Antonin Scalia's death
 

The poor guys hasn't even been buried and it begins.. However It is the sitting POTUS job to fill that Seat .. Just bad timing for the republicans
if they go crazy and try to block it until after the election it might blow up in their face


Note that the record for longest time period to go through this process is 125 days. Obama has 342 remaining in office.


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that the Senate should wait until a new president is elected (WHY) besides the obvious


“The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee,

It's the job of POTUS, maybe his most important job, to occupy that court. Obama has every right to nominate someone.

"Just bad timing for the republicans "

No one gets in without approval of the Senate, which the GOP controls, so the timing could be a LOT worse. I don't know that I believe McConnell would have the onions to block an Obama nominee, but I believe that Cruz would.

How about this...in 2014, the citizens of this country gave the Senate to the GOP. Obama, when it suits him, likes to say, "elections have consequences". I have no quarrel (not that this surprises anyone) with the Republican senators declaring that based on the 2014 midterms, that the public doesn't want the makeup of the court tilted dramatically to the left. The 2014 midterm results make that pretty obvious.

We all know what happened to the Bush appointee Robert Bork. The Senate (when ruled by Democrats) refused to aprove of him, and that effort was lead by Biden. Let's see how Biden likes being on the other end of political gridlock. What's good for the goose...

Obama will probably nominate a transgender Native American female with Bolshevik political leanings, preferably one in a wheelchair, crippled from getting run over by a Koch Brothers oil truck. That way, when the Senate says "pass", Obama can say "see, the Republicans hate all these victim groups represented by this pick, blah, blah, blah."

That aside, I mourn the passing of Scalia, he was a worthy guardian or libetry. He also used to vacation all the time with Ginsburg. Talk about an unlikely pair!!

You think Leahy's statement isn't politically self-serving?

It will be very, very interesting. In the middle of the election, of all things.

Saw this elsewhere, the speculation has begun...

"My mole in the White House tells me Obama will nominate 46-year-old Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who Obama nominated in 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and the Senate confirmed unanimously. Having confirmed him unanimously just three years ago, it would be difficult (but hardly impossible) for Republicans to oppose him now. (Twelve former Solicitors General, including Republican notables as Paul Clement and Kenneth Starr had endorsed his confirmation. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has long been a Supreme Court farm team – Scalia himself, along with John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were judges there before ascending to the Supreme Court.)

But is Srinivasan progressive? He had been Obama’s principal Deputy Solicitor General before the nomination, arguing Supreme Court cases in support of affirmative action and against Indiana’s restrictive voter ID law, for example. But this record doesn’t prove much. (Having once worked as an assistant Solicitor General, I know the inhabitants of that office will argue whatever halfway respectable arguments the Justice Department and, indirectly, the President, wants made.)

Before the Obama administration, Srinivasan worked for five years in George W. Bush’s Justice Department. Prior to that, as an attorney in the private firm of O'Melveny & Myers, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit brought by Indonesians who accused the company’s security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people; successfully represented a newspaper that fired its employees for unionizing; and defended Enron’s former CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, later convicted for financial fraud. But in these instances, too, it could be argued he was just representing clients. Another clue: After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan clerked for two Republican-appointed jurists – Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor – both of whom were considered moderate. "

I was half-joking, but it wouldn't shock me at all.

I don' think Obama gets any appointee confirmed, who isn't as conservative as Scalia. And I would urge every Republican Senator to do whatever they had to do, to prevent Obama from dragging the court one zillimeter to the left of where it is now.

God, I hate that this happened.

"If the Constitution means whatever the present society wants it to mean, then sometimes it will evolve in the direction of greater freedom, and sometimes it will evolve in the direction of less freedom, as it has often done throughout our history." -Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died today at the age of 79.
In the words of Shakespeare, "He should have died hereafter."

This was Scalia's defense of his view that it's not healthy for each generation to decide what the Constitution really means, in light of the view of the times. If we were to do that, then the rights spelled out in the Constitution are not guaranteed, but rather subject to the whim of whoever is in office at the time. I don't want Obama getting to decide what the Bill Of Rights really says, nor do I want Trump doing it. The only way to guarantee those rights, is to implement the Constitution the way it's written. If we want to change it, there is a mechanism to do that.

