Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Greed and Death]

And they also had their say in 2014, which was a resounding rejection of Obama's policies.

Point me to the president that was elected in 2014.

They elected the senate which has the power to shoot down Scotus nominees.

[Alvecia]

Point me to the president that was elected in 2014.

They elected the senate which has the power to shoot down Scotus nominees.

Shoot down. Not refuse to take shots at.

[Greed and Death]

You realize that the president is not the sole participant in choosing justices, yes? The president must act with the advise and consent of the Senate, which the people delivered into Republican hands.

Hard to see how that's possible since they've decided already not to consider any nominees. The Senate is neglecting their constitutional duty.

Refusing to consider can be how they decide to handle those duties.

[Thermodolia]

The people had their say in November 2008 and 2012. Each time they gave Obama the mandate to nominate SCOTUS justices for the next years.

And the GOP the power to veto those nominations.

Well the senate should at least just have a long drawn out hearing and then veto the nominee. That would look much better than the two year old we have now.

[Wallenburg]

I wasn't aware we held a presidential recall election in 2014. Wait, we didn't? That's unconstitutional? Balderdash!

Oh you didn't see that rule? It's right next to thou shalt not approve of thy presidents SCOTUS nominations during thine election year.

I believe the exact wording is, "The President shall not make appointments to the Supreme Court, unless he is a Republican." See? It's right next to the clause reading, "All colored Persons elected to public Office shall only exercise their respective powers within the first three-fifths of their terms."

[Thermodolia]

This is a POTUS election year....

...

Where exactly did I say it wasn't? Reading comprehension isn't a difficult thing.

I think this just might do it. Remember the current Republican Party is shambles, so there's something. I think this stunt will cost them the senate especially if the the senate leaders go back on no nominations. Even if it doesn't cost them Th senate it will hurt them.

We'll just have to wait and see I guess, I'm hoping the GOP holds it myself.

I would like to see the senate go blue.

[Thermodolia]

Oh you didn't see that rule? It's right next to thou shalt not approve of thy presidents SCOTUS nominations during thine election year.

I believe the exact wording is, "The President shall not make appointments to the Supreme Court, unless he is a Republican." See? It's right next to the clause reading, "All colored Persons elected to public Office shall only exercise their respective powers within the first three-fifths of their terms."

Oh your right I missed that part.

[Ifreann]

Point me to the president that was elected in 2014.

You realize that the president is not the sole participant in choosing justices, yes? The president must act with the advise and consent of the Senate, which the people delivered into Republican hands.

Before Scalia died. If there is a need to elect a new president to allow the people to have their say, then there is a need to elect a new Senate. If there is no need to elect a new Senate, then there is no need to elect a new president. So which do you want? Confirmation hearings now, or in 2021?

[Greed and Death]

They elected the senate which has the power to shoot down Scotus nominees.

Shoot down. Not refuse to take shots at.

They can shoot down by tabling.

Article 1, Section 5 Clause 2

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, ...

[Alvecia]

Shoot down. Not refuse to take shots at.

They can shoot down by tabling.

Article 1, Section 5 Clause 2

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, ...

That seems dangerously open ended.

[MERIZoC]

Shoot down. Not refuse to take shots at.

They can shoot down by tabling.

Article 1, Section 5 Clause 2

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, ...

And the president may sit in bed all day. Doesn't mean he's doing what he's supposed to.

[Greed and Death]

They can shoot down by tabling.

Article 1, Section 5 Clause 2

That seems dangerously open ended.

You can not have the President dictating when the legislature does something.

[Greed and Death]

They can shoot down by tabling.

Article 1, Section 5 Clause 2

And the president may sit in bed all day. Doesn't mean he's doing what he's supposed to.

To quote President Obama "that's what election are for"

[Wallenburg]

And the president may sit in bed all day. Doesn't mean he's doing what he's supposed to.

To quote President Obama "that's what election are for"

You are aware of the issues of congressional incumbency, yes?

[Alvecia]

That seems dangerously open ended.

You can not have the President dictating when the legislature does something.

And yet, it seems, the legislature has the power to dictate that it does not have to do anything.

[Jamzmania]

You realize that the president is not the sole participant in choosing justices, yes? The president must act with the advise and consent of the Senate, which the people delivered into Republican hands.

Hard to see how that's possible since they've decided already not to consider any nominees. The Senate is neglecting their constitutional duty.

This is an idiotic statement. The Senate is under no obligation nor duty whatsoever to hold hearings for any presidential nominees. They, in fact, have announced their intention to consider any nominees after the new president is sworn in, but they are not "not doing their job" because that is not their job.

[Greed and Death]

You can not have the President dictating when the legislature does something.

And yet, it seems, the legislature has the power to dictate that it does not have to do anything.

The President could as well decide to do nothing, and the supreme court could elect not to grant cert to any cases.

In all cases the Democratic process is the remedy (for the court you have to elect a congress that impeaches).

[Greed and Death]

To quote President Obama "that's what election are for"

You are aware of the issues of congressional incumbency, yes?

If you can not overcome that then the issue was not that important now was it ?

[Jamzmania]

You realize that the president is not the sole participant in choosing justices, yes? The president must act with the advise and consent of the Senate, which the people delivered into Republican hands.

Before Scalia died. If there is a need to elect a new president to allow the people to have their say, then there is a need to elect a new Senate. If there is no need to elect a new Senate, then there is no need to elect a new president. So which do you want? Confirmation hearings now, or in 2021?

You are missing the incredibly important fact that this is a presidential election year. The next president is being chosen as we speak.

[Alvecia]

This whole thing is gonna backfire horribly if Hillary (or Sanders) wins the election and nominates people even more liberal.

But then, they could always refuse to hold hearings for 4-8 years.

[Alvecia]

Before Scalia died. If there is a need to elect a new president to allow the people to have their say, then there is a need to elect a new Senate. If there is no need to elect a new Senate, then there is no need to elect a new president. So which do you want? Confirmation hearings now, or in 2021?

You are missing the incredibly important fact that this is a presidential election year. The next president is being chosen as we speak.

But the current one is not yet finished.
If presidential terms only lasted as long as it took for the next election cycle to begin, terms would only be about 2 years.

[Gauthier]

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

The SCOTUSblog cites that SC vacancies have been filled during presidential election years so the idea that Obama should sit in the back of the bus like a good boy is partisan bullshit.

[Wallenburg]

You are aware of the issues of congressional incumbency, yes?

If you can not overcome that then the issue was not that important now was it ?

Why can't we overcome it?

[Trumpostan]

Garland is too liberal for me, but not even holding hearings is fairly dickish.

It's going to cost them the senate

It might cost Grassley his seat.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-sco ... -senators/

D***ed if they do (their "base" will scream betrayal), d***ed if they don't. Early polls indicate there's a small but solid majority in favor of confirming a judge this year, and a huge majority in favor of at least holding hearings. Poll is two weeks old, held before this nomination which I think will solidify said majorities.

McConnell is sadly not up for reelection but he is basically committing treason against the constitution. More proof that GOP'hers don't love the constitution at all.

[Jamzmania]

It's going to cost them the senate

It might cost Grassley his seat.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-sco ... -senators/

D***ed if they do (their "base" will scream betrayal), d***ed if they don't. Early polls indicate there's a small but solid majority in favor of confirming a judge this year, and a huge majority in favor of at least holding hearings. Poll is two weeks old, held before this nomination which I think will solidify said majorities.

McConnell is sadly not up for reelection but he is basically committing treason against the constitution. More proof that GOP'hers don't love the constitution at all.

As I said before, the Senate is under no obligation or duty whatsoever to hold any hearings.