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.
What you forget is that the electorate elected Obama twice... You speak as though he was appointed to the presidency without the consultation of the American people. That electorate did not show up in 2010 and 2014. If republicans don't allow Obama to fill this vacancy, the 2008 and 2012 electorate shows up and GOP loses in a landslide.
Not quite. Most of the electorate that showed up to vote for him could care less about the Supreme Court, and would have a hard time getting worked up enough to come out and vote for either an old white criminal or an old white socialist.
If Obama nominates Sri Srinivasan, I don't see how the republicans can validate their opposition. He was approved 97-0 for the DC court of appeals, a rather conservative enclave which the republicans have guarded fastidiously.
Let us remember that George H.W. Bush replaced liberal Thurgood Marshall with conservative Clarence Thomas and nobody said that was illegitimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Yes, that is why we need to wait for the next President. Instead of accepting a Ruth Ginsberg.
Somehow, I miss the logical connection between Bush1 replacing a liberal with a conservative concluding that Obama shouldn't make an appointment within the remainder of his term. The Marshall/Thomas example shows the opposite, presidents are not obliged to keep the same ideological balance that previously existed.
If Obama nominates Sri Srinivasan, I don't see how the republicans can validate their opposition. He was approved 97-0 for the DC court of appeals which is a rather conservative enclave which the republicans have guarded fastidiously.
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.
Somehow, I miss the logical connection between Bush1 replacing a liberal with a conservative concluding that Obama shouldn't make an appointment within the remainder of his term. The Marshall/Thomas example shows the opposite, presidents are not obliged to keep the same ideological balance that previously existed.
No, Presidents are not. Foolish to think so. Senators have an obligation to represent those who voted for them.
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.
