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

There's a huge difference in what we are saying here. Nobody said they must confirm anyone. What they must do is hold hearings and decide whether to confirm on deny. There is a process that has to happen once the president nominates a candidate. Circumventing the entire process is what I take issue with.

The thing I'm surprised by is he seems fine with the senate totally circumventing the process.

I used to be a centrist, but the right moved so far right I had to go left.

What a laugh!! I most certainly was. You keep missing the points I make. I am not a republican. I am an anti-federalist. The federal government should not be a big as it is, because it isn't Constitutional.

I don't care about the social issues. How many times do I have said the SC never should have taken up gay marriage, as there is no mention of marriage in the Constitution. That is how the individual states are supposed to come into play. Yes, you are correct in that some states would still have segregation, but I guarantee you that economics and the free market would have taken care of that problem. It would have taken longer, but it would have worked itself out.

The states are supposed to be represented by the Senate, and the people by the House. The 17th Amendment never should have passed.

I don't like the social agenda or PC agenda of either party.

Lincoln was the largest abuser of the Constitution in the history of the country. Obama or FDR are in 2nd place, in my opinion.

Once again, how are they circumventing?

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Once again, no timeline, no process, no rules. How are they circumventing?

There most certainly is a process. The senate has the job of vetting and voting on whoever the president nominates. Now they do not have to approve that person, but it is their duty to at least hold hearings to make that decision. You know it and I know it. And the American people know it.

The president also has the power to appoint a person to the Supreme Court if the senate takes a recess.

please, enlighten the masses on how lincoln was the biggest abuser. you're starting to not make any sense.

and you're comments about the economy and market changing it is laughable at best.

You really think they're going to take a recess? There is no process as described by the Constitution for SC confirmations. They can set their own, their own timeline, and their own conditions.

Some States would still have segregation? Hell they would have slavery!

I know you are not uneducated nor are you a hateful person. And I understand your beliefs but in NO WAY can equal rights be left to the states... too many pinheads at that level.

Would you like to start with the Emancipation Proclamation? That was an illegal executive order taking property (slaves were considered property at that time) from people without due process. He broke the law of the land.

To all of those that will say I'm a racist in this instance, I am talking about law, not about right and wrong. Slavery was one of the biggest problems in this country since it was founded, and it should have been refused by the Constitution in the first place, as it was established by the British.

I didn't read the whole thread, but Chuck Schumer, who is so irate over the Constitution somehow being abused if Republicans don't bring Obama's nominees up for vote, was the leader of the choir, of a far different term, when it was Bush's nominees in 2007.

If I am the Republicans, I have this played at every event, and bring it up constantly.

Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee | Washington Examiner
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schume...article/2583283

Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.

Schumer cited ideological reasons for the delay.

"They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not," Schumer said at the time.

On Sunday, Schumer ripped Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as an "obstructionist" for vowing to block any Obama nominee to replace Scalia on the high court from receiving a Senate confirmation vote.

"When you go right off the bat and say, 'I don't care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,' that's not going to fly," Schumer said on ABC's "This Week."

President Bush never got the opportunity to appoint another Justice after Schumer spoke in 2007, so the matter was rendered moot.

That is how the country was supposed to work. All rights and responsibilities that were not given to the federal government were to be administered solely by the states.

yea, and he's basically saying that should be allowed.

i really don't know how to respond to this guy anymore. people would still be enslaved, and his response is more or less "eh...tough luck."

Oh they can do whatever they want to do. But don't believe for a second that people don't see it for exactly what it is. Nothing more than a political ploy.

Stating that you will fight to block a nominee before you even know who that nominee is... that's very poor form. It screams that this is more about posturing and defeating Obama than actually getting the right person on the SC.

If he nominates somebody with questionable qualifications or some other red flags, then fine... do battle, that's your job.

But since they have preemptively said they aren't going to approve the nominee, any argument they come up with now against the nominee is going to look contrived...

Eric has grown up and wise. Others, not so much.

It's not a political ploy. The republicans have flat out said they do not want the president appointing the new SC judge. What part of that don't any of you get? The republicans want a conservative constitutionalist like Scalia. They have made their motives rather plain. This isn't a ploy, it's a power play. It's about time too. They had better not cave, or it will end the republican party.

Like I said earlier, plenty of guilt to go around.

I'm not sure what the difference is... there is nothing in the constitution that says a President with X amount of time left should wait and let the next President nominate for the SC... call it a political ploy or a power play... I don't see the difference.

The Republicans are trying to hold this process up for one reason and one reason only... they have a lackluster group of candidates that they are afraid can't win on their own... they know that the grass roots republicans care deeply about the SC... so they are hoping that the republican base will vote, if not for the candidate, at least for the right to nominate the next SC justice..

It's ugly politics bro.

This "power play" will hurt the GOP more than help it. Neither GOP or Dems decide elections, Independent voters do. They can see this for what it is.

