Obama should be blocked, stalled, and whatever senate tactics can be employed to table any appointment of his until after Jan 20 2017. If Hillary is not indicted by then or Bernie the Socialist somehow gets a Carl Marx hail Mary and winds up the low information voters choice I would respect whomever was appointed by the new administration.

Barry would be stupid to force a showdown over this and it would most likely consume the senates time leaving little else to get accomplished. He should stand down on this appointee process and respect the fact a new administration will be in charge.

[Edited on 2/14/2016 by OriginalGoober]

You "would respect whomever was appointed by the new administration?" Kind of hard to digest that when in the preceding line you used terms such as HC being indicted, Bernie the Socialist, Carl Marx, low information voters. By the way, if you've ever had any HS or college classes that ventured into Marxism, he spells it Karl; not Carl.

Don't know about you Goober, but most people when quizzed can't define capitalism, socialism, imperialism, Marxism, etc.; let alone distinguish the differences. If you're ever in a conversation, try asking them to define & distinguish. Does that make them low information voters? Do the Dems. own that, or do you think possibly that it's probably an approximate 50 50 split between GOP and Dems.?

Obama should be blocked, stalled, and whatever senate tactics can be employed to table any appointment of his until after Jan 20 2017. If Hillary is not indicted by then or Bernie the Socialist somehow gets a Carl Marx hail Mary and winds up the low information voters choice I would respect whomever was appointed by the new administration.

Barry would be stupid to force a showdown over this and it would most likely consume the senates time leaving little else to get accomplished. He should stand down on this appointee process and respect the fact a new administration will be in charge.

What is the official cut-off date as listed in the Constitution for a sitting president in his last term to be able to submit a nomination for SCOTUS?

Obama should be blocked, stalled, and whatever senate tactics can be employed to table any appointment of his until after Jan 20 2017. If Hillary is not indicted by then or Bernie the Socialist somehow gets a Carl Marx hail Mary and winds up the low information voters choice I would respect whomever was appointed by the new administration.

Barry would be stupid to force a showdown over this and it would most likely consume the senates time leaving little else to get accomplished. He should stand down on this appointee process and respect the fact a new administration will be in charge.

What is the official cut-off date as listed in the Constitution for a sitting president in his last term to be able to submit a nomination for SCOTUS?

The "official" date is on the January 20th after his successor is elected. From a practical standpoint he probably would apply some judgement and not wait quite that long.

"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."

"[T]he conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"

Anyone care to guess who said that and when?

________________________________________________________________________

Nice quote but it has bearing on the matter.

Yes, indeed it does, glad you could recognize that, I had my doubts that you could.

PS - For those who missed it, the quote is from Mitch McConnell in 2005, the same Senator who this week said the president should not even nominate anyone and vowed to block anyone that he does decide to nominate, and the same Senator who also voted to confirm Anthony Kennedy in February of 1988 in a 97-0 vote, less than a year before a presidential election (this is besides the point, but the fact that he or anyone else can hold office for 30+ years is another reason why term limits are needed).
________________________________________________________________________

For those who miss it, it was Sen. Chuck Shumer who said in 2007 the "no Bush nominee will be considered for the bench".

Payback is a biatch.

 

For those who miss it, it was Sen. Chuck Shumer who said in 2007 the "no Bush nominee will be considered for the bench".

Payback is a biatch.

No one has said this hasn't gone both ways. That doesn't mean it is right, and it certainly doesn't make it official policy. Should our representative's guiding principle be "payback"? Really?

I think the question is, without Scalia to tell him, how is Thomas going to know how to vote? He might follow Scalia's good buddy (and I mean that sincerely) Ginsburg. Could be lots of 5-3s instead of 4-4s.

"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."

"[T]he conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"

Anyone care to guess who said that and when?

________________________________________________________________________

Nice quote but it has bearing on the matter.

Yes, indeed it does, glad you could recognize that, I had my doubts that you could.

PS - For those who missed it, the quote is from Mitch McConnell in 2005, the same Senator who this week said the president should not even nominate anyone and vowed to block anyone that he does decide to nominate, and the same Senator who also voted to confirm Anthony Kennedy in February of 1988 in a 97-0 vote, less than a year before a presidential election (this is besides the point, but the fact that he or anyone else can hold office for 30+ years is another reason why term limits are needed).
________________________________________________________________________

For those who miss it, it was Sen. Chuck Shumer who said in 2007 the "no Bush nominee will be considered for the bench".

