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.
If anyone is interested in what a retired Supreme Court Justice, appointed by a Republican, had to say in a FOX interview, here's an article quoting Sandra Day O'Connor:
“I think we need somebody there to do the job now and let’s get on with it.” She added, in reference to President Obama, “It’s an important position and one that we care about as a nation and as a people. And I wish the president well as he makes choices and goes down that line. It’s hard.”
This Senate would never approve him. I agree he's an excellent choice, but they already rejected Liu when Obama nominated him for the U.S. Court of Appeals. (I admit I used Google! lol)
Although it would be an honor, I'm not sure who would want to go through the process when the GOP has already announced it would be a hopeless situation for anyone President Obama nominates.
Filling this vacancy will defiantly be ugly. It's probably going to be the biggest court nomination fight in modern times..
How many justices does the Constitution say sit on the supreme court ? Who decides how many justices there must be? It sure is hell is not the president's call to make.
We do not need to appoint a new justice this year.
the Constitution leaves the constitution of the court up to the legislative branch.
Congress originally set the number at 6, then grew it to 10 (I think) by the mid 1800s at which time they trimmed it back to 7 then in 1869 congress set the number at 9.
Obama should, too, as the Presidential Oath of Office REQUIRES him to do so.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I actually think Sandoval would be a great addition to the Court. As I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent.
giggle... this is a perfect liberal approach to replacing of Scalia
now if it were Justice Ginsburg retiring and being replaced, I would be giddy to have Sandoval. absolutely giddy.
If I were to speculate, I suspect Sandoval would be a Kennedy clone... which in and of itself is not a bad thing, but it would be a travesty to see Scalia replaced with anything other than a strict constitutionalist who holds an originalist view....
giggle... this is a perfect liberal approach to replacing of Scalia
now if it were Justice Ginsburg retiring and being replaced, I would be giddy to have Sandoval. absolutely giddy.
If I were to speculate, I suspect Sandoval would be a Kennedy clone... which in and of itself is not a bad thing, but it would be a travesty to see Scalia replaced with anything other than a strict constitutionalist who holds an originalist view....
If you would be giddy to have Sandoval replace Ginsburg, then you agree that Sandoval is a well-qualified and suitable appointment. That is what the Senate has to determine.
If you would be giddy to have Sandoval replace Ginsburg, then you agree that Sandoval is a well-qualified and suitable appointment. That is what the Senate has to determine.
Do I think Sandoval is qualified? yes.
Is that the only thing the Senate has to determine? no. no that is NOT what the senate has to decide.
The Senate is an independent body that has a very specific duty outlined in the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers.
As it relates to Advice and Consent of Presidential Nominations, The Senate is a CHECK on the power of the presidency.
And very specifically The Constitution outlines that it is the SENATE and ONLY the Senate that determines what that Advice and Consent looks like.
(let stay clear on what is our opinion and what is in fact law...)
Is that the only thing the Senate has to determine? no. no that is NOT what the senate has to decide.
The Senate is an independent body that has a very specific duty outlined in the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers.
As it relates to Advice and Consent of Presidential Nominations, The Senate is a CHECK on the power of the presidency.
And very specifically The Constitution outlines that it is the SENATE and ONLY the Senate that determines what that Advice and Consent looks like.
(let stay clear on what is our opinion and what is in fact law...)
The Senate's duty is to maintain the conservative slant of the Supreme Court??
Because Sandoval is a Republican, he's qualified, he brings to the court exactly what Republicans are always claiming they desire, someone whose opinions would be based on rule of law, without bias.
That's what Republicans say they want, but what they really want is something else?
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.