How does anyone disagree with what Scalia said here?

Just saw on CNN, it was not a joke, that Obama says that Eric Holder is on the short list to replace Scalia. In a related story, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio died laughing.

How can anyone take Obama seriously, if he could say that out loud?

And it's OK, I guess, when Chuck Schumer suggested that the Dems refuse to confirm any Bush nominee for the last 18 months of his presidency. What's good for the goose...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm..._medium=social

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's current swing vote, took office during Ronald Reagan's final year in office.

My friend posted this on facebook and he is Far from left but summed it up nicely


To all of my second amendment friends who always post about our right to bear arms (which I have no problem with). You can't have it both ways. Some of the same people who fervently believe in the second amendment also believe that President Obama shouldn't be able to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice after Scalia's death.
Here's the deal, like him or not, it's his right under the Constitution. Article 2 section 2 absolutely gives him that right. "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
I don't want to hear about any bull#^&#^&#^&#^& traditions...Justice Scalia was the justice who always erred on the side of never interpreting the Constitution to fit the trends of the day, I absolutely believe he would agree with Obama's right to appoint the next justice.
Just for the record I'm not happy about it either, but what's right is right.

And I disagree with him ..But lets be frank he made that statement 10 years ago I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances. with no power to forward his recommendation or opportunity to bring it to the floor a Hollow threat

then you have this,, Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election the big difference this is not a recommendation
this the Republican's Mission statement and he is in a position of power

Not sure how he can say

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

Hate to say it Sen Warren is right

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

Very Very interesting

"But lets be frank he made that statement 10 years ago "

He made the statement the last time a Republican president had the potential to nominate a SCOTUS justice, when the Dems controlled the Senate. Obviously, Schumer wouldn't have said that during the Obama presidency, so the fact that it was 10 years ago, is irrelevant.

The President has the right to nominate anyone he wants. The Constitution doesn't allow anyone to prevent him from nominating someone. The Senate has the right to say "no, thanks", as the Dems did with Justice Bork, widely considered to be a brilliant jurist, and rejected for pure politics, and I don't recall any of the Democrats apologizing fot that. Biden led the charge against Bork, and he can't have it both ways. If there was nothing wrong with the Dems blocking Bork, there's similarly notihng wrong with the GOP blocking whatever Bolshevik twit Obama nominates.

"And I disagree with him "

I notice you didn't say why you think Scalia is wrong.

"Sen Warren is right "

Are you feeling OK? Yes, Obama won the 2012 election. And in 2014 (the most recent national election), do you know what happened? Those same people that elected Obama in 2012, gave the Senate majority to the GOP.

You, and Senator Warren, are saying that the 2012 election was an expression of the will of the people, but the 2014 midterms were not?

Brother, I would just LOVE to hear you, or Senator Lie-awatha, explain that one. You have fun with that, OK?

I guess we should just forget every election the Democrats have ever lost?

Every Republican Senator is just as "elected" as Obama is.

I don't see what is different this time than previous ones - both sides have attempted and often been successful in stonewalling or preventing a nomination for a justice.

Situation normal, all depends on whose ox to gore.

The difference is, when Bush was in office, dissent was "the highest form of patriotism". Now that Obama is in there, dissent is the lowest form of racism.

Of course, you are correct.

exactly :uhuh:

Exactly, what is right is right.

No, it isn't racisim, but it is partisanship at its worst on both sides. For every Schumer quote, there are quotes of McConnell et al., during the Bust administration backing the president's right to nominate justices.

Detbusch as the constitutional expert here, I'll ask you, and I'll admit I am ignorant. Is there any so-called 'nuclear' recess type options for justices like there are for other appointments?

Mid terms are mid terms they are the will of state election's not a presidential election and if you think they trump a presidential election.. if just shows how partisan you really are .. they may influence things in Washington But they don't erase who the POTUS or nullify those who voted for him ..

Its just bad timing for the republicans .. and if a Hillary or Bernie gets in and there are vacancies to be Filled OMG Thats going to be fun to watch

The last paragraph of Article II section 2, which contains the appointments clause, states "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next session."

