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.
There are literally hundreds of qualified lower court justices out there who are strict interpreters of the Constitution of the United States who would never DREAM of twisting, spinning, or outright disregarding it in favor of the "judicial activism" that is just a sugar coated way of saying TREACHERY.
Scalia was one of these Pro-Constitution Justices, and naturally, conservatives want him replaced with such a person.
So the president nominates a justice, but congress has to approve the nominee.
So should the republican congress just send Obama a LONG list of Strict Interpreter lower court justices, and tell him:
"These are the people we will approve if you nominate them. There are about 239 people here and you can have your pick of the litter."
That way liberals can't gain election year traction by saying republicans are blocking a supreme court appointee.
Instead, if Obama refuses to nominate ANY of these qualified people, then it will instead be OBAMA who has to explain to the public why each any every one of these people, who again simply obey the constitution, are supposedly unqualified.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that whoever the democratic nominee turns out to be will be forced to take a position on it as well.
That's not how that works. That's even more out there than yesterday's fiction that that justices aren't picked in an election year.
The nomination and approval of Supreme Court Justices is one of those items where the Constitution is very straight forward; no "strict interpretation" needed. And the opposition party in the congress (Senate actually) sending the President a list of their choices is not constitutional.
Signed the daughter of a 30 year Marine Corp Veteran, 5 tours in Vietnam, and was part of the landing party at Iwo Jima.
And you did........
By the way, Bernie thinks what your daddy did was a mistake. I don't.
And if you think what he did makes YOU look good, then you might as well be wearing his uniform and metals yourself. Disgraceful.
I identify with your father though. I fully know what it's like to be serving in limbo under a democrat who is not in it to win it. I know what's it's like to have defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. I know what it's like to see my men go down for their accomplishments only to see it ruined by preemptive withdrawal.
I know fully what it's like to have the kids of my men sit in my lap while I tell them their father did not die in vain, knowing full well my own government made it so "not in vain" lasted until the moment we left.
Thank you liberal, thank you so much. 90% of my company voted absentee for McCain. The other 10% for Obama because he is black.
The nomination and approval of Supreme Court Justices is one of those items where the Constitution is very straight forward; no "strict interpretation" needed. And the opposition party in the congress (Senate actually) sending the President a list of their choices is not constitutional.
Knowing who they will and will not approve and saying so is 100 % Constitutional. Congress has the sole power to approve, reject, or not even vote upon a nominee. Sure seems to be a learning curve here tonight.
I hope they have fun stalling for the next 11 and a half months.
Remember Rs have to defend 24 seats this November, obstructionism won't look good.
Neither will giving in to having another left wing liberal on the court. Any republican that votes for an Obama nominee and it's pretty much guaranteed that it will be a left wing liberal, will be voted out of office pronto by their constituents. They have a much better chance of keeping their jobs by preventing another liberal judge from being on the supreme court. They need to show the people that voted them in that they have some backbone this time.
Middle of the road Democrats want a balanced court, not one that will tear the constitution apart and make their own laws. Left wing wackos on the other hand are are another matter.
Obama will never nominate a moderate judge with a balanced record. This is the moment he's been waiting for for the last 7 years to get all his immigration and environmental laws that he personally created through executive orders. He loves confrontation and loves feeling like he can put Republicans in their place.
The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate.
Quote:
Even though the Senate has at various times made purely political decisions in its consideration of Supreme Court nominees, certainly it could not be successfully argued that this is an acceptable practice.
Quote:
… if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered [and rejected] during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy… The proper role of the Senate is to advise and consent to the particular nomination, and thus, as the Constitution puts it, "to appoint." This taken within the context of modern times should mean an examination only into the qualifications of the President's nominee.
Neither will giving in to having another left wing liberal on the court. Any republican that votes for an Obama nominee and it's pretty much guaranteed that it will be a left wing liberal, will be voted out of office pronto by their constituents. They have a much better chance of keeping their jobs by preventing another liberal judge from being on the supreme court. They need to show the people that voted them in that they have some backbone this time.
Middle of the road Democrats want a balanced court, not one that will tear the constitution apart and make their own laws. Left wing wackos on the other hand are are another matter.
Obama will never nominate a moderate judge with a balanced record. This is the moment he's been waiting for for the last 7 years to get all his immigration and environmental laws that he personally created through executive orders. He loves confrontation and loves feeling like he can put Republicans in their place.
A) Would you have considered Scalia a moderate?
B) You are greatly overestimating the attention that the average person gives to the politics of Supreme Court Justices nominees.
Unless there is a major scandal in their background (doesn't matter if you're Thomas) or the person is highly unqualified a la Meyers, what the average voter will know is that the Senate is refusing to do what we are paying them to do. If that happens sitting Republicans from blue and purple states will get creamed in November. Pat Toomey might as well start packing his office if McConnell sticks with what he so distastefully said yesterday.
This process has 11 months to come to fruition. We are not talking about a John Adams' midnight appointees where he is signing people into positions into his final minute in office.
It is reasonable for President Obama to fulfill this duty and constitutional role of his over the course of 11 months. Any delay by the Senate is purely political.
The President NOMINATES an appointee, but Congress must APPROVE them. Meaning Congress has sway. Lots of it.
There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes congress sending the president a pre-approved list. Obama is free to nominate someone not on the list all he wants. But they're not getting approved by congress.
Congress sending Obama a list of hundreds of qualified justices with no blemish on their records, and Obama refusing all of them is not going to cause the independents to see the republicans as the ones obstructing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onslow
Knowing who they will and will not approve and saying so is 100 % Constitutional. Congress has the sole power to approve, reject, or not even vote upon a nominee. Sure seems to be a learning curve here tonight.
It's the Senate, not Congress. Talk about a learning curve.
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.
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.
