quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC

Bill Clinton? Seriously? A man who purgured himself before a federal judge and had his law license revoked, that's the man you want sitting on the supreme court? The only United States president to ever be impeached. You want that guy on the supreme court? Seriously?

quote:

One factor particularly key for a Republican return to the White House: the Supreme Court is getting old. If any members were to pass, it would be much preferable to have a conservative-dominated Court to prevent any unfortunately verdicts (such as Obamacare) and halt executive over-reach.

Scalia’s death happened before a change in administrations, and that’s prompting many Republican leaders to speak out forcefully about giving Obama the chance to nominate a new justice.

Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have already asserted that the next president, not Obama, fill the job.

“We owe it to him, and the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement,” Cruz tweeted.

Said Rubio: “The next president must nominate a justice who will continue Justice Scalia’s unwavering belief in the founding principles that we hold dear.”

In reality, Obama would have a hard time getting a nominee confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate. The implication from Cruz and Rubio — and McConnell — seemed to be that he shouldn’t even bother to try...

Both of Texas’ senators, Cruz and John Cornyn, the deputy majority leader, serve on the Judiciary Committee, which screens nominees to the high court and lower federal benches.

We’re safe for now – and the good news is that while we hold a majority in the Senate, even a Hillary or a Bernie wouldn’t be able to nominee an activist judge of their choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Article II of the Constitution declares that the president SHALL appoint a new Justice. Obama briefly remarked in his Scalia speech that the president must fulfill his constitutional duty.
...
I believe Obama has to nominate. Some people on TV have suggested the nominee should be acceptable to a consensus of both sides. Dream on. I doubt that is possible.
On the other hand, the time is ripe for Obama to make a bold move. In my opinion he should appoint someone with huge standing among the American people and make it difficult for the Senate to sit on its ass until November. One possibility would be Bill Clinton, a choice, however, filled with pitfalls.
Another bold move would be to nominate someone to reward his black constituency. Best, a highly qualified and highly popular black woman. (The appointee need not even be a lawyer, I believe) This would be a remarkable and extremely bold move to cement his heritage. Who might qualify?
Michelle Obama, maybe?
Your thoughts and challenges are welcome.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC

Lucy, you are so sadly mistaken. Obama and the dumbocrats have gotten EVERYTHING that they've wanted for the past 7 years. The G.O.P. has done NOTHING to stop any of this. That's why America is so fucked up right now. Hopefully the next President will have the courage to tell the libturds and dumbocrats to go pound sand up their ass and shut the fuck up.

quote:

libturds and dumbocrats

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC
America -- 94 million Americans out of work.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Article II of the Constitution declares that the president SHALL appoint a new Justice. Obama briefly remarked in his Scalia speech that the president must fulfill his constitutional duty.

The argument Republicans will likely make to do that is less about a somewhat-arcane parliamentary tradition and more about whether it's fair to consider a life-time judicial nominee by a lame-duck president before such a pivotal presidential election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appeared to say just that in a statement Saturday night. "The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," his statement read. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

More than a conundrum but a political war appears on the horizon. Both sides are committed. And then there are the primaries and election ramifications to consider.

I believe Obama has to nominate. Some people on TV have suggested the nominee should be acceptable to a consensus of both sides. Dream on. I doubt that is possible.

On the other hand, the time is ripe for Obama to make a bold move. In my opinion he should appoint someone with huge standing among the American people and make it difficult for the Senate to sit on its ass until November. One possibility would be Bill Clinton, a choice, however, filled with pitfalls.

Another bold move would be to nominate someone to reward his black constituency. Best, a highly qualified and highly popular black woman. (The appointee need not even be a lawyer, I believe) This would be a remarkable and extremely bold move to cement his heritage. Who might qualify?

Michelle Obama, maybe?

Your thoughts and challenges are welcome.