So, yes, Obama can make a recess appointment to the SC. And that has been done before. But the Senate can vacate that appointment after their next session, which has also been done before. So it would only be temporary, unless approved by the Senate. Obama has an opening now to do that since the Senate is in recess. But he says he won't. And if he doesn't do it now, he probably won't be able to do it afterwards since the Senate would stay in session, either in fact or pro forma, to avoid that.

One of the more unusual anomalies on the matter of recess appointments to the Supreme Court, if the Senate vacates them, is that SCOTUS Judges are supposed to be appointed for life. But that only applies if the Senate confirms them. Which is another indicator of the power and necessity of Senate confirmation and of the limited power of the President to appoint.

Do you enjoy cat fights?

Thanks for the lesson.
If Obama nomiates a so-called moderate, the Senate will be playing a tough hand; delay delay delay, and hope the GOP candidate wins, of they will have to obstruct nominees for 4 more years

As I have been trying to tell some of the more optimistic "conservatives" on the forum, that what is left of our founding system of government, of whatever it is that they consider "conservatism," is dangling by a thread which is thinner than a hanging chad.

The Progressives have been absolutely persistent in changing our system of government. The "conservatives" just react every now and then, and think that any victory will be permanent. That the price of liberty is eternal vigilance doesn't seem to penetrate the average "conservative" mind.

So, yes, you are right. Not only the Senate, or the Republican Party been reduced to playing a tough hand, but the fundamental nature of how we are governed is as well.

I think that some "liberal" minds might be persuaded to preserve our founding system if their understanding of the difference between unalienable rights and government granted rights was fully informed. I keep hoping for discussions along those lines, but we just seem to stay stuck on if what politicians do "works" within the parameters that those politicians prescribe. Basic, foundational, principles are not regarded. Which why, in my opinion, things seem to "work" for a while, then the illusion stops working and things get worse. We get further in debt. We breed more poverty. We create more conflict and divisiveness. We eviscerate the individual differences that comprise our famous "e pluribus Unum" all in the name and quest of a so called diversity which actually herds us into conformity.

Sorry for the bloviating "lesson." I didn't mean it to be that. Just trying, probably futilely, to stimulate a discussion.

Yes, as you say, the Senate will be playing a tough hand if it remains in Republican hands and the Democrats win the presidency. But much of that is due to not playing as tough as the Democrats the past eight to twenty years. So now they pay the piper. Their fear of main stream press and the supposed moderate center has been at the expense of their supposed faithfulness to the Constitution. So now they are backed into a tiny corner not just of preserving their power, which is not so important to the rest of us, but preventing the appointment of a majority of progressive judges which basically means the final end of the Constitution as written, and the final touch and implementation of reversing the relation of American citizens to their government.

By the way, if the Republicans had the courage to be tough, the number of Supreme Court Justices does not have to be nine. Congress decides the number and can change it. If the Republicans maintain control of Congress, they don't really have to fill a vacancy. Of course, there is that perception thing. And because we are ignorant of reality, we are driven by perception

I'm pretty liberal on a lot of issues, centrist on others. That being said
I'd prefer to see someone like I mentioned above, as shown to be more middle of the road, and not an activist of either party. I think that is where both parties are heading though... Ultimately, you don't know how they will preside until often many years after they are appointed...

"Mid terms are mid terms "

Thanks for the scoop.

"they are the will of state election's not a presidential election"

That is a tortured, nonsensical answer if I have ever heard one. In 2014, the will of many states was to replace Democratic senators with Republican ones, meaning that those people in those states, wanted a Republican senator, not a Democrat one, to decide on confirmations. That's democracy.

WDMSO, were you complaining when the Democrats blocked Bork's nomination? If not, you have zero legitimate beef here

"they may influence things in Washington But they don't erase who the POTUS or nullify those who voted for him "

Who said that midterms negate the Presidential elections 2 years prior? I said Obama gets to pick the nominee. And the Republican-led Senate, via the will of the people, gets to vote on confirmation.

There has never been a President as dismissive and insulting to those who disagree with him, than Weird Harold. He hasn't built up a lot of goodwill among us bitter clingers, us racists, those of us who do nothing but "hate all the time". He reaps what he sows.

"Its just bad timing for the republicans "

True, but during the first 6 years of Obama's presidency, when the Dems controlled the senate, would have been far worse.

