SCOTUS Appointment

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2016, 09:58 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You really think if Obama nominated a Conservative that the Senate wouldn't confirm?  Only way that happens is if Dems filibuster.

Repubs aren't saying or doing anything different than Dems would do, and have done, in this situation.  The "won't even interview" is just posturing because they KNOW Obama isn't going to nominate even a moderate.

Until Repubs actually deny a moderate all this is mere speculation suited to whatever biased agenda people want to push.

It's an interesting poker game going on.  If Repubs drag their feet and don't cooperate, they could lose the Senate and not regain the WH, leaving them with an even more liberal confirmation.  If Obama wastes time parading liberals out there he knows won't get confirmed, then as it gets closer to the election Repubs might not want to confirm anyone.  The manuevering could change dramatically on all sides (not excluding Senate Dems!) as polling for the Senate and WH changes.

Oh, I know what I suggested won't happen, but it'd be a good political move.

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2016, 10:40 PM)Vlad Wrote: Bidens '92 rule...no lame duck SC nominees...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/

Schumer in 2007...

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Democrats need to just STFU.

No SC nominees until the next prez is in office.

And McConnell has flip-flopped as well, your point? They should do their jobs instead of just bickering.

[fredtoast]

(02-19-2016, 09:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, but that's the tool that was put into the Constitution to get around the scenario you incorrectly believe to be unconstitutional. You're so lost that you aren't even looking at the right problem. 

Recess appointments were designed to fix the problem of needing an appointment during recess. 

It was never designed to deal with a Senate who was refusing to execute their duty required by the Constitution. 

So why are you reambling on about recess appointments whenthe Senate is not in recess?

[Vlad]

(02-23-2016, 11:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And McConnell has flip-flopped as well, your point? They should do their jobs instead of just bickering.

Gee, I didnt recall saying Biden flip flopped. So quick to defend your man eh?LOL
McConnell opposed the appointment of  a U.S. Circuit Court judge, not a Supreme Court justice.  Lehey, Schumer, Biden, and the rest of these filthy democrat hypocrites better not flip flop and just STFU.

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2016, 02:02 AM)Vlad Wrote: Gee, I didnt recall saying Biden flip flopped. So quick to defend your man eh?LOL
McConnell opposed the appointment of  a U.S. Circuit Court judge, not a Supreme Court justice.  Lehey, Schumer, Biden, and the rest of these filthy democrat hypocrites better not flip flop and just STFU.

Can't be my man if I never voted for him. I don't vote major party because they are all the same. You're being quick to defend political asshattery.

[Vas Deferens]

I'm sure Matt has already read this, but here you go.  Straight from your commander in chief.

A Responsibility I Take SeriouslyA Responsibility I Take Seriously

Quote:A Responsibility I Take Seriously - President Barack Obama

The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court.  It’s a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead.

It’s also one of the most important decisions that a President will make.  Rulings handed down by the Supreme Court directly affect our economy, our security, our rights, and our daily lives.

Needless to say, this isn’t something I take lightly.  It’s a decision to which I devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation with legal experts, members of both political parties, and people across the political spectrum.  And with thanks to SCOTUSblog for allowing me to guest post today, I thought I’d share some spoiler-free insights into what I think about before appointing the person who will be our next Supreme Court Justice.

First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified.  He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity.  I’m looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law.  I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

But I’m also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear.  There will be cases in which a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment.  That’s why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook.  It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times.  That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.

A sterling record.  A deep respect for the judiciary’s role.  An understanding of the way the world really works.  That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court.  And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they’ll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.

[GMDino]

(02-23-2016, 10:40 PM)Vlad Wrote: Bidens '92 rule...no lame duck SC nominees...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/

Schumer in 2007...

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Democrats need to just STFU.

No SC nominees until the next prez is in office.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/22/3752298/no-joe-biden-didnt-say-that-the-senate-should-block-supreme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/On

Quote:Monday, C-SPAN posted a two-minute clip of then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) urging President George H.W. Bush not to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during the 1992 election, should a seat on the court become vacant. Biden, then the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urged Bush “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” noting that if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”


Conservatives quickly pounced on the clip and used it as evidence to argue that Congressional Republicans are following long-standing precedent in
refusing to consider President Obama’s nomination to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia until a new president takes the oath in January of 2017.

But Biden’s full speech undermines their claim. Rather than urging his colleagues to deny Bush’s potential nominee a hearing, Biden was bemoaning the politicization of the confirmation process — hence his suggestion of not holding a hearing in the heat of a presidential election — and what he saw as Bush’s refusal to properly consult with the Senate in selecting a nominee. In fact, just 10 minutes after calling for temporary inaction on Bush’s candidate, Biden actually promised to consider a moderate Supreme Court nominee.

