DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP Blocking Supreme Court Nominee

So the calls for the Senate GOP to black any nomination Obama might make to fill the Supreme Court vacancy are pretty interesting. Take the fact that the constitution clearly states he has that right while he is president, there is no law saying he does not or has to let the next president pick, and anyone trying to stop him is in essence trying to do so against the words in the constitution.

So I'm not sure the GOP just hates to lose or if they somehow truly believe that they are right on the topic; but get the popcorn!

Personally I think Obama will make an appointment and it will be confirmed. What do you all think?



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini...0215-story.html

The Constitution states that the president appoints, and the Senate confirms. This has been done to other presidents in the past. I would not like to see a 5-4 liberal court. If the republicans can block an appointment or two, then it moves on to the next president. I believe the republicans should push it to the next president, as SC justices are for life.

But would you believe that if the President was a Republican? I doubt it.

So what you are saying is the constitution is only important when it backs your position... Typical GOP move.

The republicans just need to remember to use Bork as a verb for any nomination.

The video is a really poorly made video with some really twisted facts. The President can nominate anyone he wants. That is his obligation under the Constitution. The Senate has an obligation as well under the Constitution. It has the advise and consent obligation. In order for the President to get his nominee through to the Supreme Court, a few things must happen.

1. He has to nominate someone. No one has been nominated so no action is needed by the Senate at this time.

2. The Senate may advise the President that certain nominees may have a difficult time completing the nomination process and being confirmed to the Court. This is what the Senate leader did when he said the next President should nominate the nominee. Nothing wrong with that.

3. If the President decided to nominate someone over the advise of the Senate, the Senate is under no obligation to accept the nominee, give them a hearing, or even consent to the nominee. There is no Constitutional obligation for the Senate to act on the President's nominee if the President ignores the advise of the Senate.

4. It becomes a political matter. Just what we do not want the Supreme Court to become, politicized. The President wants his nominee. That is understandable. He wants to place his stamp on the court and ensure his policies remain after he leaves office. The Senate wants to have a voice in who that nominee shall be. The Senate does not have to wait until the President makes a nomination and then hold hearings to honor their obligation of advise and consent. They can advise the President before he makes the nomination.

5. The Senate has a responsibility to the people they represent as well. The President represents all Americans in matters of state but not in the matter of politics. Once the President makes a nomination without the advise of the Senate, he has again made it a political matter. Now he cannot claim the mantle of I am the President of ALL THE PEOPLE because he is now acting as a political figure not the executive of the nation.

6. The Supreme Court has become politicized too much already. To politicize it further would be to denigrate the weakened authority of the Supreme Court due to previous interventionist rulings. If one cares about the sanctity of the rule of law and the sanctity of the process, they cannot in good conscience call for a nominee to be presented to the Senate after the advise of the Senate was to wait to nominate a new Judge. The rulings of the Supreme Court cases pending will not be effected in any negative way with only 8 Justices and to politicize the 9th Judge would be to put the legitimacy of the Judge in question. Why would one care to do that if they cared about the sanctity of the Court.

This isn't the first time the party opposite of the sitting (lame duck) President made these kind of remarks.

It happened when Reagan was in the lame duck period of his presidency in 1988. ( I believe that was justice Kennedy)

All this is is a bunch of politicians pandering to their base. Nothing more.

My understanding is that it's the sitting presidents job (lame duck or not) to appoint a new Justice. It's the Senates job to either approve or disapprove of the selection.

Republicans can't stop Obama from appointing a justice any more than Democrats could stop a lame duck Republican from appointing a Justice.

So basically, conservatives are doing the same damn thing liberals have done in the past. This isn't new at all. It's the second oldest profession.

In answer to your question, do I think Obama will get his justice approved, yeah, eventually he will. At some point, those that oppose Obama will look as bad as those that opposed Reagan did in 1988. One difference, I think the Senate had a Republican majority in 1988. it made it easier for Reagan.

Not the case at this time,, so that is my caveat.

POTUS nominates. The Senate is to advise and consent. They have the power to approve. If you are going to the Constitution, at least use all of it.