"and if a Hillary or Bernie gets in and there are vacancies to be Filled OMG Thats going to be fun to watch"

If the GOP still controls the Senate, it will be entertaining. If the GOP nominates Trump, the GOP could easily lose control of the Senate. Then the next few years would be a jackpot for liberals.

Is someone like Scalia, who interprets the Constitution literally, necessarily advocating for conservatism? I don't think so. WDMSO wants to elect a POTUS who gets to decide what he thinks the Constitution really means. What that means is, if we elect someone with fascist inclinations as POTUS, he can decide that we don't really have a right to a free press, and do away with it. A guy like Scalia would strike that down as not complying with what the constitution says. Is that strictly a Republican notion? You'll never convince me that it is.

The Constitution isn't a legal opinion, it's a binding, legal document.

He clearly, to my eye, interpreted the Constitution with a conservative mindset. I think his decisions and particularly his public speeches bear that out. But this is no different than Ginsberg, who interprets the Constitution through a more liberal lens.

Can you cite an example of conservative activism on his part? If one says "the Constitution is what it says, and nothing more", how is that right-leaning, unless you concede that it's the liberals who are more likely to try to ignore the constitution to further their agenda - a notion I wholeheartedly agree with. But it's conceivable that a uber conservative could be a fascist, in which case I still want a guy like Scalia to reign that person in.

Scalia has said that his personal views are conservative, but he doesn't advocate that way when deciding cases. I am no expert, but I wonder what true right-wing advocacy you'd find in his legal opinions.

If Obama nominates a moderate, the Senate should consider that person. Trouble is, to Obama, Josef Stalin is a moderate. That's what you get from a guy whose spiritual advisor is Rev Wright. Sonja Sotomayor wrote somewhere that in her opinion, a Latina female, because of her life experience, can reach superior legal opinions than anyone else. That bigoted sentiment would rightly preclude her from serving in jury duty, yet there she is on the highest court in the land, for the next 4 decades. She also had multiple opinions get reversed in higher court (Bork had none).

No, I'm not a legal scholar, and don't claim to be one. I think from what I recall, as I'm not getting into a long pissing match today and looking this up, were his Heller opinion was a more conservative interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel the same about his recent comments on affirmative action. I also recall some pretty Conservative (respectfully, I am sure rooted in his faith) opinions regarding DOMA. You can think he had legal opinions not based in a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, but you are a conservative, so I'm not sure how objective you are being on it, just like I as a liberal sees him as conservative.

If rumors were true, and the Indian-American who I mentioned above were nominated, he seems at first glance to be a 'moderate'

I think it will be interesting, and ugly moving forward. Obama will nominate someone, and the Senate should to do their job, even if that means not appointing anyone, and we'll see how it plays out.

WDMSO, were you complaining when the Democrats blocked Bork's nomination? If not, you have zero legitimate beef here


yes they blocked bork and the other guy withdrew and yet someone was appointed to the seat during Regan's last year in office thru negotiations

The Dems never told Regan you Must wait until the election is over or Dont even try it ?? your a lame duck ... and he hasn't even given a Name Thats the difference you choose to disregard

let be honest your only upset because of the possibility that the court could swing the other way . and the possibility of other justices not seeing the world as you do its terrifying and all those things are fine until people like you and other politicians have no problem openly trying usurp the process to maintain status Quo ..

Looks like Subversion to me
Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy

As always, your points are thoughtful and respectful. You know how to disagree with someone in a way that no one could be offended by, I could learn that from you...

On affirmative action, the constitution says that racial discrimination is illegal, right? It doesn't say "unless the person being victimized, is white".

"The Dems never told Regan you Must wait until the election is over "

Schumer tried selling exactly that. It didn't come up.

I don't hide the fact that I am horrified at the potential shifting of the balance. I wouldn't say I'm all that "worried" about it, because Obama can't do it without Senate approval, and as the Senate stands now, they won't approve. So it's not a real concern.

Unlike most here, I proudly admit my bias.

What I can't stand, is the hypocrisy. When Democrats obstruct and filibuster, they are heroes (see Wendy Davis in Texas).

