RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO?

RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 10:14:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Knightimequiet This is pointless. Debate involves an exchange and evolution of ideas. You are spouting talking points from individuals that would rather see America destroyed than it be the preeminent power in the world. I thought this would be a fun exercise but honestly the lack of education and understanding is astounding. There is no respect or common decency here just angry individuals with zero to offer other than demanding others agree with their point of view or dismiss them as idiots. That is not effective in the slightest. I am done with this portion of the website. It is truly sad to see that so many individuals have no conception of their own government, its rules, precedent, and its history because they refuse to read all view points not just the one they subscribe to. Bullshit. I provide more links to facts and figures than any poster on here except bounty. You want to say I'm wrong about safe harbor? Bring it. You have not posted links to facts. Most of your links are to asswipe. The same holds true of bounty.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 10:22:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: 1. Yes, he should nominate someone. 2. I'd prefer someone who isn't an ideologue. 3. Bill Clinton?!? Seriously? 4. Michelle Obama?!? That's even more ridiculous than nominating Bill Clinton! Remember, this was the woman who wasn't proud of her country until her husband was elected President. I can't even imagine how incredibly discriminatory she'd act. Really? Who is not an ideologue? Bill Clinton. Probably could not withstand a vetting of his Foundation. But left the office with an extremely high favorability rating; doesn't need a law license to be on SCOTUS. Michelle Obama. Probably not. Would be a horrific nepotism issue. Being proud of your country is not a requirement, is it? And who can blame her for her feelings after 400 years of black holocaust in North America? Anthony Kennedy is more of a moderate than an ideologue. John Roberts hasn't exactly been a strict "right side of the aisle" vote, either. Apparently, you don't read much about analysis/prognostication of upcoming SCOTUS cases. It's almost always about which way Roberts or Kennedy were going to vote. It's never a question about the 4 "left of the aisle" justices, or the 3 "right of the aisle." It's always about Roberts and Kennedy. So, perhaps, those two aren't exactly ideologues? [8\|] Clinton may have left office with a high rating, but that doesn't make him worthy of the bench. Why would you want someone willing to perjure to sit on the bench anyway? Does that seriously not bother you? If Michelle can't be proud of her country until they elected a black President, can't you see a potential for punitive judgments from her?

kdsub -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 10:24:19 AM)
You see if we cut the military budget in half then we can easily afford all the rest...which should be the real job of the government... The common welfare of the people... I say let Europe pick up their fair share in protecting western civilization...If they don't want to screw them. Butch

dcnovice -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 10:36:04 AM)
FR Noted liberal and Democratic operative Alberto Gonzales weighs in on the Supreme Court vacancy: “I know there’s a big debate going on right now about whether or not Obama should nominate someone,” Gonzales told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Monday. “From my perspective having worked at the White House and the Dept. of Justice, there’s just no question in my mind that as president of the United States, you have an obligation to fill a vacancy.” http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/bush-ag-alberto-gonzales-no-question-obama-has-obligation-to-fill-supreme-court-vacancy/

Lucylastic -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 3:25:53 PM)
According to alex jones, Obama killed Scalia. Oh and that that sanders followers should have their jaws broken and their moron heads"slapped. Gawd dont you love it when people use their paranoia to incite violence.... https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/videos/10153919891063459/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52VxZrdGpY8&feature=youtu.be&t=21m58s All the people crying about obama doing something constitutional is not surprising. That they think he should pick a conservative is funnier.

ifmaz -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 6:15:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic According to alex jones, Obama killed Scalia. Oh and that that sanders followers should have their jaws broken and their moron heads"slapped. Gawd dont you love it when people use their paranoia to incite violence.... https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/videos/10153919891063459/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52VxZrdGpY8&feature=youtu.be&t=21m58s All the people crying about obama doing something constitutional is not surprising. That they think he should pick a conservative is funnier. Alex Jones has never heard of a conspiracy theory he didn't like, even if it conflicts with other conspiracy theories.

