Justice Scalia found dead; The balance of the Supreme Court about to shift

Of course it does. Tell that to the democrats who borked one of the most qualified candidates to ever be considered. Tell that to Feinstein, Kennedy (oops, he gone) and Leahy who hoped to delay the dubya nominee.

If the Constitution is so very clear, why has the President ignored it, played with it, misused it? This President has shown very little regard for the Constitution. Democrats are worried that a republican will take office and nominate THEIR choice for a Justice. Lefties don't like to admit that they can re-arrange their prejudices as good as anyone, if not better.

After some of Obama's appointees were effectively put on hold by Republicans, the President's buddies in the Democratic majority ultimately invoked the so-called nuclear option to change Senate rules by simple majority vote to essentially end the filibuster power. Stop pretending that Dems are some noble rule following gentiles. This is politics. Neither side can claim higher ground.

 

You are inventing issues that you want to argue. What I said was that "the voters" don't have a say in this, both the President and the Congress have constitutional obligations, and stonewalling a nominee for a year is probably not in the republicans best interests for reasons I gave.

Can you address these simple comments without railing against "lefties", demanding I answer for Obama, or suggesting that I am pretending something I have not even stated?

 

And I simply disagree. Voters do, in a sense, have a say and why shouldn't they? Segments of the population have had direct results on the outcome of most all recent elections. Did blacks not show up in record numbers and vote for Obama primarily because he was black? Perhaps republicans will show up in record numbers because they would like to see a conservative appointee.

Railing? Demanding? You are either a female or a lib...or both. Those are such catastrophic emotionally charged words and neither one fits my reply. You brought up Obama and what the republicans should do in their best interest. I replied.

 

It was a figure of speach but I would not be surprised in any way when the nominee's name is Mohammed something our the other.

 

Voters have no say in nominating or confirming a justice, that is in the Constitution. How difficult is that to understand?

I thought you might be someone that could discuss a point without insults and partisan snipes. I was wrong.

 

I said, "IN A SENSE"....how difficult is that to understand? Did or did not, prior democrats attempt the same post-poning hi jinks when it suited them? This is no different.

So you consider being a female or a lib an insult? You brought the hyperbole. I simply matched it with sarcasm. I did not "rail" nor "demand" anything.

For me, it borders on comedy to drop in at the 11th hour to suggest that the Constitution be followed to the letter when the current administration and Congressional democrats have been irreverent at best with regard to following it. Both parties play games with the law when it suits their purpose. IMO, delaying a vote on an Obama nominee isn't going to hurt Republicans. Frankly, if they want to demonstrate that they actually have legit standards, that's exactly what they should do, rather than fold their tents and give Obama what he wants.

And on that note, who says that Obama is required to nominate another freedom-killer like Kagan or Sotomayor? The US has almost 200,000 pages of federal regulations. Absurd. A good many of them are what liberals believe are "good for you" and a necessity because of course, none of us are capable of making our own choices. They oppose charter schools and vouchers but they insist on school lunch programs. They are the first to point out any "ism" whenever someone else they disagree with is exercising their right to free speech. They create national dialogues around the idea of victimhood and encourage people to join in. And worst of all, they want increasing control over the money we all earn. I am sick of it.

I can make arguments around cons too. This is exactly why the Court needs a balance. Current liberal SCOTUS members tend to render judgments based on the concept of a "living Constitution". IMO, there is no such thing and that takes us down a really bad path.

 

The constitution says that the sitting president with the help of the Senate should appoint a Supreme Court Justice. Obama is the president who was elected by more than 5 million votes. If McConnel thinks the American people should have a voice, well they kind of did when they elected Obama. This is typical partisan politics at its finest. If there was a republican president he would try to appoint and the democrats would throw a fit too, but it wouldn't matter. Obama needs to fulfill his duty and elect a Justice whether you me or anyone else likes it or not and the same would be true if the President was a republican.

 

Stop bringing logic and reason into this. It has no place in this thread.

 

If it's logic you want, then read this.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/#more-238336

"In thinking about how to respond to the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the administration has two priorities. First, fill the Scalia seat by getting a nominee confirmed. The stakes could not be higher: the appointment could flip the Supreme Court’s ideological balance for decades. Second, gain as much political benefit as possible and exact as heavy a political toll as possible on Republicans, particularly in the presidential election. Precisely because of the seat’s importance, this is the rare time that a material number of voters may seriously think about the Court in deciding whether to vote at all and who to vote for.

Those priorities reinforce each other. The Republican Senate leadership has staked out the position that no nomination by President Obama will move forward. Because Republicans hold the Senate majority, they have the power to refuse to hold confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee and/or a floor vote on the nominee. So, any effort to replace Scalia is dead on arrival unless the political dynamic in the country forces Republicans to change their minds and allow the nomination to proceed....

competing priorities put the political parties in a deadly embrace from which neither will easily budge. The administration feels a constitutional responsibility to press for the confirmation of a nominee and every political advantage in doing so. Republicans cannot accede to that effort because their base will not permit it."

Now tell me that politics and voters have nothing to do with it.

 

I'm thinking the smart play here is to let the muslim sneak in a moderate type justice. This will/should keep Breyer and Ginsburg on through to the next POTUS and we get a 2 for 1