Payback is a biatch.

1. It was wrong when Schumer said it then, just as it is wrong for McConnell to say it now.
2. It never actually happened...there was no SCOTUS vacancy to fill before the end of W's term after Schumer said that, so there is no "payback" to be had.
3. Payback? Really? That's an acceptable way for Senators to govern, to shirk their responsibilities based on warped sense of political payback from nearly a decade ago? No wonder the electorate is pissed off.

 

Obama should be blocked, stalled, and whatever senate tactics can be employed to table any appointment of his until after Jan 20 2017. If Hillary is not indicted by then or Bernie the Socialist somehow gets a Carl Marx hail Mary and winds up the low information voters choice I would respect whomever was appointed by the new administration.

Barry would be stupid to force a showdown over this and it would most likely consume the senates time leaving little else to get accomplished. He should stand down on this appointee process and respect the fact a new administration will be in charge.

What is the official cut-off date as listed in the Constitution for a sitting president in his last term to be able to submit a nomination for SCOTUS?

The "official" date is on the January 20th after his successor is elected. From a practical standpoint he probably would apply some judgement and not wait quite that long.

His successor will be elected in November.

The President should nominate who he thinks would be best and the confirmation process should begin. Anything else is just ridiculous.

The President should nominate who he thinks would be best and the confirmation process should begin. Anything else is just ridiculous.

THIS.

"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."

"[T]he conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"

Anyone care to guess who said that and when?

________________________________________________________________________

Nice quote but it has bearing on the matter.

Yes, indeed it does, glad you could recognize that, I had my doubts that you could.

PS - For those who missed it, the quote is from Mitch McConnell in 2005, the same Senator who this week said the president should not even nominate anyone and vowed to block anyone that he does decide to nominate, and the same Senator who also voted to confirm Anthony Kennedy in February of 1988 in a 97-0 vote, less than a year before a presidential election (this is besides the point, but the fact that he or anyone else can hold office for 30+ years is another reason why term limits are needed).
________________________________________________________________________

For those who miss it, it was Sen. Chuck Shumer who said in 2007 the "no Bush nominee will be considered for the bench".

Payback is a biatch.

1. It was wrong when Schumer said it then, just as it is wrong for McConnell to say it now.
2. It never actually happened...there was no SCOTUS vacancy to fill before the end of W's term after Schumer said that, so there is no "payback" to be had.
3. Payback? Really? That's an acceptable way for Senators to govern, to shirk their responsibilities based on warped sense of political payback from nearly a decade ago? No wonder the electorate is pissed off.

_________________________________________________________________________

"That's an acceptable way for Senators to govern, to shirk their responsibilities based on warped sense of political payback from nearly a decade ago?"

It was Harry Reid that used the nuclear option to change The Senate rules for confirmation to a simple majority in order to push through Obama's radical judges and pack the courts with liberal activists.

Mitch McConnell put regular order back requiring a two-thirds majority for confirmation. The same regular order that had been in place for over two centuries.

Under Senate rules, even if an Obama nominee can get every democrat to vote for them it requires that 14 Republicans also vote in the affirmative thus ensuring that a left-wing activist nominee is not confirmed.

Of course back in the day when Shumer was running off at the mouth and Harry Reid pulled political games we didn't hear the liberals screaming.

 

The President should nominate who he thinks would be best and the confirmation process should begin. Anything else is just ridiculous.

Absolutely right. It really isn't that complicated, is it?

The President should nominate who he thinks would be best and the confirmation process should begin. Anything else is just ridiculous.

Absolutely right. It really isn't that complicated, is it?

__________________________________________________________________________

Exactly right.

Some here are claiming that Senate Majority Leader McConnell will not allow the confirmation process for any Obama nominee. Those “some” here must lie.

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

The confirmation process is discussion and hearings; which are required by The Constitution and Mitch McConnell will proceed with such. While The Senate is required by The Constitution to confirm a nominee there is no timeline requirement.

It appears that the some here are using their political ideology to not understand the difference between confirmation process and confirmation… or more likely just not admit the facts.

So, let’s hear from “the some” on this:

Chuck Schumer Agrees With Mitch McConnell That Obama Should Not Get Another Supreme Court Nomination
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/02/15/chuck-schumer-agrees-mitch-mcconnell-obama-get-another-supreme-court-nomination/

The same “some” will try to decry the source. Even the liberal media are reporting Shumer statement.

