SCOTUS Appointment

[Belsnickel]

Some interesting events already. The GOP saying no vote until the new POTUS is in. The reasoning, according to McConnell, is so the voters have a say. I'm sorry, are the current POTUS and all of the Senators not elected? Seems to me they should pull on their adult britches, be adults, and learn this magical word called compromise. If we let this seat go unfilled until a new POTUS is in office we are looking at likely a year long vacancy, the longest in history by a long shot.

[JustWinBaby]

Compromise is a two-way street. If Obama insists on nominating a liberal.....well, the Repubs were elected, too.

[*bfine32*]

I agree the current POTUS and Senate should vote on a nominee, but the situation here is unique.

For instance, I heard where it has been over 80 years since a SCJ was appointed in an election year

The recently passed SCJ was the first sitting SJC to pass in a generation.

Ideally SCJs would step down when the political climate was conducive to electing a similar-minded replacement, but this SCJ may have been trying to hold on until a change in POTUS.

Makes you wonder should Ginsberg have stepped down about 3 years ago.

[Belsnickel]

(02-13-2016, 09:30 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Compromise is a two-way street. If Obama insists on nominating a liberal.....well, the Repubs were elected, too.

Agree completely. But I am always one to ***** about this sort of thing because oftentimes a compromised solution would be better than what we get (when we actually get them to do anything anyway).

[JustWinBaby]

And not sure Repubs really want to make this election about the SC....which might be why Obama will keep sending them even more liberal justices after the ones they reject. Hillary will make it a referendum on the war on women "vote for me or they'll take away your abortions!!!!"

[Belsnickel]

(02-13-2016, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree the current POTUS and Senate should vote on a nominee, but the situation here is unique.

For instance, I heard where it has been over 80 years since a SCJ was appointed in an election year

The recently passed SCJ was the first sitting SJC to pass in a generation.

Ideally SCJs would step down when the political climate was conducive to electing a similar-minded replacement, but this SCJ may have been trying to hold on until a change in POTUS.

Makes you wonder should Ginsberg have stepped down about 3 years ago.

What they ought to do is convince RBG to retire as part of a deal to appoint both a conservative and a liberal justice. People often but Roberts as a conservative, but he is truly a swing, which is best for the court. 4-4-1.

[Belsnickel]

(02-13-2016, 09:34 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And not sure Repubs really want to make this election about the SC....which might be why Obama will keep sending them even more liberal justices after the ones they reject. Hillary will make it a referendum on the war on women "vote for me or they'll take away your abortions!!!!"

From what I understand, the nominees will be doing it because it is a bullet against Trump. His answers on SCOTUS related questions have been weak and so they will see it as an in.

[*bfine32*]

Obama could cement his legacy if he were to come out and honor the passed SCJ and nominate a like-minded person.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-13-2016, 09:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: From what I understand, the nominees will be doing it because it is a bullet against Trump. His answers on SCOTUS related questions have been weak and so they will see it as an in.

Umm we could have a supreme court justice pageant and televise it. With something like a robe competition  , beachware , then a quick Q & A. It would be brilliant and magnificent. 

[BmorePat87]

This won't be solved unless he nominates a more moderate choice.

That said, I think all should worry about an ideologically unbalanced bench

[NATI BENGALS]

Out of all the broke things this government has. A lifetime appointment to this position is the worst and its total horse shit.

[*bfine32*]

I give Obama credit on his speech. He did touch on the nomination process, but he focused on the man.

[BmorePat87]

(02-13-2016, 10:59 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Out of all the broke things this government has. A lifetime appointment to this position is the worst and its total horse shit.

I disagree. The fact that they can operate free of the influence of the public and other branches allows this branch to actually work.

[GMDino]

Since this is the thread to talk about the politics I quoted these from the other thread:

(02-13-2016, 07:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ugh.  Great now Obama gets to force yet another terrible judge on us .  

Great Obamacare dissent by Scalia.   RIP.

(02-13-2016, 07:52 PM)Vlad Wrote: A fierce defender of the Constitution. Liberals are celebrating.

(02-13-2016, 07:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I hope they drag it out.  We don't need a moderate we need someone who will stand for the constitution.

[JustWinBaby]

(02-13-2016, 11:19 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Constitution also says the Senate has to confirm, and can reject, that nomination.  Derp

[*michaelsean*]

John Fugelsang should probably read the whole clause.

Comment sections should be real ugly.

[*michaelsean*]

I wouldn't be so concerned about Obama getting another appt in the libs didn't vote in lockstep. Anyone recall any Dem appointed justice referred to as a swing vote?

[GMDino]

(02-13-2016, 11:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Constitution also says the Senate has to confirm, and can reject, that nomination.  Derp

Exactly.  He was referring to those who agreed with Mitch that Obama shouldn't even appoint one but rather wait until after the election so the next President can do it.

[BmorePat87]

(02-13-2016, 11:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Exactly.  He was referring to those who agreed with Mitch that Obama shouldn't even appoint one but rather wait until after the election so the next President can do it.

That's more of a practical suggestion, though. They're not going to confirm any. 

[GMDino]

(02-13-2016, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree the current POTUS and Senate should vote on a nominee, but the situation here is unique.

For instance, I heard where it has been over 80 years since a SCJ was appointed in an election year

The recently passed SCJ was the first sitting SJC to pass in a generation.

Ideally SCJs would step down when the political climate was conducive to electing a similar-minded replacement, but this SCJ may have been trying to hold on until a change in POTUS.

Makes you wonder should Ginsberg have stepped down about 3 years ago.

Just saw when Rafael mentioned this during the debate tonight and the moderator corrected it.  In 1988 Kennedy got confirmed...but the nomination was in 1987.