~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 14, 2016 3:15:09 GMT
As I said....
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Feb 14, 2016 3:15:43 GMT
As I said....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 6:32:26 GMT
Well, here we go. The Republicans aren't wasting any time. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: " The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President." Funny, I don't recall the Constitution saying anything about the citizenry having input in the selection of the Supreme Court justices.
|
|
Nicole in TX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,951
Jun 26, 2014 2:00:21 GMT
|
Post by Nicole in TX on Feb 14, 2016 12:49:06 GMT
How awful.
I am thankful he seems to have gone peacefully in his sleep.
|
|
|
Post by DinCA on Feb 14, 2016 13:21:01 GMT
I'm going to mourn the loss of a brilliant mind and a sharp wit and leave the politics involved for another day.
My thoughts are with his family and friends.
|
|
|
Post by meridon on Feb 15, 2016 4:15:29 GMT
Well, here we go. The Republicans aren't wasting any time. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President." Funny, I don't recall the Constitution saying anything about the citizenry having input in the selection of the Supreme Court justices. That's ridiculous. It's not like president Obama has a week or month ago. He has almost a full year to go. He still has every right to do his job. I would imagine that if it was a republican president near the end of his term, they would be singing a very different song. I cannot stand partisan politics! From Sen. Elizabeth Warren's FB page: U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren 13 hours ago The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States. Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President." Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Feb 15, 2016 4:34:09 GMT
Well, here we go. The Republicans aren't wasting any time. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President." Funny, I don't recall the Constitution saying anything about the citizenry having input in the selection of the Supreme Court justices. This is such absolute bullshit. I hate congress right now.
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Feb 15, 2016 12:11:04 GMT
That remains to be seen. DH and I think that Congress will do what it can to prevent an appointment from going through until after the November election. I am just in shock. I thought that Ginsberg would be next to go one way or another. Unfortunately you are probably correct. This is just one more reason that I hope a Democrat wins the Presidential election. I tend to vote with the Supreme Court as my number one priority. Presidents and political parties come and go but the Supreme Court Justices are there for a loooong time and can do a lot of damage or a lot of good. Democrats did the same thing at the end of the Bush term. This is nothing new.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 14:17:35 GMT
Unfortunately you are probably correct. This is just one more reason that I hope a Democrat wins the Presidential election. I tend to vote with the Supreme Court as my number one priority. Presidents and political parties come and go but the Supreme Court Justices are there for a loooong time and can do a lot of damage or a lot of good. Democrats did the same thing at the end of the Bush term. This is nothing new. What Bush and what Supreme Court Justice's spot went unfilled until a Democrat President took office ?
|
|
|
Post by mommaho on Feb 15, 2016 15:01:19 GMT
Rest in peace - I may not have agreed with your thought process but respect the job you did. Some interesting reading regarding decisions: Supreme Court of the US Blog
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 15, 2016 15:09:12 GMT
The Republicans will just rip a page from the Democrats in 1987. Eventually the President will be forced to choose a nominee more in line with the opposition's view point. It took what 8 months and 3 nominees before the Democrats approved Reagan's appointment of Kennedy who was definitely not as conservative as his first choice.
|
|
|
Post by flanz on Feb 15, 2016 15:11:23 GMT
That remains to be seen. DH and I think that Congress will do what it can to prevent an appointment from going through until after the November election. I am just in shock. I thought that Ginsberg would be next to go one way or another. I agree I thought Justice Ginsberg would be the next judge to be replaced. I certainly hope the Senate doesn't play games. With an even number of justices and the over whelming number of 5-4 decisions nothing will get done for about a year. You can't hold up the business of the Supreme Court for a year for political gain.Oh, I wish that were the case. Old "rules" don't apply with this uber ubstructionist Congress and Senate! In my view they are nothing short of domestic terrorists, holding our government and country hostage for political gain. Disgusting. It IS President Obama's to appoint the next justice, but I don't see anyone he nominates being approved (can't think of the correct term). Pathetic state of affairs. And I am usually a pretty positive and hopeful person...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 15:29:17 GMT
The Republicans will just rip a page from the Democrats in 1987. Eventually the President will be forced to choose a nominee more in line with the opposition's view point. It took what 8 months and 3 nominees before the Democrats approved Reagan's appointment of Kennedy who was definitely not as conservative as his first choice. I have no doubt but the difference is the choices Reagan put up were all white guys. But if you look at the "short" list floating around of Obama's potential choices they are women and minorities. With the Republicans having a problem with these particular groups of people they will have to be careful how they proceed or it will reinforce the notion the Republicans are the party of old white guys.
