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.
Actually, I hope he does nominate someone, and let the Senate refuse to even take up the nomination. It will highlight how the GOP continually obstructs and puts party before country.
To be fair, it was Obama that said "Elections have consequences".
Leave it to Vox to put a progressive spin on that link. Cruz's tweet = we owe it to Scalia and the nation to allow the next president to appoint his replacement. Cruz's tweet = a SUGGESTION. NO part of Cruz's tweet states nor implies that Obama shouldn't be ALLOWED to appoint Scalia's replacement. Nice try though .
Retired Harvard Law School Professor, a liberal, often disagreed with Cruz, but said of him "Without a doubt he is among the smartest students I've ever had". If Cruz had actually tweeted that Obama 'shouldn't get to' (which is much closer to 'shouldn't be allowed to' than it is to what Cruz actually tweeted) replace Justice Scalia, then I would have chalked that up to a very intelligent person making an idiotic comment....BUT that isn't what Cruz tweeted.
It's a dumb suggestion and if he was so smart, he wouldn't have made it.
It was also Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, authorizing the use of the US Military to liberate Iraq. Bush followed through on that.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 DID NOT authorize the use of the US Military to liberate Iraq.
First of all, the death of a Supreme Court justice is different from the passing of just about any other elected official, as this is literally one of the only ways to have this person removed from their position--even if the will of the people dictated that they be gone a long time prior. I have little doubt that were the shoe on the other foot, the reactions from some conservatives would be equally "abhorrent."
Second of all, I'm not sure that a precedent truly exists for this situation, particularly because of the divided nature of the country. No matter what happens, a good chunk of people will be upset. That said, regardless of who wins the Presidency in November, I think that there is a decent chance that the Democrats take back the Senate, so if the Republicans play stall-ball for 11 months they might find themselves in a precarious political position come January 2017 if/when the Democrats turn around and do the exact same thing.
There goes any credibility you may have had as a defender of the constitution. The constitution says the president nominates Supreme Court Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate -- not the Senate gets to hold off otherwise qualified nominees until they get one that fits their ideological mold.
Sorry, that's exactly what it says. Obama is dead in the water without the Senate's approval. It's in the constitution. Look it up. To bad, so sad.
And if the Democrats take the Senate in November, there would be time for Obama to choose a replacement and the new Senate to vote and approve it before he left office.
Won't happen. Just talked with a friend today, a life-long Dem voter, self-employed small business owner, who is irate that his Obamacare policy premiums went up to $2,000/month this year for himself, his wife, and his daughter with a $12,000+ deductible. The premiums alone are over 20% of his take home pay (after taxes). He is LIVID. Says he'll never vote Dem again.
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.
Leave it to Vox to put a progressive spin on that link. Cruz's tweet = we owe it to Scalia and the nation to allow the next president to appoint his replacement. Cruz's tweet = a SUGGESTION. NO part of Cruz's tweet states nor implies that Obama shouldn't be ALLOWED to appoint Scalia's replacement. Nice try though 
. 
