Antonin Scalia's death

[wdmso]

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,

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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."
.

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. "

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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?

[Jim in CT]

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?

[Jim in CT]

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

[wdmso]

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[JohnR]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

exactly

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

And they are right.

Here's the deal, like him or not, it's his right under the Constitution. Article 2 section 2 absolutely gives him that right.

No. the Constitution does not ABSOLUTELY, give the President that right. Read carefully your quote of that portion of Article 2:

"He shall have power . . . 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 . . .

That is, he has the absolute power to nominate Judges, but the power to appoint Judges is absolutely dependent on the advice and consent of the Senate.

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.

No he would not believe that Obama has the absolute right to unilaterally appoint the next Justice. Not only does the text (and he was a textualist) not give Obama that power, but he understood that the constitutional framers would never have given that absolute power to one person to appoint someone to such a fundamentally important position. And that the People's representatives should have a major portion of that power.

Just for the record I'm not happy about it either, but what's right is right.

Exactly, what is right is right.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Is there any so-called 'nuclear' recess type options for justices like there are for other appointments?

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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 ..

They don't trump presidential elections, but neither do presidential elections trump them. Presidents may be elected, among other things, to NOMINATE Supreme Court Judges, but Senators are elected to CONFIRM, and thus ultimately to appoint them. You seem to have a hard time understanding that simple but very important, fundamental, concept.

Would you prefer a king or dictator instead of a constitutionally limited President?

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

Do you enjoy cat fights?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Thanks for the lesson.

I am by no means a constitutional "expert." Just a fellow citizen who believes we would be governed best if we faithfully governed according to it. So I try to, what I consider, appropriately and necessarily understand it. I think that it is nowhere near as difficult to understand as our agenda driven politicians would like us to believe. In my opinion, the difficulty in constitutional interpretation occurs when politicians legislate outside constitutional bounds and Supreme Court Judges try to make the Constitution fit their legislation rather than to decide that it is unconstitutional. And that difficulty is compounded when those Justices are personally sympathetic to what they consider higher ideals, or more "equitable" social outcomes no matter if the legislation is originally and textually unconstitutional. So tangled, convoluted, even rationally ridiculous arguments become necessary to make constitutional text fit their personal preference.

I don't intend to give "lessons." Just want to have rational and honest discussions.

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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 in 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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

"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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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...

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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 of the Constitution is done 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).

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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]

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

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".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

"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?

[wdmso]

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