Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-14-2016, 08:19 AM
 
17,264 posts, read 11,091,067 times
Reputation: 40521

Advertisements

Look, the President has an obligation to nominate someone and the Senate has the obligation to approve or disapprove. All the arguing about this won't change a thing. The Republicans gave him his last two choices knowing it would make the Supreme Court balanced which overall it has been with decisions falling almost equally on both sides.
The Senate is now under no obligation to give Obama another Justice, giving the liberals a clear majority in important issues that may change the country. There's no time limit stating a nominee must be approved or disapproved no matter how much hypocrites like Reid are going to scream and shout. Reid by the way has no credibility since he's proven himself to be nothing more than an Obama mouthpiece and liar.
It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or argues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2016, 08:19 AM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,720,420 times
Reputation: 6856
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
No, Presidents are not. Foolish to think so. Senators have an obligation to represent those who voted for them.
The voters elected their representatives to block a highly qualified supreme court nominee?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,790,855 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
I am not sure if Obama should nominate him right out of the gate or not. I think the better strategy would be to nominate a liberal first as a sacrificial lamb, then nominate srinivasan as a compromise. If he starts out with Srinivasan, we're going to end up with a more conservative justice than Obama wants to appoint.
When was the last time a Democrat nominated someone who was not consistently liberal on the divisive issues of our era. Kennedy is unpredictable and Roberts will surprise you but the other 7, err 6, are consistent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 08:19 AM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,277 posts, read 54,010,088 times
Reputation: 40561
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma View Post
Republicans need to DELAY DELAY DELAY !!!!


Yeah, because the people just love having the Senate thumb its collective nose at the country and the Constitution. What if Hillary or Bernie wins, they gonna twiddle their thumbs for 4 or 8 more years?

It's truly amazing how inanely these politicians forget that what goes around comes around and that includes obstruction for no good reason. There should be a law against contempt of country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,790,855 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
The voters elected their representatives to block a highly qualified supreme court nominee?
Like Judge Robert Bork?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 08:21 AM
 
17,320 posts, read 9,134,679 times
Reputation: 11771
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Apparently, Reid thought there was sufficient value in permanently delaying over 300 House bills.
Is that the same Harry Reid who executed the nuclear option to undermine precedent and pack the first circuit court? The same Harry Reid who undertook unprecedented "pro forma" sessions to prevent president Bush from making recess appointments?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 08:22 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,421 posts, read 20,190,353 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahboy79 View Post
Here's what should happen. Obama should nominate a judge. Congress should treat them fairly and vote on it. Everything else is just political theater and is the kinds of things everyone complains about the government for.

Yes I know conservatives are going to complain about it but unless a Democrat killed scalia to make sure Obama gets to nominate someone, there shouldn't be any deviation from the typical process. To wait over a year for someone to just be nominated makes no sense. Sometimes you just have to play the hand you are dealt.
Wrong.

There is no need to rush to appoint a replacement, and there is no absolute right that Obama should have his nominee considered or confirmed. That power belongs to the Senate, and they can do what they think best. That is why the Constitution gives them that power.

The American people should have a voice, which will be heard in November. The appointment should wait until after the election, and the new President takes office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,697 posts, read 6,420,273 times
Reputation: 5046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dequindre View Post
The only way that Obama will have ANY leverage in this situation is if he nominates someone who is generally moderate (or even some ties with Conservatives). Otherwise, the Senate can claim that the nominee is nothing but a Robert Bork or a Harriett Myers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryWho? View Post
It would appear that there is an almost perfect candidate. Of course political wrangling and one-upsmanship may preclude him. Interesting.

Sri Srinivasan: Supreme Court justice in the making?
I think that any serious discussion of who President Obama might nominate for the Supreme Court would have to include - if not start with - Sri Srinivasan. He's currently on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a very high-profile court. Perhaps more importantly, in 2013 the Senate confirmed him by a vote of 97-0. Those 97 votes included many, many Republican votes, notably those of Senators Cruz and Rubio.

Another current Court of Appeals judge - who also was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2013 (by a 96-0 vote) - is Jane Kelly, a person whose nomination to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Iowa was endorsed by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley (R).

In normal times - getting hard to remember those, isn't it? - it would be difficult for all Senate Republicans to make a completely opposite decision for the same individual nominated to the Supreme Court than they did for the U.S. Court of Appeals. While the two courts are not equal, to make the case that Senate Republicans should vote no en mass for the same people they voted for just 3 years ago is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,790,855 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
There should be a law against contempt of country.
Yes, we should jail people that disagree with the vision of the anointed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 08:23 AM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,720,420 times
Reputation: 6856
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
Look, the President has an obligation to nominate someone and the Senate has the obligation to approve or disapprove. All the arguing about this won't change a thing. The Republicans gave him his last two choices knowing it would make the Supreme Court balanced which overall it has been with decisions falling almost equally on both sides.
The Senate is now under no obligation to give Obama another Justice, giving the liberals a clear majority in important issues that may change the country. There's no time limit stating a nominee must be approved or disapproved no matter how much hypocrites like Reid are going to scream and shout. Reid by the way has no credibility since he's proven himself to be nothing more than an Obama mouthpiece and liar.
It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or argues.
Reid and Obama don't have the best relationship and are hardly on the same page. Obama is going to put forth a highly qualified nominee and dare the GOP to block his or her nomination. The general public is tired of DC's inaction. Blocking a nominee to the supreme court is going to hand the Democrats a weapon to beat the Republicans with all throughout the election.

Republicans are so blinded by their hatred of Obama that they can't see the forest for the trees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top