Muleman is calling Chuck Schumer the voice of reason. Meanwhile, in 1988. Anthoney Kennedy was approved for the SCOTUS, 1988 being Ronald Reagan's last year in office.

The confirmation process is discussion and hearings; which are required by The Constitution and Mitch McConnell will proceed with such. While The Senate is required by The Constitution to confirm a nominee there is no timeline requirement.

It appears that the some here are using their political ideology to not understand the difference between confirmation process and confirmation… or more likely just not admit the facts.

That's one way of looking at it.

If you are saying that politicians in a two-party bicameral legislature are hypocritical by nature, I'm not sure how many people you will find that disagree with you.

The Schumer quote, that's interesting. Wait, no, it's not.

You can find hundreds, if not thousands of examples of long-sitting Democrat and Republican Congressfolk making opposite-end statements as the balance-of-power swings back and forth while the years go by.

It's rather fitting that this will all go down in the last year of the Obama Presidency. Party before Country? Country before Party? Ideals or negotiation? Rejection or compromise? Are we all not Americans with some measure of commonalities?

We are about to find out.

The confirmation process is discussion and hearings; which are required by The Constitution and Mitch McConnell will proceed with such. While The Senate is required by The Constitution to confirm a nominee there is no timeline requirement.

It appears that the some here are using their political ideology to not understand the difference between confirmation process and confirmation… or more likely just not admit the facts.

That's one way of looking at it.

If you are saying that politicians in a two-party bicameral legislature are hypocritical by nature, I'm not sure how many people you will find that disagree with you.

The Schumer quote, that's interesting. Wait, no, it's not.

You can find hundreds, if not thousands of examples of long-sitting Democrat and Republican Congressfolk making opposite-end statements as the balance-of-power swings back and forth while the years go by.

It's rather fitting that this will all go down in the last year of the Obama Presidency. Party before Country? Country before Party? Ideals or negotiation? Rejection or compromise? Are we all not Americans with some measure of commonalities?

We are about to find out.

________________________________________________________________________

Obama and Reid chose to put politics before country.
In their wisdom The American People, after throwing Nancy Pelosi out as Speaker, took the Senate Majority Leader away from Reid.

Now it is Obama's choice.
He can nominate a qualified and politically neutral nominee such as Justice Kennedy. Nobody thinks he will but it is still Obama's choice.

Highly doubtful though. Obama wants a campaign issue and his entire presidency has been run by his political ideology.

As you said, we are about to find out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/226398-republicans-clash-on-reversing-nuke-option

[Edited on 2/15/2016 by LeglizHemp]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is next important one.......she may retire or die before end of obama's term. she's had colon cancer and more importantly pancreatic cancer. 2nd one is bad. she has also had a stent put in. then there are also 2 more to be replaced by next prez.....this is all bad for the Right in this country.

we are headed for a hard left turn.....i'm not sure i like that. but.......the shape of the right is not my cup of tea either. i prefer a divided court.

Hey now, don't count out Notorious RBG just yet. She's a machine.

The noise from both sides of this is just silly.

From the Right - “Obama has no right to nominate a Justice in an election year!” Yes, he does. He’s the President.

From the Left - “The Senate has no right to not confirm Obama’s nominee!” Yes, they do. They can take as long as they want and don’t have to do anything.

Let the cards fall where they may.

The noise from both sides of this is just silly.

From the Right - “Obama has no right to nominate a Justice in an election year!” Yes, he does. He’s the President.

From the Left - “The Senate has no right to not confirm Obama’s nominee!” Yes, they do. They can take as long as they want and don’t have to do anything.

Let the cards fall where they may.

I think you have oversimplified a bit.

The right doesn't want Obama to nominate because they don't want to have to stall/block the process or vote down a worthy candidate because that can and will be used against them in the general come fall, so they are trying to put pressure on him to not even put anyone forward even though they know he certainly can. Of course Obama will nominate someone regardless, so the right's only real hope of claiming the high ground is that he nominates someone so far left or unqualified that they can let the process happen and make a case for voting down the nomination on the merits. That said, I think if Obama nominates someone who should be confirmed, between McConnell and Grassley they take a calculated risk and do all they can to stall/block the process as long as they can and let the voters decide if they want to punish the GOP for it in the election.