Great post Voleur! Facts and Law over emotion and Politics is the great strength of our Constitution. The Constitution is the great strength of our Nation.

Daman, the Senate is under no obligation to act at all on any nominee the President makes. That is where it falls apart for the Democrats if the Republican Senate stays firm. What political heat the Republicans take will be from their own voters. They do not care what the Democrats think. The issue may become the President and his nominee. If the President nominates say Eric Holder, no Republican would dare vote for the guy. It would be political suicide. They could just ignore the nomination until the President withdrew it. The President has only had success with his agenda when he had the Democrat House and Senate to begin his term and the Senate Majority under Harry Reid. The Republicans are nearly in revolt now against their representatives in the Senate and house since the 2014 elections. It would be political suicide for any one of them to act to start the consent process without the support of their voters.

They might do so any way. Politicians are not the smartest people in the world. They often do not care about the actual results of their actions they only want to be seen as taking action. I suspect that the President will nominate someone who would not meet the Republican advice to the President and they will delay the consent process until the election is over. Nothing is going to happen in the Supreme Court that cannot wait until there is a new election.

Perhaps the new President Sanders or Clinton can nominate Barack Obama as a Supreme Court Justice if they win the election. He is reported to be a Constitutional scholar.

I use it as a verb... but it ain't got NUTTIN' to do with the constitution.....

No matter what, I think this is going to be one of the biggest battles over Supreme Court Justices ever.

From my understanding, the Court's job is not to set policy, but simply to interpret the Constitution. So it never should have mattered whether they were conservative or liberal. I think that's how it used to be, but unfortunately isn't the case anymore.


Lately, the Supreme Court is making huge decisions that dictate policy. (Probably has something to do with so many freaking lawyers in this country)

With looming issues like immigration, gay rights, abortion rights, marijuana/drug policy, healthcare, campaign finance (and whether lobbyists should be able to pay off politicians as "Free Speech" (What a crock of you know what)); the stakes have never been higher.



This is going to carry over into the elections and will be more politicized than any appointment battle ever IMO.

And this is nothing new. The stakes just are ridiculously high because our Supreme Court is making social decisions that are major lately (at least that's how it seems to me).


Of course, the Republicans are digging their heals with the assumption that they will win the election this year, and this fight is going to get real ugly (and might have implications on the elections coming up)

right now, all the backlash on this topic is being aimed at the GOP.

we all get it, the president appoints, congress approves.

but Erik post is exactly why it's a problem: if obama was gonna appoint a conservative judge, Erik and the rest of them wouldn't open their mouths in protest.

they didn't have a problem with a 5-4 conservative court, but heads will roll before they see a 5-4 liberal court.

i will admit, this is my first time witnessing this procedure live, and actually paying attention, so my knowledge is limited with regards to backlash from past supreme court judges, but man, the GOP didn't even wait til his body was cold.

hell, the first thing out of their mouths wasn't even rest in peace, it was "we can't let obama appoint a judge".

anyway, i'm in agreement with you Bro, obama will appoint somebody, and they will be confirmed most likely. this is just further proof that the only part of government who doesn't accomplish anything is our current GOP congress.

J/C

Scalia recommended Kagan's appointment the last time around.

This is a much ado about nothing issue. The Constitution is clear but the Media can fill in their 24 hour News shows with this big fight they are promoting and creating for that matter.

I do agree that it just seems so cold. It's almost laughable, but that's the situation they're in.

And blocking this appointment (in many folks opinions) is accomplishing something you know...... We have a Republican House and Senate for a reason. There's a large population in the country right now that want to ensure that we don't get another Liberal Judge in the Supreme Court (swaying the balance from 5-4 Conservative to 5-4 Liberal). And keeping a Liberal Judge off the bench could be seen as accomplishing something in a lot of folks opinions.

And blocking isn't anything new. Chuck Schumer wanted to block Supreme Court Appointments made by GW Bush (and this was in July 2007. Election not till Nov 2008.... lol. This is Feb 2016 and election in Nov 2018. 9 Months for the American people to decide who they want their next President to be.