Out of all the candidates running, Kasich would be my pick. However, with this political stunt the GOP is pulling, it may easily sway my vote the other way. You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but the American people can see what's going on here and if you base a candidate being elected solely on the conservative base, the numbers dictate that won't get you elected.

This will backfire BIG TIME!

This is classic. Completely false, but classic.

I have read very interesting pieces before that have laid out hypothetical scenarios of "what if certain historical events had never happened"... and I read an interesting one on the civil war that show multiple paths, one is as you say, some states are still clinging to segregation and division... another scenario, which made a compelling argument, lead to a United States that attained equality much quicker and with minimal violence or loss of life... because it allowed the situation to play out... I don't know how it would have played out in reality, but it's fascinating to read different social scientists views on how it could have played out.

lol, obviously you haven't been keeping up. it's absolutely true. the guy wasn't even dead for a whole 24 hours.

Just being a jerk here - but it doesn't take a dead body being dead for very long before it's "cold".

how long before the body starts farting on it's own, though?

Especially if Obama nominates someone like Sri Srinivasan. He was confirmed to the DC Circuit by a 97-0 Senate in 2013.

Among those 97 Yea votes: Sens. Cruz and Rubio, as well as GOP Leader McConnell. How are they going to explain voting 'no' on an appointment they previously said 'yes' to?

If they follow through on this hastily ill-conceived tactic, it has the potential to blow back badly on them. The optics would look ugly- and could ultimately cost them seats in the long run.

The reaction from both sides was pathetic.. but not unpredictable. I've seen some of the most hate filled messages on social media of folks partying over his death.. and those on the other side immediately posturing for his replacement...

The Senate says they will not proceed with any nomination, even one they like. Their advice (Constitutional) is for the newly elected President to nominate a SC justice, not the standing President.

The Senates first duty is to advise.
Their next duty is to confirm or reject.

I think the Prez should take their advice.

Also.. during Lincoln's administration "In God We Trust" was added to U.S. coins. Then later after his death "One Nation Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance because Lincoln used the phrase in the Gettysburg Address. Which both are arguably violations of the 1st amendment and are typical Republican bending of the U.S. constitution as usual.

That advice is not Constitutional. Many Senate members won't be back after the election and it's their duty to proceed with a nomination during their terms as they swore to do.

Obama: hey guys, i wanna appoint this person to be a SC justice
Congress: Nah. wait til the next guy comes in.
Obama: what if the next guy is a democrat
Congress: Well then common sense says we just gonna have to wait another 4 years, now won't we?

The funniest part is the GOP thinking they stand a chance to "select" this nomination. There's a greater chance of the Indians, and the Browns winning championships than a republican winning the white house in the 2016 election.

This is really cool. People I've argued about the 17th Amendment about are defending this. Don't you all want to have the chance to vote for a conservative or liberal judge? I guess the lot of you don't think the electorate should get a say. This is, after all, a 20 year appointment, usually.

Well if you want to make your own Constitution, have at it.

That's why I said it's a power play. Conservatives will lose the government for 20+ years if they lose the election. Ginsberg isn't long for the world from the look of her, and there's probably one more that would die within 8 years. May as well stand now.

The electorate did get a say, the electorate elected a President. One of the jobs under that Presidents umbrella is to nominate SC justices. We never know when that will need to be done but that responsibility is entrusted to the sitting President at the time.

If you think you can get enough support to make SC justice an elected position on which we all get to vote, then have the constitution amended.. until then, the President gets to do it.

Once again, let the electorate decide. If the electorate wants a liberal senate, it will happen. If the electorate wants a liberal president, it will happen. If there's a liberal president, the SC will get stacked toward liberal. There is a little under 9 months before the election. I'm betting we'll have a republican president, house, and senate.

I'm not saying we should elect SC judges. I'm saying that the people have changed their minds. Yes, there is nothing constitutional stating that the president has to wait on the election, but there is nothing saying he shouldn't either. It's my belief that the people have changed their minds.

The Senate would be within it's constitutional power and mandate to delay and refuse nominees. If I'm wrong, the people still get their liberal judge, but I really don't think I am.

Either side can say that a nominee being confirmed or a lower court is far different from being confirmed for the Supreme Court. Much as a coach who might be hired for a High School team is not ready to coach in the NFL. He may have been a great candidate at the lower level, but may not yet have the experience, education, or maturity to handle a position on the Supreme Court.

I think that the ultimate political move would to call the nominee up for confirmation on the final day of this Senate, and rush through a vote right before this Senate is adjourned. Thanks to the changes Democrats put in place, it only takes 51 votes to kill a nominee. That would really kill any chance of Obama getting a recess appointment through in the 1 second between this Senate and the next.

The President is absolutely correct in the process that the President and Senate are to follow, however the Constitution does not say that the Senate has to take up any nomination in a particular timeframe.

Well that would be fine if we elected a president every three years. But that's not how it's done. Obama is president and will be for almost a full calendar year. So it is his job to promote someone to the SCOTUS.

You won't know if the voters have changed their minds until November.