“I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” Watch it:

Biden made his remarks in the context of reforming the entire judicial confirmation process, which, he claimed, had been marred by Justice Clarence Thomas’ contentious confirmation hearings.

As Chairman, Biden repeatedly confirmed Bush’s judicial nominees during the 1992 election season. In the second session of the 102nd Congress, “the Senate confirmed more nominees, 11, to the courts of appeals that year than in any other presidential election year in United States history,” holding hearings “on district court nominees every month from January to September; court of appeals nominees received hearings in every month from February to September.”

UPDATE FEB 22, 2016 6:39 PM

Biden's office has released the following statement: "Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today."

[Belsnickel]

I just saw word that the SCOTUS nominee will be announced at 11 this morning. I've got my livestream all set up and ready.

[Belsnickel]

Merrick Garland

http://www.dw.com/en/obama-to-nominate-merrick-garland-to-supreme-court-reports/a-19120622

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland

[*PhilHos*]

I know nothing of the current nominee, but I find it sad and disheartening that we have politicized the Supreme Court. This should NEVER have happened. There should be no nominating of "liberal" or "conservative" judges and fighting to stop their nomination. Heck, there shouldn't even be liberal or conservative judges! Just judges.

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2016, 12:17 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I know nothing of the current nominee, but I find it sad and disheartening that we have politicized the Supreme Court. This should NEVER have happened. There should be no nominating of "liberal" or "conservative" judges and fighting to stop their nomination. Heck, there shouldn't even be liberal or conservative judges! Just judges.

Judge Garland is considered a moderate jurist. In fact, when Obama nominated Justice Kagan to the bench, the GOP pleaded for Garland and said he was a sure thing. Both parties have called for him in the past two nominations. He's been seen with overwhelming bipartisan support since his appointment to the Appeal bench in 1995.

I have to say, though, that I am with you. I really hate the politicization of the SCOTUS.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-16-2016, 12:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Judge Garland is considered a moderate jurist. In fact, when Obama nominated Justice Kagan to the bench, the GOP pleaded for Garland and said he was a sure thing. Both parties have called for him in the past two nominations. He's been seen with overwhelming bipartisan support since his appointment to the Appeal bench in 1995.

That's great and all, but I still don't like the fact that we now have liberal and conservative and moderate judges. 

[CKwi88]

Solid nomination by Obama. Both in appointing a highly qualified nominee and playing politics.

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2016, 12:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's great and all, but I still don't like the fact that we now have liberal and conservative and moderate judges. 

We're always going to have it because people interpret law different ways. Law is as much philosophy as anything, and so there will always be differences that will be reflected by words like liberal, conservative, and moderate.

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2016, 12:21 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Solid nomination by Obama. Both in appointing a highly qualified nominee and playing politics.

What I'm sad about is that I would actually like to see him on the bench. If the Senate remains obstinate in this then he will likely never see the bench.

Also, this dude is humble. "Greatest honor in my life apart from my wife agreeing to marry me 28 years ago". Paraphrasing, here. First words he said after "thank you, Mr. President".

[*bfine32*]

This appears to be a fair nominee and barring any skeletons in the closet The Senate should confirm. I think with this being such a moderate choice and the realization that Trump is going to be the GOP candidate the Senate will show how fair they are and step across the aisle.

[CKwi88]

(03-16-2016, 12:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What I'm sad about is that I would actually like to see him on the bench. If the Senate remains obstinate in this then he will likely never see the bench.

Also, this dude is humble. "Greatest honor in my life apart from my wife agreeing to marry me 28 years ago". Paraphrasing, here. First words he said after "thank you, Mr. President".

I think he gets confirmed. It will be tough for the GOP to justify obstructing this one. Then again, with the way our Congress seems to care less about doing there jobs, I get the worry.

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2016, 12:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This appears to be a fair nominee and barring any skeletons in the closet The Senate should confirm. I think with this being such a moderate choice and the realization that Trump is going to be the GOP candidate the Senate will show how fair they are and step across the aisle.

(03-16-2016, 12:34 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I think he gets confirmed. It will be tough for the GOP to justify obstructing this one. Then again, with the way our Congress seems to care less about doing there jobs, I get the worry.

I hope you all are right. I just don't have much faith in our elected officials these days.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2016, 12:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I hope you all are right. I just don't have much faith in our elected officials these days.

Oh don't get my thoughts wrong. I think the only reason the Senate will confirm is for their benefit; sort of a one in the hand approach

[RoyleRedlegs]

(03-16-2016, 12:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's great and all, but I still don't like the fact that we now have liberal and conservative and moderate judges. 

It would be nice if they could "shut off" their human side but unfortunately that's not possible. 

I like the 4-4-1 set up. I think it gives you the best chance at reflecting the people.