Scalia dead

[Knowing]

Wow! There have been some pretty stupid and overtly partisan comments in this thread but yours takes top honors!

Accusing the president of being partisan doesn't make me partisan. I've never voted a straight party ticket and I've never voted for a D or R nom for preezy.

So what did I say that set off your faction sense?

 

[JEDI]

I'd rather have that, than have Obama pick someone of his own ideology, or worse, one of his cronies. I want Obama to leave clean, not further inject impact before he leaves. I want him to play golf every day from now until the end of his term. He's done enough damage. We'll get by until he's gone. Let the next president choose the next justice.

Lola for Supreme Court Justice!
we need eye candy there!

 

[glenn1]

^ That is a debate for another thread. I was replying to the post I quoted.

(Citizens United.. Obviously correct decision? Hah)

If you need to know who is exercising First Amendment rights (and all its clauses including right of redress) before you can determine whether to support those rights, you are a partisan hack and unworthy of those rights yourself. Seeking to limit rights for people because you think they will use them in ways that conflict with your preferred politics is despicable and cowardly.

 

[JEDI]

Corporate interests deserve as much sympathy as non-corporate; either the law and Constitution is on their side for a given case or it's not. Citizens United is a good example; the left wants corporate interests to NOT get fair treatment despite it being the obviously correct decision. We don't throw away "redress of grievances" just because you fear that corporations might be successful in obtaining that redress.

what happened except in the case of detrimental harm?
unlimited $ from the Citizen's United case will cause detrimental harm to the political process.

no one's looking out for us common people.
it's all about pandering to BIG $ now, more than ever.
votes for sale.

$1000 cap is a start!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

For all those saying wait. I understand you want a conservative President to have a nomination but be honest Ruth Ginsberg has no chance of serving another 9 years so you'll get to replace a liberal judge, which ultimately is the way our government is supposed to work ebb & flow.

I don't have this link handy but here is a quote from what I just read (only other longer time to appoint was during the Civil War)

Only one vacancy since the Civil War has lasted longer than 300 days, That was the 391 days between Justice Abe Fortas's resignation in 1969 and Justice Harry Blackmun's placement on the court in 1970. That extraordinarily long vacancy was the result of two factors. First, it took President Nixon three months to make a nomination because his first choice declined the offer.

If Obama doesn't or can't appoint and assuming the next President takes the average amount of time to nominate & approve a new justice it will be around 425 days with his seat being empty.

 

[fskimospy]

If you need to know who is exercising First Amendment rights (and all its clauses including right of redress) before you can determine whether to support those rights, you are a partisan hack and unworthy of those rights yourself. Seeking to limit rights for people because you think they will use them in ways that conflict with your preferred politics is despicable and cowardly.

You are of course basing this on the idea that corporations should be considered people for this purpose, which many people do not. We already limit what corporations do in plenty of ways that don't apply to individual citizens and there's nothing wrong with doing it here too.

You realize that you routinely try to limit rights of people based on their preferred politics on here, right? Do you consider yourself dispicable and cowardly?

 

[zinfamous]

Let the butthurt flow through you, get it all out about how Scalia's interpretation of the Second Amendment ruined your life and America.

I'm sure it ruined more than a few lives.

ooooooo

 

[zinfamous]

I'd rather have that, than have Obama pick someone of his own ideology, or worse, one of his cronies. I want Obama to leave clean, not further inject impact before he leaves. I want him to play golf every day from now until the end of his term. He's done enough damage. We'll get by until he's gone. Let the next president choose the next justice.

I want Obama to repair this court, which is what will happen before he leaves.

Yes, your nightmare is real. Best to start living with it now.

 

[trenchfoot]

I want Obama to repair this court, which is what will happen before he leaves.

Yes, your nightmare is real. Best to start living with it now.

If the Repubs don't start being more inclusive, of which they obviously haven't, then their fate is sealed. Like the child whose favorite toy is being taken away, the more the Repubs feel that they are being marginalized, being outnumbered, being made insignificant, the tighter their grip will be to their evolving exclusion-oriented ideology.

In essence, it's a self-defeating loop they've caught themselves in. Hey, it's raw human nature in action, but it's being compounded by the mind-numbing hate and fear propaganda that they're being incessantly pummeled with by the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Rove, et al.

 

[TeeJay1952]

Why do vote that might be cast seem to count more than votes that were cast?
We elected Obama.
President nominates to SC.
Senate confirms candidate is not felon, good character and doesn't have to be a lawyer, politician or anything really. Does anyone know of required qualifications?
The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

 

[Jaskalas]

The good old American tradition of picking the bones while they're still warm.

As to my opinion on the subject, Obama should make a nomination and the Senate should vote. Whether the confirmation passes is another matter.

 

[Rakehellion]

Today I learned that Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim terrorist extremist who had Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia assassinated.

 

[fskimospy]

9 months isn't anywhere close to the record for being without a justice. Obama could use this as an opportunity to not do something blatantly partisan and self serving, but I doubt it. Next president will probably choose Ginsberg's replacement, Breyer not far behind.

Just so we are clear, you believe simply appointing a justice as he is supposed to do under the constitution is 'ridiculously partisan'. Presumably blocking that judge would be ridiculously partisan as well, so I assume you are hoping that if a nomination does occur the Republicans take the high road and confirm them. Right?