With regards to the left, I don't think the cry has been “The Senate has no right to not confirm Obama’s nominee!” but rather it has been that the Senate has no right to not follow the confirmation process and eventually allow a vote on whoever Obama nominates. From where I set, the left has been responding to the right's battle cry of Obama should not nominate and if he does his nomination will be opposed no matter what, along with strong hints from McConnell that the process will not even be allowed to start never mind come to a vote, by saying that the Senate has no right to reject any and all candidates out of hand before anyone has even been nominated.

Of course everyone can say whatever they want now and it is all just posturing and rhetoric until an actual nominee is put forward for consideration. Then the gloves will really come off.

While there is a great deal of resignation and happenstance about this SC choice Democrats have a substantial advantage in any Republican attempt to obstruct conformation of an Obama appointed candidate.

In the event of a deadlock the cases will fall back to the lower courts which are full of Democrat appointees. 9 of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals are controlled by Democrats. Another problem is that both Kennedy and Roberts are swing voters and this would further increase the number of rulings in favor of the Democrats with a prolonged stalemate.

The control of the Senate also may be in more jeopardy as a lot of Republican senators coming up for reelection in blue or swing states followed McConnell to the podium saying they will obstruct any potential candidate proposed by Obama. 24 Republican senate seats are in play while the Democrats only have to defend 10. This gives the Democrats another opportunity to label Republicans who obstruct as dysfunctional. Democrats only need to retake 5 seats.

Donald Trump is again talking of an independent run. Even if he stays Republican he will not win the Presidency and he could cause losses right down the ticket. 2017 could see the White House, Senate and Supreme Court all controlled by the Left. The Republicans would be basically leaderless and only have quasi control of the House due to the irreparable rifts between the Freedom Caucus and the establishment members.

[Edited on 2/16/2016 by Swifty]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is next important one.......she may retire or die before end of obama's term. she's had colon cancer and more importantly pancreatic cancer. 2nd one is bad. she has also had a stent put in. then there are also 2 more to be replaced by next prez.....this is all bad for the Right in this country.

we are headed for a hard left turn.....i'm not sure i like that. but.......the shape of the right is not my cup of tea either. i prefer a divided court.

Given your preference for a divided court I'm sort of curious about your screen name. There is a movement to legalize Hemp and the DEA has granted permits to grow it in 9 states. I guess there was a mistake when Hemp was made illegal along with Marijuana in the thirties. I tried ditch weed when I was a teenager which had no effect. I now assume it was Hemp and not Marijuana. Hemp has very little THC compared to marijuana, a fact I never knew until recently. If you are advocating Legalize Marijuana I can't see how a divided court helps this case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is next important one.......she may retire or die before end of obama's term. she's had colon cancer and more importantly pancreatic cancer. 2nd one is bad. she has also had a stent put in. then there are also 2 more to be replaced by next prez.....this is all bad for the Right in this country.

we are headed for a hard left turn.....i'm not sure i like that. but.......the shape of the right is not my cup of tea either. i prefer a divided court.

Given your preference for a divided court I'm sort of curious about your screen name. There is a movement to legalize Hemp and the DEA has granted permits to grow it in 9 states. I guess there was a mistake when Hemp was made illegal along with Marijuana in the thirties. I tried ditch weed when I was a teenager which had no effect. I now assume it was Hemp and not Marijuana. Hemp has very little THC compared to marijuana, a fact I never knew until recently. If you are advocating Legalize Marijuana I can't see how a divided court helps this case.

______________________________________________________________________

Reefer Madness!

Of course if you try smoking hemp you'll get nothing more than a wicked headache.

Hemp is a a strong fiber and very useful so some politicians will never allow it.

The noise from both sides of this is just silly.

From the Right - “Obama has no right to nominate a Justice in an election year!” Yes, he does. He’s the President.

From the Left - “The Senate has no right to not confirm Obama’s nominee!” Yes, they do. They can take as long as they want and don’t have to do anything.

Let the cards fall where they may.

__________________________________________________________________________

Exactly, “the noise”.

No one outside of the three W/P stooges keller, little billy and pops would ever say such idiotic things such as “no right to”.

Any informed person knows very well what The Constitution states and how the process works.

If they need clarification they need look no further than Justice Scalia (RIP), one of the finest minds in jurisprudence and on The Constitution.

Every pundit, political hack and talking head will misrepresent the position of what they consider the opposition. It is pure politics.

Obama’s nominee will be chosen solely for political purposes. He will either put forward a liberal activist knowing full well that The Senate will not confirm them or someone that he can portrayed as a protected minority. Obama then will go running to the TV cameras and vilify The Republicans for being “against” blah blah blah. It is pure politics just as Obama has played his game throughout his administration.