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Feb 15, 2016 15:30:21 GMT
The president CAN nominate the next justice, but the Senate gets to approve of said nomination. It is how the balance of power works. Now, the Senate just needs a majority vote to approve or not approve of a judicial nomination. Up until 2013, a super majority was needed to approve judicial nominations and now, since Harry Reid pushed through the parliamentary changes, the Senate only needs a majority. Since the Republicans are in the majority in the Senate, the president's nominee might have a very tough time getting approval. I find it fascinating that some that might have been all for the parliamentary change a few years ago are now pissed because the tables have turned and it is now working against them.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 15:40:28 GMT
The GOP hatred of this President will ultimately be the downfall of that party.....well, their hatred and that horribly embarassing display of what I guess you call a debate Saturday night. Shameful.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 15, 2016 15:44:03 GMT
The president CAN nominate the next justice, but the Senate gets to approve of said nomination. It is how the balance of power works. Now, the Senate just needs a majority vote to approve or not approve of a judicial nomination. Up until 2013, a super majority was needed to approve judicial nominations and now, since Harry Reid pushed through the parliamentary changes, the Senate only needs a majority. Since the Republicans are in the majority in the Senate, the president's nominee might have a very tough time getting approval. I find it fascinating that some that might have been all for the parliamentary change a few years ago are now pissed because the tables have turned and it is now working against them. I'm confused. Only needing a simple majority instead of a supermajority still works in the Democrats' favor - it may not be easy, but that's fewer Republican Senators who have to cross the aisle to get a nomination approved. It's easiER than it would have been before 2013. So in what way have the tables turned for the Democrats?
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,179
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Feb 15, 2016 15:47:48 GMT
I have been thinking about the potential effects of the Republican Party delaying/voting down any appointment. I wonder if they will be handing the election to the Democrats - that is, if the Senate (in effect, the Republican Party) doesn't approve a nominee before the election will that set up a huge Democratic turnout In November?
And I think we all know that if the parties were reversed, the Republicans would be working hard to make sure the seat was filled before the election.
Edited to fix an accidental deletion.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Feb 15, 2016 15:49:51 GMT
If a justice is not confirmed, it changes this election 100%. Starting this election cycle I was very open minded. I've watched the debates and while there is no good option, as we get closer I may have crossed party lines for the presidency, voted for a 3rd party canidate. Or maybe even wrote in.
If there us a SC seat vacant, I will be voting party line.
I think both parties will be better served if the spot is filled
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Feb 15, 2016 16:04:22 GMT
The Republicans will just rip a page from the Democrats in 1987. Eventually the President will be forced to choose a nominee more in line with the opposition's view point. It took what 8 months and 3 nominees before the Democrats approved Reagan's appointment of Kennedy who was definitely not as conservative as his first choice. The big difference here is that the senate did, indeed, confirm someone in '87. Our current Senate isn't even going to try. It's such absolute bullshit, I don't know how anyone can try and defend their position.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 16:09:31 GMT
I agree that if the Republicans play games with the appointment of a new Justice they could very will hand the not only the White House to the Democrats but the majority in the Senate as well. If they were smart they would let Obama's pick be appointed and concentrate on winning the White House and keep the majority in the senate. In spite of her strong will I can't see Ginsberg staying much longer and I think there are a couple of more Justices that would need to be replaced during the next couple of years as well. But it's becoming clear being smart is not something the Republicans are doing these days. I mean look at the debate Saturday night. Works for me!
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 15, 2016 16:13:52 GMT
The Republicans will just rip a page from the Democrats in 1987. Eventually the President will be forced to choose a nominee more in line with the opposition's view point. It took what 8 months and 3 nominees before the Democrats approved Reagan's appointment of Kennedy who was definitely not as conservative as his first choice. BUT ... Pres. Reagan didn't nominate any run-of-the-mill conservative. Robert Bork was an absolute crackpot (still is, at least the last time I saw him interviewed) who made Scalia look like a liberal. My dad, who was a Harvard-educated lawyer and a lifelong Republican, always said the Senate's job is to basically rubber-stamp judge appointments, except in very rare cases. He saw Robert Bork as one of those very rare cases. I forget who the second appointment was, but I don't think the Dems rejected him. Seems to me he had to withdraw over ethical issues or something ... I'll have to look it up. So it was not "normal circumstances" and I don't believe the Democrats actually rejected two nominees before finally accepting Justice Kennedy.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 15, 2016 16:27:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tamhugh on Feb 15, 2016 16:28:48 GMT
This was a wise jurist who was loved on both sides of the aisle. He was noted not only for his incisive questioning of attorneys who appeared before him but also for his amazing wit. One of his best friends was Elena Kagan, who held political views diametrically opposed to his. Interestingly, they often went hunting together. RIP, Justice Scalia. I thought it was interesting that he and Justice Ginsberg are also BFFs. I read in one article that the Scalias and the Ginsbergs spent every New Years Eve together. It made me wonder how the common person can say that they could never be friends with someone with different political views. While I think the Senate will try to delay this, a part of me wonders if they will panic and vote to confirm President Obama's nominee. They have to be worried about the possibility of not only a Sanders' win, but a Trump win as well. Would they really want either of them nominating someone?