Just shows you how high the stakes have become when it comes down to the Supreme Court lately.

yea i feel you. just like theres a large population that wants a liberal judge.

i think one reason the issue is so much bigger right now is because of the way Roberts has voted, specifically on the gay marriage issue. i know a lot of the republicans think he has gone pretty much rogue, as we have no idea how this guy is gonna vote.

also, what disturbs me about the supreme court is that if this is based off the constitution, then there shouldn't be ANY left or right judges, as that means they interpret the constitution based off of their political ideology, not constitutional ideology.


but i understand that it's not how it works, unfortunately.

No, I'd expect the democrats to do the exact same thing, which they have done in the past. Those are the rules. It may not work the way I want it to every time, and it might not work out as I want it this time.

And that will do what for the political careers of every republican in the senate?

Look, it's Obamas right and JOB do appoint someone. If a group of folks want to commit political suicide to stop him, so be it.

I want a conservative judge. Why would I complain if a conservative Constitutionalist was appointed? Both sides have done this before. Someone mentioned Reagan's appointment of Kennedy, but he was the 3rd attempt. Reagan had well over a year to go when they started obstructing his last appointment.

If you must know, the first thing I said when I read the news was, "Oh (poop)", or something similar they won't let me post here. This next appointment could be there 20-30 years, so yeah, this is really important. I would prefer to not see my 1st, 2nd, or other rights dissolved by a liberal majority SC.

You should stop deluding yourself that it's just the GOP. They both do it. The Dems passed a resolution in 1960 to prevent Eisenhower from appointing a judge. They did everything they could to prevent Reagan and Bush II from appointing a judge. Both side do it, and it's within the rules.

Swish, I disagree with your assertion. I will leave that alone and only address your assertion that the GOP is getting all the backlash. Backlash from whom? The media is ignorant of the process or they are willingly misleading people. If you listen to many in the media, you would think that it is the job of the President to find someone to fill the vacancy and it is the job of the Senate to confirm the person the President wants to fill the job. That is so not the case. It is horribly misleading to assume that the President is in charge of the process. It is two co-equal branches of the government doing their duty as constituted under the Constitution. Advise and Consent does not mean wink and nod. It means to advise the President on possible choices for the Supreme Court that he could nominate. The process includes both the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. Consent. To confirm the ability and to place into the position of Supreme Court Justice, the nominee the President has brought forth for consideration by the Senate.

The politics of the Court has many different historical avenues or rabbit holes one could follow. However, in a simple nutshell, the Court has become politicized when they began not only ruling on legislation brought for Constitutional muster but have ruled on the wisdom of said legislation.

When the SCOTUS began using precedent instead of the Constitution to determine the Constitutionality of legislation, they doomed themselves to eventually become politicized. When the Senators became elected officials instead of appointed officials trusted with the protection of the state authority and became nothing more than super representatives, the resistance to activist and interventionist judges because a matter of politics not jurisprudence.

To think now that the Supreme Court rulings are some sort of dictate from the mighty Oz is a fallacy. The mood of the nation to accept Supreme Court rulings as something akin to Moses and the 10 Commandments is over. The Supreme Court has no true power over the citizenry of the nation. It can make a ruling but if no one obeys it, what can the SCOTUS do? This is the legacy of the modern Presidency and most recently the current President Obama. He has circumvented laws. He has ignored court rulings. He has politicized law enforcement. We are on the dawn of a new age of arbitrary lawlessness.

So, is that your admission that Scalia interpreted the Constitution based on the original intent, and not on his personal feelings? I know he did that. There is no mention of gay marriage, or any marriage for that fact, in the Constitution. They should never have taken up the issue in my opinion. I don't think the Federal government should have been involved at all.

The President has no RIGHT to appoint anyone. He has a duty under the Constitution to work with the co-equal branch of government, the Senate, to fill any vacancies. The Senate has a duty to advise and consent the President on nominees. The President is not dictator. The Senate is not a rubber stamp. The entire process was created to allow what is being threatened to happen. RIGHTS are what you have. Presidents do not have extra Constitutional rights. They have executive duties.