The Senate, doing what The American People who put them there want, will represent the People and stop any more Obama political games.

This by the way is what a clear majority of The American People want. Every major independent legitimate poll shows The People want the next president to nominate Justice Scalia’s replacement.

Obama does have a problem right away. The most high profile case before The Court right now is the matter of a majority of States vs. Obama’s unconstitutional immigration executive orders.

If The Court comes down in a 4/4 tie, the standing court order stopping Obama’s unconstitutional immigration executive orders remains in place.Mitch McConnell never said that the confirmation process would not go forward.

The mouthpieces on the left are simply lying when they portend such. McConnell will even hold a vote if Obama in fact does nominate someone both qualified and does not have a history of judicial activism. Remember that if an Obama nominee can secure the vote of every democrat in the Senate they will need 14 Republicans as well.

Ignore “the noise”. Listen to what Senators such as Chuck Shumer are actually saying.

Silly is a good way to describe the noise.

The noise from both sides of this is just silly.

From the Right - “Obama has no right to nominate a Justice in an election year!” Yes, he does. He’s the President.

From the Left - “The Senate has no right to not confirm Obama’s nominee!” Yes, they do. They can take as long as they want and don’t have to do anything.

Let the cards fall where they may.

I think you have oversimplified a bit.

The right doesn't want Obama to nominate because they don't want to have to stall/block the process or vote down a worthy candidate because that can and will be used against them in the general come fall, so they are trying to put pressure on him to not even put anyone forward even though they know he certainly can. Of course Obama will nominate someone regardless, so the right's only real hope of claiming the high ground is that he nominates someone so far left or unqualified that they can let the process happen and make a case for voting down the nomination on the merits. That said, I think if Obama nominates someone who should be confirmed, between McConnell and Grassley they take a calculated risk and do all they can to stall/block the process as long as they can and let the voters decide if they want to punish the GOP for it in the election.

With regards to the left, I don't think the cry has been “The Senate has no right to not confirm Obama’s nominee!” but rather it has been that the Senate has no right to not follow the confirmation process and eventually allow a vote on whoever Obama nominates. From where I set, the left has been responding to the right's battle cry of Obama should not nominate and if he does his nomination will be opposed no matter what, along with strong hints from McConnell that the process will not even be allowed to start never mind come to a vote, by saying that the Senate has no right to reject any and all candidates out of hand before anyone has even been nominated.

Of course everyone can say whatever they want now and it is all just posturing and rhetoric until an actual nominee is put forward for consideration. Then the gloves will really come off.

I realize all that. For some reason, though, this one seems pretty simple.

No one outside of the three W/P stooges keller, little billy and pops would ever say such idiotic things such as “no right to”.

There's a lot of things being said in a lot of places. I was thinking far beyond here.

This by the way is what a clear majority of The American People want. Every major independent legitimate poll shows The People want the next president to nominate Justice Scalia’s replacement.

Which polls are those? I'm not challenging you, I'd like to know who has turnt around that kind of data that fast. Rasmussen has nothing posted yet. PPP, AP, I can't find much. There's some "what do you think" stuff here and there.

I find your constant reference to people doing things "for political purposes" as some kind of insult rather odd. Who in politics does not do things for political purposes?

Given your preference for a divided court I'm sort of curious about your screen name. There is a movement to legalize Hemp and the DEA has granted permits to grow it in 9 states. I guess there was a mistake when Hemp was made illegal along with Marijuana in the thirties. I tried ditch weed when I was a teenager which had no effect. I now assume it was Hemp and not Marijuana. Hemp has very little THC compared to marijuana, a fact I never knew until recently. If you are advocating Legalize Marijuana I can't see how a divided court helps this case.

I started using this name in 1988 or 89 after meeting this guy.
http://www.jackherer.com/about-2/

Which polls are those? I'm not challenging you, I'd like to know who has turnt around that kind of data that fast. Rasmussen has nothing posted yet. PPP, AP, I can't find much. There's some "what do you think" stuff here and there.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a substantive answer.

I find your constant reference to people doing things "for political purposes" as some kind of insult rather odd. Who in politics does not do things for political purposes?

Only Obama and other democrats do it. You know, the liberals. Besides, it's not like any president or politician would come right out and say they are doing thing for political reasons because that would be bad form, so how would you know for sure that it even happens at all?