John R is, unlike me, not a diehard partisan. He said that what the GOP I saying they will do, is no different than what the Dems have done repeatedly. My favorite was when Ted Kennedy was grilling Clarence Thomas about the way Thomas treated women. Because Ted Kennedy has a lot of moral authority in that area, right?

Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration when a Vacancy opened .. Technically this hasn't happen yet but the Republicans have hinted as much


Historical precedence :Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One



2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The president followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet

The only times in history when a President has APPOINTED (temporarily) a Supreme Court Justice were those times when the Senate was in recess. And for those Judges to be able to retain their appointments, the Senate had to approve them when it came back in session.

You keep repeating the same mistake because you don't seem to grasp the simple notion that the President NOMINATES a potential Judge who must then be APPOINTED by the advice and consent of the Senate. Appointment is a process in which the Senate has at least as much, if not more, say as the President. The President cannot unilaterally APPOINT, except temporarily in extreme circumstance, a Supreme Court Justice. The Founders would NEVER have given one person the power to summarily and permanently APPOINT someone to such a high and fundamental position as a Supreme Court Judge. That would be outside their fundamental concept of separation of powers with its checks and balances. It would create a tyrannical power of one branch of the Federal Government over the others. It would strip The People of any say over those who would judge them. It would be a despotism which totally destroyed the Constitution they wrote.

He has 2 justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...y_Barack_Obama
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that is the crossroad to which we have ultimately arrived. Rather than adhering to their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, to be faithful to it in their jurisprudence, they are, as you say activists fueled by factional partisan appointments and desires.

And, in order to fundamentally reshape our system of government, it is necessary to demonize as extremists those who seek to faithfully govern in accordance to the Constitution. They must be marginalized, made to look like fools. i.e., Ted Cruz.

We have, in the coming election, a chance to begin to liberate ourselves from factional dominance, or to further enchain ourselves to it. And for most, that won't be easy not only because a progressive precedence has conditioned us to it, but as well because, for many, the chains are covered with velvet and secure for them an "equal," comfortable, though confined, little place. And that's as "liberal" as remaining in the womb. And as "centrist" as a fetus between those walls.

As an aside re the topic of this thread, Scalia, though an avowed social "conservative," he even more so followed the original middle of the road and adhered to its original text and meaning. He, above all, valued the liberty it guaranteed which allowed him his "conservatism" and others their "liberalism." But only if we didn't stray from the constitutional "middle." If not, all bets are off. You may temporarily win a factional government lottery, or you may lose.

And the factional drift is obviously toward the "left" rather than to the "right" since it is evident that government is gaining power, not losing it. Drift toward tyranny rather than anarchy. The true middle is being erased.

OK, so I bloviated again. But if you stick with it and read between the lines, you can get the picture.

I incorrectly used appointment rather than Nomination as you said... but it dosn't change my question > but thanks for the Civics lesson.. I in no way shape or form have I suggested what you have written I never mentioned recess appointments.. I incorrectly used a term.. you caught that but couldn't figure the context of my question?

. I have only expressed where in History? Has a Sitting president be told don't even forward a nomination ( not appointment ) for advice and consent...

you dont think this is the kinda of behavior that creates that tyrannical power of one branch which you wrote ^^^^

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election

yet historically: from the NY times The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obama’s term.

Man what an apocalyptic view

You have passion and conviction I see it in your writing.. may I take the Liberty and say you would fall in the originalist Camp And I would fall in the Non Originalist Camp and we agree to disagree on how we see a replacement would effect the court

Eight Reasons to be an Originalist
1. Originalism reduces the likelihood that unelected judges will seize the reigns of power from elected representatives.
2. Originalism in the long run better preserves the authority of the Court.
3. Non-originalism allows too much room for judges to impose their own subjective and elitist values. Judges need neutral, objective criteria to make legitimate decisions. The understanding of the framers and ratifiers of a constitutional clause provide those neutral criteria.
4. Lochner vs. New York (widely considered to be a bad non-originalist decision).
5. Leaving it to the people to amend their Constitution when need be promotes serious public debate about government and its limitations.
6. Originalism better respects the notion of the Constitution as a binding contract.
7. If a constitutional amendment passed today, we would expect a court five years from now to ask what we intended to adopt. [Can the same be said for a court 100 or 200 years from now?]
8. Originalism more often forces legislatures to reconsider and possibly repeal or amend their own bad laws, rather than to leave it to the courts to get rid of them.


