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.
Even if Obama does make the selection before the November elections, then the shift of balance would only be temporary. You've got other justices on the Supreme Court that face the possibility of a replacement pick by our next president. It's leaning left as it is at this time (with 8 justices) even without a replacement pick.
Yep sounds about right. That's how idiot partisan politics work in this nation. Switch roles and you'd get the same thing. The Dems would do exactly the same thing if it was a Republican president sending them nominees.
Seems to me, the GOP will want to wait and see the election results. If they win, then they'll wait for the new president to take office. If they lose, they'll get a last minute nomination offering from Obama and they'll probably pass it.
Everything hinges on the election.
If McConnell won't even allow this to come to the floor until after the election results he will have a rather large problem with the election results.
Why are you assuming that I'm twisting historical facts.
I wrote "why are so many people..." and did not refer to you specifically.
Yes, these threads always get ugly. However, whether or not I support Obama has nothing to do with the issue. I am only saying that those who agree with the GOP are wrong, since there is no precedent, except in times of war. Other posters are bringing up examples that have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. We are not in the middle of a Civil War (although sometimes it seems that way) and the sitting President will be in office for at least another 300+ days. Surely the process of nominating a Supreme Court Justice following a death should be handled in a reasonable amount of time.
If McConnell won't even allow this to come to the floor until after the election results he will have a rather large problem with the election results.
Maybe if he's up for re-election this year. Everyone else can just blame Mitch if public opinion starts to turn hostile.
And the Dems can't scream too loud about their leadership letting stuff die without a chance to even be voted on. Both parties have been doing that for many decades. Not sure when that annoying little stunt got started, but I despise the idea that one man/woman gets decide on behalf of the entire Senate that X certain thing isn't even worth voting on. That and filibusters are items that I wish were simply done away with.
The Republican nominee for POTUS will also blame Mitch if he needs to and won't likely be hurt nor helped by it.
I wrote "why are so many people..." and did not refer to you specifically.
Yes, these threads always get ugly. However, whether or not I support Obama has nothing to do with the issue. I am only saying that those who agree with the GOP are wrong, since there is no precedent, except in times of war. Other posters are bringing up examples that have absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. We are not in the middle of a Civil War (although sometimes it seems that way) and the sitting President will be in office for at least another 300+ days. Surely the process of nominating a Supreme Court Justice following a death should be handled in a reasonable amount of time.
The example you cited that took 391 days is sufficient though. Nixon is most certainly in modern times with modern communications. And Nixon didn't get along well with an opposite party Congress, so the similarities are pretty good.
It would be useful if "reasonable amount of time" was actually numerically specified in the Constitution. Then we could forego all the partisan games.
Watching the evening news and listening to the comments made by the wannabee collection on the Republican Side it is truly embarrassing. The absolutes that some candidates speak in is like listening to a Christian third Reich, scary.
"ALIPAC is calling on activists to call members of Congress and Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara to demand an immediate and comprehensive investigation into the suspiciously timed death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that includes extensive multi agency law enforcement forensic autopsies and toxicology reports to put these questions to rest or determine if foul play was involved."
Heh - gotta wonder if there was a sitting GOP POTUS, would the same obstructionism be valid?? Dems could say no appointment until after the election.
Any guesses on what McConnell (and all the other sanctimonious politicians) would say to that?
Like all leftists .. history is unknown to you.
Quote:
In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations
During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.
Actually no. You need an odd number to assure a majority on every case.
Really?
I'm guessing that you must consider Judiciary Act of 1789 either illegal or Un-Constitutional.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73) was a United States federal statute adopted on September 24, 1789, in the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.
The Act set the number of Supreme Court justices at six: one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices.
It's true that the Supreme Court now has 9 Justices, but in it's history the number has been 6, 7, 8 & 9.
Oddly enough - it appears to work with an even number and has done so many times in the past .... including in the past several years when Elena Kagan had to recuse herself from cases.
We do not and will not have a "Constitutional Crisis" with 8 members.
Not surprising that McConnell and the Pubs in the senate would choose the cowardly way out and trample the constitution in the process.
McConnell's actions are perfectly in line with the Constitution.
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.
