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? Of course he wants to appoint a liberal to the Supreme Court before the election. Gamesmanship is used by both sides but this is serious - if the Court leans left or right - and is more than just a game.
Especially if the justices are the type of people who seek to use the court to push their own personal agendas, instead of just ruling according to the Constitution.
The justices should support or reject a law based on whether it is Constitutional or not, even if they do not personally like the law.
Sadly too many justices base their rulings on whether or not the law agrees with their own personal desires, ideology or politics, or what the Beltway media might write about their decision.
Typical Obama games. The guy's a RINO with only four years of experience on the bench.
He's why there's a Trump running for president.
We see this tactic used now and again, these corrupt politicians will find a nominee with a thin record, who they know is a like-minded ideologue. This way there is not much of a paper trail or professional record to properly judge them.
Anyone Obama nominates will be pro-abortion, a pro-catastrophic man-made global warming fanatic, an anti-federalist, etc...
Especially if the justices are the type of people who seek to use the court to push their own personal agendas, instead of just ruling according to the Constitution.
The justices should support or reject a law based on whether it is Constitutional or not, even if they do not personally like the law.
Sadly too many justices base their rulings on whether or not the law agrees with their own personal desires, ideology or politics, or what the Beltway media might write about their decision.
You just described Scalia - contorting law to fit his right wing agenda.
How exactly can allowing a nominee to go forward be a nightmare when they don't even know the nominee. The obvious nightmare would be not allowing a nominee to the senate floor when the November election rolls around.
The nightmare for the R's would be 8 months of hearings and rejecting liberal nominees. They'll be accused of opposing everyone based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.. Can you imagine rejecting someone like Loretta Lynch. Her name alone would turn the hearings and rejection into a nightmare for them.
If Obama somehow nominates a conservative-ish person they'll accept, the R's will have a few tough weeks of rationalizing the change in their position, but that beats 8 months of the alternative.
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.