Lucylastic -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 6:31:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic According to alex jones, Obama killed Scalia. Oh and that that sanders followers should have their jaws broken and their moron heads"slapped. Gawd dont you love it when people use their paranoia to incite violence.... https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/videos/10153919891063459/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52VxZrdGpY8&feature=youtu.be&t=21m58s All the people crying about obama doing something constitutional is not surprising. That they think he should pick a conservative is funnier. Alex Jones has never heard of a conspiracy theory he didn't like, even if it conflicts with other conspiracy theories. I dont know how many brain cells of mine gasped their last during the videos...but its not just him, and it wont be. The GOP candidates think they can filibuster this (and Repub sens/congress)...that they should...because," Obama", yes I know the issues go far beyond that for everyone, but wow...they are ignoring everything they claim to cling to...yes they can , but really what are the consequences... Destruction from the inside....great idea.[8\|]

BamaD -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 6:38:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mousekabob Yes he should nominate someone. It's his duty as president. As to who, he'll most likely nominate Sri Srinivasan The GOP will fight him tooth and nail however no matter who he nominates. They won't allow anyone to go through until after the elections. My prediction though is that after all the fighting between Obama and the GOP, Ginsburg will retire, having realized it's the only way to get someone in, leaving two spaces open and if Obama is any kind of a smart man, he will nominate a left winger and a right winger to even out the playing field. But he wouldn't, he would name two extreme left wingers. Remember he considers the Constitution "fundamentally flawed" and has vowed to fundementally change the country, this would be his chance.

BamaD -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 6:45:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: "Ted Cruz Says He Will ‘Absolutely’ Filibuster Obama’s Nominee To Replace Scalia…" I guess shutting down the whole government a few years back wasn't obstructionist enough. It is entertaining to see the party of "strict construction" inventing a new constitutional doctrine from whole cloth. [:)] Wrong. The Constitution says that Obama has to nominate it does not say the senate has to approve them.

Lucylastic -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 6:50:26 PM)
well isnt that obvious.... lmao they wouldnt have mentioned it if it was against the rules.lmao.

TallClevDom -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 7:09:54 PM)
Wrong. The Constitution says that Obama has to nominate it does not say the senate has to approve them. [/quote] Actually that is what the Constitution says, "advise and consent". Consent does not mean to block any and all nominees, because if they do, they are shirking their Constitutional responsibility to consent. Go through some of the writings of Jay and Adams and you'll see the intent to block (before a nominee is even named) is contrary to what they envisioned as the role for the Senate in the approval process. Ironic the Republicans would do that given Scalia's strict constructionist position and the importance he put on the framer's intent in his written decisions.

dcnovice -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 7:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: "Ted Cruz Says He Will ‘Absolutely’ Filibuster Obama’s Nominee To Replace Scalia…" I guess shutting down the whole government a few years back wasn't obstructionist enough. It is entertaining to see the party of "strict construction" inventing a new constitutional doctrine from whole cloth. [:)] Wrong. The Constitution says that Obama has to nominate it does not say the senate has to approve them. The new doctrine to which I referred is the GOP talking point that it's somehow inappropriate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. The Senate does indeed have to confirm nominees, but it's traditional to know who they are before refusing to do so and/or threatening a filibuster.

BamaD -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 7:30:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallClevDom Wrong. The Constitution says that Obama has to nominate it does not say the senate has to approve them. Actually that is what the Constitution says, "advise and consent". Consent does not mean to block any and all nominees, because if they do, they are shirking their Constitutional responsibility to consent. Go through some of the writings of Jay and Adams and you'll see the intent to block (before a nominee is even named) is contrary to what they envisioned as the role for the Senate in the approval process. Ironic the Republicans would do that given Scalia's strict constructionist position and the importance he put on the framer's intent in his written decisions. Please tell me you don't mean that the Senate is obligated to approved anyone the President nominates to the court. Consent is neither required or automatic. There have been a number of supreme court nominees turned down by the Senate, and believing one would do irreperable damage to the nation is a good reason.

