Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Neon Trotsky]

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.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticized for it

[Ifreann]

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.

And you are missing the incredibly important fact that if the people are to have their say then they must elect both a president and a Senate. Electing a whole new Senate will take until 2020.

I don't think you want the people to have their say at all. I think that's a lie that you're repeating because you want a Republican president to appoint a conservative judge and have them confirmed by a Republican senate, and you can't muster any legitimate argument why Obama should not make an appointment.

[Khadgar]

Explain something to me, why would anyone want Donald Trump to pick a supreme court justice? Can you imagine?

[Gauthier]

Explain something to me, why would anyone want Donald Trump to pick a supreme court justice? Can you imagine?

He'd decide which TV Judge he liked the most.

Or start with turning the Supreme Court into The Bork Collective.

[Ifreann]

Explain something to me, why would anyone want Donald Trump to pick a supreme court justice? Can you imagine?

He'll appoint a section of wall, and make Mexico pay for its robes.

[Khadgar]

Explain something to me, why would anyone want Donald Trump to pick a supreme court justice? Can you imagine?

He'll appoint a section of wall, and make Mexico pay for its robes.

The robes will be very tasteful though, woven from pure gold thread.

[Trumpostan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... t-nominee/

A more recent poll. Folks 2-1 in favor of hearings, moderates 62-32. Good news for Dems. Only 49% of GOP'hers support all out obstruction. More evidence the GOP has split between two factions: obstructionist right wing extremists and the rest.

[Jamzmania]

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

And you are missing the incredibly important fact that if the people are to have their say then they must elect both a president and a Senate. Electing a whole new Senate will take until 2020.

I don't think you want the people to have their say at all. I think that's a lie that you're repeating because you want a Republican president to appoint a conservative judge and have them confirmed by a Republican senate, and you can't muster any legitimate argument why Obama should not make an appointment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has an immense amount of power. The American people should have their say this election season, as has been done for nearly 100 years, in what direction the Court goes. In Heller v. D.C., we were one vote away from losing our right to bear arms. The people need to choose now how they want their country to go.

You can speculate all you want as to my motivations but that does not change my point.

[Zeinbrad]

And you are missing the incredibly important fact that if the people are to have their say then they must elect both a president and a Senate. Electing a whole new Senate will take until 2020.

I don't think you want the people to have their say at all. I think that's a lie that you're repeating because you want a Republican president to appoint a conservative judge and have them confirmed by a Republican senate, and you can't muster any legitimate argument why Obama should not make an appointment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has an immense amount of power. The American people should have their say this election season, as has been done for nearly 100 years, in what direction the Court goes. In Heller v. D.C., we were one vote away from losing our right to bear arms. The people need to choose now how they want their country to go.

You can speculate all you want as to my motivations but that does not change my point.

They did, by electing Obama.

By this logic, the President can only elect justices their first year in office.

[Genivaria]

And you are missing the incredibly important fact that if the people are to have their say then they must elect both a president and a Senate. Electing a whole new Senate will take until 2020.

I don't think you want the people to have their say at all. I think that's a lie that you're repeating because you want a Republican president to appoint a conservative judge and have them confirmed by a Republican senate, and you can't muster any legitimate argument why Obama should not make an appointment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has an immense amount of power. The American people should have their say this election season, as has been done for nearly 100 years, in what direction the Court goes. In Heller v. D.C., we were one vote away from losing our right to bear arms. The people need to choose now how they want their country to go.

You can speculate all you want as to my motivations but that does not change my point.

You are talking out of your ass, your motivations are quite obvious.
President Obama was democratically elected by the people of the United States, the people DID have their say, you just think democracy stops being valid the moment there's a result you disagree with.

[Jamzmania]

The U.S. Supreme Court has an immense amount of power. The American people should have their say this election season, as has been done for nearly 100 years, in what direction the Court goes. In Heller v. D.C., we were one vote away from losing our right to bear arms. The people need to choose now how they want their country to go.

You can speculate all you want as to my motivations but that does not change my point.

They did, by electing Obama.

By this logic, the President can only elect justices their first year in office.

Again, they also gave Republicans the Senate. The Senate's advice? Wait until next year. Their consent? Not given.

Thus, using your logic, the people have still spoken to wait.

[Genivaria]

They did, by electing Obama.

By this logic, the President can only elect justices their first year in office.

Again, they also gave Republicans the Senate. The Senate's advice? Wait until next year. Their consent? Not given.

Thus, using your logic, the people have still spoken to wait.

So the same logic stops being valid when it opposes you is that it?

[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.

Republican and Democratic Presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies during election years. Anyone claiming Obama doesn't have the right to is full of it.

[Trumpostan]

Some people simply want another bitter old fascist enemy of the people like Scalia who thinks that the more money you have, the more free speech you have.

[Jamzmania]

Again, they also gave Republicans the Senate. The Senate's advice? Wait until next year. Their consent? Not given.

Thus, using your logic, the people have still spoken to wait.

So the same logic stops being valid when it opposes you is that it?

My only point is that it is the precedent to wait and that in this case, the people choice for the next president should decide.

[Gauthier]

Some people simply want another bitter old fascist enemy of the people like Scalia who thinks that the more money you have, the more free speech you have.

They want to go further and turn the Supreme Court into The Bork Collective.

[Genivaria]

So the same logic stops being valid when it opposes you is that it?

My only point is that it is the precedent to wait and that in this case, the people choice for the next president should decide.

Please stop lying.

[Zeinbrad]

They did, by electing Obama.

By this logic, the President can only elect justices their first year in office.

Again, they also gave Republicans the Senate. The Senate's advice? Wait until next year. Their consent? Not given.

Thus, using your logic, the people have still spoken to wait.

Actually, most people don't support the Republicans making a precedent out of their ass.

Name one time a justice hasn't been put on a election year. One.

This isn't advice, this is partisanship.

[The Archregimancy]

So the same logic stops being valid when it opposes you is that it?

My only point is that it is the precedent to wait

No, it really isn't.

[Jamzmania]

My only point is that it is the precedent to wait

No, it really isn't.

Yes, it really is, as I explained before.

[Genivaria]

No, it really isn't.

Yes, it really is, as I explained before.

One false assertion after another explains nothing.

[Ashmoria]

It's going to cost them the senate

Doubtful, Democrats are notoriously bad when it comes to midterms.

Not to mention Republicans will probably be out in force if Hillary (shudders) wins.

As for me? I think they should hold the hearing but reject him.

pssst its not the midterms. its the general election which is when democrats bother to vote.

[Jamzmania]

Yes, it really is, as I explained before.

One false assertion after another explains nothing.

The last time the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year to fill a vacancy that arose in that year was 1932. The last time that happened in a divided government was 1888.

[Gauthier]

No, it really isn't.

Yes, it really is, as I explained before.

It's a shame the facepalm smiley was abolished.

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

[Ashmoria]

They did, by electing Obama.

By this logic, the President can only elect justices their first year in office.

Again, they also gave Republicans the Senate. The Senate's advice? Wait until next year. Their consent? Not given.

Thus, using your logic, the people have still spoken to wait.

sure they can.

but when president sanders nominates a flaming liberal and the democratically controlled senate confirms him....well that's a far worse outcome than this moderate justice, eh?