Eight Reasons to be a Non-Originalist
1. The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation.
2. No written Constitution can anticipate all the means that government might in the future use to oppress people, so it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps.
3. Intentions of framers are various, sometimes transient, and often impossible to determine. Text is often ambiguous and judicial precedents can be found to support either side. In such cases, why not produce the result that will best promote the public good? It's better than flipping a coin.
4. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. (The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.)
5. Non-originalism allows the Constitution to evolve to match more enlightened understandings on matters such as the equal treatment of blacks, women, and other minorities.
6. Brown vs Board of Education (on originalist grounds, it was decided incorrectly).
7. Originalists lose sight of the forest because they pay too much attention to trees. The larger purpose--the animating spirit--of the Constitution was the protection of liberty, and we ought to focus on that.
8. Nazi Germany: Originalist German judges did not exercise the power they might have to prevent or slow down inhumane programs.

source http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...aw/interp.html

It is not written in stone or in the Constitution that more than or less than a given number of days are required to confirm a nomination. It is certainly not required in the Constitution that a President's nomination must be confirmed. The number of SCOTUS Justices is not specified in the Constitution, and is decided by Congress. The Constitution does not require nine Supreme Court Judges. The NY Times may get their panties all up in a bunch if it takes more than 125 days to vote on a successor, but it is not the arbiter of who or when or if a successor is voted on or if their even will be a successor. The NY Times is not the authority on the matter. It certainly is not impartial. And its opinions should be viewed in the light of its partisan and ideological predilections.

And, as has been said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. When a political party's agenda scarcely hides that it is about rewriting the Constitution by appointing activist Judges who have no intention of letting the Constitution stand in their way of approving unconstitutional legislation which agrees with their ideological views, then the opposition must defend the Constitution with whatever powers it grants them to do so.

If you wish to preserve the Constitution, we are at a critical point in history when all stops must be pulled to avoid its wreck.

On the other hand, if you think the Constitution is "living and breathing,"a slave which follows to current fashions, then it is of no account and should be, as Progressives believe, tossed into the dust bin of history. (Strange that you would even insist, as a believer of a living breathing constitution, that there must be an unchanging, static amount of days for a nomination to be voted on).

And, even if that were the case that the Constitution was defunct, how would that stop the Republicans from taking more than 125 days to vote on a nomination? Just because the NY Times says they shouldn't?

this is hilarious "Non-sense" ;)

What the hell does that have to do with the U.S. Constitution

And, BTW, I am more in the textualist/originalist camp.

"Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration "

Never, I believe, including now. Has a Republican senator said he would "take away" Obama's ability to nominate someone? Not sure the Constitution allows that. Obama is free to nominate anyone he wants, the Senate is then free to reject them, just like the Dems did when they controlled the Senate under Bush, correct, or no? What McConnell sais, is the same thing Schumer said when there was 18 months left in Bush's presidency. Were you equally appalled by that?

This is politics at its ugliest, and most hypocritical. Both sides are critical of each other, knowing full well that if the situation were reversed, they'd be doing the same thing.

Let me say this...you were very dismissive of the 2014 midterms, and the effect they should have. Seems like you only think that "elections have consequences" when your side wins? Our republic was deliberately set up so that the legislative branch was the most powerful. In the most recent federal elections, the American people voted resoundingly to give control of the Senate to the GOP. No sane person can say they are surprised when the Senators do the job they were elected to do. I doubt any of the newly-elected GOP Senators ran on the pledge to tilt the balance of the SCCOTUS to the left.


"Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One "

Reagan didn't give the Senate all the reason they needed, to hate him. This is the most insulting, dismissive President of my lifetime, in terms of how he treats those who disagree with him. Now he expects them to play ball on something of this magnitude? You reap what you sow.

And Schumer said the same thing when there was 18 months left in Bush's second term. The same exact thing. What was your reaction to that, may I ask? As an unaffiliated independent, I presume you were equally critical of Schumer?

The left's disdain for this tactic, sure seems to be awfully selective, does it not?