not nominate someone from his side, but he hoped he nominated a smart person. Axlerod gave your standard dinner table answer, and he said Scalia leaned over again and directly said that Obama should nominate Elena Kagan.
Obama went with Sonia Sotomayor that time, but he did name Kagan when the next seat on the bench opened up. Scalia was a blind ideologue who let his religious convictions blur his ability to see the Constitution, but he liked a good intellectual battle it seems.
Obama went with Sonia Sotomayor that time, but he did name Kagan when the next seat on the bench opened up. Scalia was a blind ideologue who let his religious convictions blur his ability to see the Constitution, but he liked a good intellectual battle it seems.
The Senate is currently controlled by the Republican's does not matter what I think.
Yes, but the margin is not filibuster-proof. So, are you in favor of democrats stalling out the next republican nomination?
I don't think any reasonable person thinks it's okay to flatout block Supreme Court nominees without a vote. The question here is whether there's too much time until November for the Republicans to run out the clock. There is no easy answer on this. If Obama sends a good nomination to the senate, they may have to act. If he nominates a stinker, a stall may be in order. At any rate, both sides need to play their hand. There has never been a presidential primary like this. Can there be any more drama?
Drama for sure.
When the longest confirmation to date in history is 3 months, blocking for 11 months is unprecedented and unconstitutional imo. And if the GOP plays that card, it will guarantee that every future President, for a very long time, will be unable to confirm a nominee if the Senate is held by the other party. Democrats will never forgive the GOP for stalling for 11 months -- particularly when they approved a GOP appointed nominee in an election year -- and will do the same, and then some, when they are next in power. If 11 months is acceptable, then so is 24, and if 24 is acceptable, we are halfway to the next election ...
Personally, I think this is all fun political and judicial talk, which I enjoy, but the President will nominate Judge Srinivasan, he will get a vote, and be approved. I call it 76 yeas and 24 nays.
Wrong on two counts: Obama has never let ego alter a decision and Obama is a pragmatist above a liberal. He will go with a more centrist judge.
Damn...it's so sad to watch as dementia sets in. I read it. I replied. And, once again, the reply was directly on point. USE whatever arguments you want...deny the vote to put them on the circuit court...then vote to confirm them just like Alito and Thomas.
This isn't hard...maybe you need to keep notes handy.
"religious convictions blur his ability to see the Constitution,"
wrong, these are one and the same
wrong, these are one and the same
But then we look at your 1st post in this thread and we know that you're such a fine poster.
Can you take Bruce/Caitlyn and also win if it's anything but a black person? I'd say s/he is white, LGBT, and "other." Sounds like a winning bet to me!
90% of Democratic voters would be lucky to name 3 Supreme Court justices let alone base their vote on how long it takes the Senate to confirm or deny one of Obama's minions. Democratic voters are more aligned with who is coming up with the most freebies, hence the BS surge.
yes and they could have used the power of the purse to block a lot that Obama does and did- and they did not and refuse to do so. they fail
It's interesting to see that the republican candidates have rewritten the constitution and put in place a 7-1 term limit. 7 years in office and one year as a place holder.
What a bunch of crap. Please point out the Constitutional time limit for the Senate providing advice and consent? I'll wait.
It's not that the senate can't, it's that the republican hopefuls explicitly stated that the next president should choose the nominee, which is absurd. No, by all means, the senate can be as obstructionist as they please. I believe the only other time a nomination took longer was pre-civil war, that will be a good look for them.
To quote the great philosopher Geddy Lee, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. At some point, the failure to act is failing to provide constitutionally required advice and consent. The longest confirmation wait in U.S. history is 3 months. Thus, history says that 11 months is unreasonable.
I have no problem if the GOP schedules a vote on the nominee and rejects him/her. That's entirely proper. But if the GOP goes the other route and tries to wait it out for 11 months with no vote whatsoever, that leaves the Court split 4-4 for more than a year, and will all but guarantee that the next time the tables are turned, the democrats will not consider a GOP nominee. If 11 months is proper, why not 24? And if 24 months is proper, well, the next election is just around the corner.
The GOP is too smart not to hold a vote for 11 months. The inside power players will let it be known to the White House which potential nominees it will hold a vote on and approve.
The only one I see with the possibility of being confirmed is the Indian(dot not feathers).