|
|
|
Post by coffeetalk on Feb 15, 2016 16:44:53 GMT
For what it's worth, here is a FB post from Robert Reich.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 15, 2016 17:10:51 GMT
The Republicans will just rip a page from the Democrats in 1987. Eventually the President will be forced to choose a nominee more in line with the opposition's view point. It took what 8 months and 3 nominees before the Democrats approved Reagan's appointment of Kennedy who was definitely not as conservative as his first choice. The big difference here is that the senate did, indeed, confirm someone in '87. Our current Senate isn't even going to try. It's such absolute bullshit, I don't know how anyone can try and defend their position. Actually it wasn't until 1988.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 15, 2016 17:14:02 GMT
The Republicans will just rip a page from the Democrats in 1987. Eventually the President will be forced to choose a nominee more in line with the opposition's view point. It took what 8 months and 3 nominees before the Democrats approved Reagan's appointment of Kennedy who was definitely not as conservative as his first choice. I have no doubt but the difference is the choices Reagan put up were all white guys. But if you look at the "short" list floating around of Obama's potential choices they are women and minorities. With the Republicans having a problem with these particular groups of people they will have to be careful how they proceed or it will reinforce the notion the Republicans are the party of old white guys. Which party was it again that nominated and confirmed the first African American Supreme Court Justice?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 15, 2016 17:18:35 GMT
The Republicans will just rip a page from the Democrats in 1987. Eventually the President will be forced to choose a nominee more in line with the opposition's view point. It took what 8 months and 3 nominees before the Democrats approved Reagan's appointment of Kennedy who was definitely not as conservative as his first choice. BUT ... Pres. Reagan didn't nominate any run-of-the-mill conservative. Robert Bork was an absolute crackpot (still is, at least the last time I saw him interviewed) who made Scalia look like a liberal. My dad, who was a Harvard-educated lawyer and a lifelong Republican, always said the Senate's job is to basically rubber-stamp judge appointments, except in very rare cases. He saw Robert Bork as one of those very rare cases. I forget who the second appointment was, but I don't think the Dems rejected him. Seems to me he had to withdraw over ethical issues or something ... I'll have to look it up. So it was not "normal circumstances" and I don't believe the Democrats actually rejected two nominees before finally accepting Justice Kennedy. I'm not sure how much was actual crackpot and how much was smear to try and keep the court from swinging too far right. I always thought the mj issue on the second nominee was stupid. In general that 8 month process changed the rubber stamping attitude forever. It also pretty much changed forever the nominees desire to cooperate with the questioning. Now it's trying to find a nominee who hasn't published too much and they obfuscate their answers during confirmation.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 17:20:18 GMT
Funny how when your side blocks nominees, it's because they're concerned for the American people. When the other side does it, they're obstructionist. And I'm speaking about both parties, lest anything think I'm criticizing only Dems.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 16:18:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 17:22:33 GMT
I have no doubt but the difference is the choices Reagan put up were all white guys. But if you look at the "short" list floating around of Obama's potential choices they are women and minorities. With the Republicans having a problem with these particular groups of people they will have to be careful how they proceed or it will reinforce the notion the Republicans are the party of old white guys. Which party was it again that nominated and confirmed the first African American Supreme Court Justice? That Republican Party is not today's Republican Party by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 15, 2016 17:24:02 GMT
I have no doubt but the difference is the choices Reagan put up were all white guys. But if you look at the "short" list floating around of Obama's potential choices they are women and minorities. With the Republicans having a problem with these particular groups of people they will have to be careful how they proceed or it will reinforce the notion the Republicans are the party of old white guys. Which party was it again that nominated and confirmed the first African American Supreme Court Justice? Wasn't Thurgood Marshall the first AA justice? Nominated by LBJ, a Democrat?
|
|