TallClevDom -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 7:34:13 PM)
Please tell me you don't mean that the Senate is obligated to approved anyone the President nominates to the court. [/quote] Of course not, but to proclaim before the process starts that they will refuse to consent is a failure to perform their Constitutional duties.

BamaD -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 7:35:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: "Ted Cruz Says He Will ‘Absolutely’ Filibuster Obama’s Nominee To Replace Scalia…" I guess shutting down the whole government a few years back wasn't obstructionist enough. It is entertaining to see the party of "strict construction" inventing a new constitutional doctrine from whole cloth. [:)] Wrong. The Constitution says that Obama has to nominate it does not say the senate has to approve them. The new doctrine to which I referred is the GOP talking point that it's somehow inappropriate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. The Senate does indeed have to confirm nominees, but it's traditional to know who they are before refusing to do so and/or threatening a filibuster. When both Bushes nominated people to the courts Dems were not shy about proclaiming their opposition before the nominee was announced, or have you forgotten that? There is nothing new in this except that this time the shoe is on the other foot.

BamaD -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 7:40:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallClevDom Please tell me you don't mean that the Senate is obligated to approved anyone the President nominates to the court. Of course not, but to proclaim before the process starts that they will refuse to consent is a failure to perform their Constitutional duties. So the Dems who did the same thing under the Bushes where were failing to perform their constitutional duties? The Dems set this standard now they are whinning because the shoe is on the other foot.

Real0ne -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 7:44:14 PM)
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? not me, I want Alberto Gonzales, awesome upstanding american, even better then billy.

JVoV -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 9:08:19 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: TallClevDom Please tell me you don't mean that the Senate is obligated to approved anyone the President nominates to the court. Of course not, but to proclaim before the process starts that they will refuse to consent is a failure to perform their Constitutional duties. So the Dems who did the same thing under the Bushes where were failing to perform their constitutional duties? The Dems set this standard now they are whinning because the shoe is on the other foot. There's a difference between political posturing in order to influence the choice of the nominee and outright refusal to even hold hearings. I don't have anyone specific in mind to name, but Obama has to appoint someone whose credibility and credentials are unshakable, so that the failure to get them confirmed to the bench is an obvious failue on the part of the Republican Congress, some of whom are likely up for re-election in the fall. Admittedly, Obama will have to name a moderate liberal, with no opinions that could bite them in the ass. I'm sure there's a short list already under consideration. "The people" have never had any right to determine who sits on our nation's highest court. The Supreme Court would be pure insanity if our Justices has to be elected every few years, with many decisions being retested each term. And let's be honest about just how our presidential hopefuls would decide the next Justice. Hillary would appoint the biggest donor to the Clinton Foundation. Cruz wouldn't appoint anybody, just wait for the other 8 to die. Trump would host 'Celebrity Supreme Court Apprentice', and CSPAN2's ratings would skyrocket.

Greta75 -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 9:12:08 PM)
The funny bit about this whole fiasco is that, Trump says it as a matter of fact which it is what it is. He said if he were President, of course his gonna nominate to fill it. Anybody who is President in this situation would want to do that. Even if the President was a Republican. They are gonna take full advantage of the situation. But fortunately, it's not Obama's decision alone, so the Senate can delay for as long as possible until the new President is in office. So it's a battle for the appointment. Republicans can block it. Obama is gonna pull it through. I am sure, both sides definitely want their party affiliate person to be the person to fill the seat and will fight each other to the end for it. As they both should.

JVoV -> RE: SHOULD OBAMA NOMINATE TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY? IF SO, WHO? (2/15/2016 9:50:39 PM)
The President also has the Constitutional authority to name a temporary justice for a recess appointment, during any period the Senate is out of session for more than 3 continuous days. The appointment would last until the Senate actually does confirm a nominee, and the opinions of the recess-appointee would be valid under the Constitution.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625