I'm just going to take a wild guess that 'ridiculously partisan' means 'thing I don't like'

 

[Indus]

I'd rather have that, than have Obama pick someone of his own ideology, or worse, one of his cronies. I want Obama to leave clean, not further inject impact before he leaves. I want him to play golf every day from now until the end of his term. He's done enough damage. We'll get by until he's gone. Let the next president choose the next justice.

And what if it's President Sanders.. are you ready to face that reality or then you'll panicing to confirm Obama's nominee before the next President is sworn in.

You are truly comically insane.

 

[Darwin333]

9 months isn't anywhere close to the record for being without a justice. Obama could use this as an opportunity to not do something blatantly partisan and self serving, but I doubt it. Next president will probably choose Ginsberg's replacement, Breyer not far behind.

And nominating a Supreme Court Justice, as is his Constitutional duty, would be "doing something blatantly partisan and self serving"?

 

[Knowing]

Just so we are clear, you believe simply appointing a justice as he is supposed to do under the constitution is 'ridiculously partisan'. Presumably blocking that judge would be ridiculously partisan as well, so I assume you are hoping that if a nomination does occur the Republicans take the high road and confirm them. Right?

I'm just going to take a wild guess that 'ridiculously partisan' means 'thing I don't like'

Congratulations! You stopped short of jumping to conclusions. No, I'm not saying he shouldn't nominate a judge (or judges). I'm saying that his current appointments have been young New York liberals. He could score some good will with a centrist who might actually be confirmed. Or he could stir the pot and accomplish naught more than make the next election even more partisan by nominating more of the same. Republicans can and will stop it, and what do they have to lose?

 

[Dude111]

RIP vigilant defender of the Second Amendment and all that is holy. :'(

Yup. Some wonder IF HE WAS KILLED!! (He very well may have been to get him out of thier way)

Very sad!!!

 

[fskimospy]

Congratulations! You stopped short of jumping to conclusions. No, I'm not saying he shouldn't nominate a judge (or judges). I'm saying that his current appointments have been young New York liberals. He could score some good will with a centrist who might actually be confirmed. Or he could stir the pot and accomplish naught more than make the next election even more partisan by nominating more of the same. Republicans can and will stop it, and what do they have to lose?

He won't nominate as liberal a justice as he did before, because that will be tactically stupid. He will nominate a center-left person. He can't get a true liberal appointed now but he can replace an ultra-ultra right wing justice with a centrist one. That's still a win.

 

[CitizenKain]

Yup. Some wonder IF HE WAS KILLED!! (He very well may have been to get him out of thier way)

Very sad!!!

No, no one of any value thinks that at all. Just dumbshit rightwingers.

9 months isn't anywhere close to the record for being without a justice. Obama could use this as an opportunity to not do something blatantly partisan and self serving, but I doubt it. Next president will probably choose Ginsberg's replacement, Breyer not far behind.

So why is it only Obama shouldn't do anything partisan and self serving, but with republicans its ok? I didn't see Bush hold back on nominating Alito and Roberts.

 

[JEDI]

Congratulations! You stopped short of jumping to conclusions. No, I'm not saying he shouldn't nominate a judge (or judges). I'm saying that his current appointments have been young New York liberals. He could score some good will with a centrist who might actually be confirmed. Or he could stir the pot and accomplish naught more than make the next election even more partisan by nominating more of the same. Republicans can and will stop it, and what do they have to lose?

the prez race and majority in the senate.
voters take a dim view of obstructionists in non-localized non-gerrymandered races.

 

[JEDI]

can a sitting prez be also a supreme court justice at the same time?

Obama nominates himself

 

[JEDI]

for cases scalia heard, could he already voted on them?
or since he died b4 the results were released, his vote is null and void. (god, I hope this is the case!)

 

[Jaskalas]

can a sitting prez be also a supreme court justice at the same time?

Obama nominates himself

Separation of powers, he'd probably need to step down before taking a new office. But not before it was a done deal.

 

[Darwin333]

Well, about 30-40% of America will vote Republican regardless of the candidates; so it's possible.

I'm sure they've concluded that holding out for a 10% chance of a Republican president is better than letting Obama nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court.

Of course, any split decisions in the meantime will revert back to the lower courts; most of which are liberal anyways.

So the Republicans are kind of screwed either way.

What I was thinking is the biggest threat the Republicans have is losing a chance at a much more moderate nomination. As many others have said, Obama is likely to appoint someone very moderate to make Republicans pay a political price for blocking it. If they hold out expressly to allow the next president to pick the nomination and a Dem wins the election they are fucked. The next Dem president can appoint someone as liberal as they want and the Republicans will have already spent their political capital blocking Obama's nomination for over 300 days.

IMHO that's the biggest risk the Republicans face by playing this game of chicken.

 

[Jhhnn]

Congratulations! You stopped short of jumping to conclusions. No, I'm not saying he shouldn't nominate a judge (or judges). I'm saying that his current appointments have been young New York liberals. He could score some good will with a centrist who might actually be confirmed. Or he could stir the pot and accomplish naught more than make the next election even more partisan by nominating more of the same. Republicans can and will stop it, and what do they have to lose?

What if his previous appointments *are* centrists?

What if it's your POV that's out of whack, not the rest of us?

What if the SCOTUS has been stacked with right wingers for decades?