Voleur

yea i disagree with all that. maybe not the part about the SC being politicized, but everything else, i disagree with.

and just like you, i won't address why, since that's how we're rolling on the boards now.

i believe gay marriage falls under the constitution because it deals with civil liberties, which is a federal matter.

so that isn't an admission on anything. Scalia said his peace, the rest of the SC, and the majority of americans disagreed.

you can't tell tax paying citizens they aren't allowed to have the same rights as other tax paying citizens. equal protection under the law bro. sorry about it. thats why the federal government needed to be involved.

if we left cases of civil rights to the states, alabama would still be segregated, pushing jim crow laws on everybody.

If the advice of the Senate is to wait until after the election then the Senate is not fulfilling their obligation to the American people according to the constitution. You know the very same constitution they swore to uphold & protect.

How so? Advise and Confirm is what I believe the Constitution says. If they do not confirm, they are doing their jobs, as the SC appointee has to be acceptable.

This is obvious obstructionism that is so obvious every person in America can see it.

It will hurt the GOP so much it may be the cause of them losing a lot of power in both the senate and the presidency.

If they continue with this tact, that's what they deserve.

They are calling to not even have hearings to listen to any nominee the president brings forward, no matter who it is. That's never been how the process has worked.

to say that they will wait until the election is a massive problem.

Yes it has. Read up on history.

Once again, we have the system of government we have to prevent great changes from happening to the federal government.

Which they can do. There is no timeline specified in the Constitution for confirmation of SC appointments.

In many states, this would be protecting their political careers...... If the people electing them to their positions want to "Delay, Delay, Delay" (as Trump put it), and they work with the President and approve someone their constituents don't want...... That would severely hurt their career.

As I said before, for a lot of people, holding up this process is crucial. A conservative judge is out, and our Democrat President is going to want to nominate a much more liberal judge (to a lifetime judicial appointment). This would swing the balance of the Supreme Court.


Most conservatives will want their Senators to fight any appointment tooth and nail. Anything else would be Political Suicide for them. So it's sort of the opposite of what you say.

so basically, if bernie wins, you're saying they don't have to confirm anyone, but if trump or cruz wins, then they will go ahead and confirm them.

and you're ok with that? jeez.

There went your cred right out the window. Not only does he have the right, it's his duty to do so.

Yes he is. As long as only a conservative justice gets on the court, he doesn't care how much they bend the rules to do so. It seems quite okay that the GOP uses political means to influence the court.

Are you surprised Swish?

How so? The lower court rulings will be upheld. That can be good or bad for your position depending on the lower court.

How exactly are they bending the rules? It's almost as if you think the Constitution says they must confirm. As for it being a problem for how long, try this one:

3. The longest vacancy since the court went to nine justices in 1869 was 391 days. After Abe Fortas resigned from the court in 1969, Richard Nixon's first two attempts to replace him were narrowly rejected in November of 1969 and April of 1970. That means if Obama doesn't get a nominee through, the next president would have until March 12, 2017, before the vacancy record would be broken. (For a list of the top 10 vacancies, check out Time's chart here.)

Let me also add that the Senate gets to take up the agenda that it wants. Harry Reid saw to that.

BTW, why would anyone be surprised? Have I attempted in any way to hide my position? I want a conservative Constitutionalist who will rule based on original intent. Once again, I want a conservative Constitutionalist who will rule based on original intent.

As long as they stay within the Constitution, yes.

Actually he's correct. He said "appoint", the president nominates, not appoints.

i actually am.

one thing i noticed being on the boards is that we've all been posting consistently on the boards for years now.

you notice people who stay relatively in the middle. those on the left, and those on the right.

what i'm also noticing is people who move either further to the left, or further to the right.

and i know for a fact Erik wasn't this far right 3 years ago when i joined the board.

that's why i'm surprised. if this was 40 saying this, then not at all. but Erik is starting to consistently make excuses for republicans, even though he'll slam the democrats for the same stuff.

that's just my perspective, though.