Constitution
 

Okay repubs, your always preaching about holding up the constitution in its purest form, this is from Senator Warren.

“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,” she wrote. “I can’t find a clause that says ‘…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.’”

Yes, I heard the wannabe native American say that. Like she is real credible. Precedence also shows that there has not been a Supreme Court justice appointed in the last year of the president's last term, in 80 years. Is Obama the only American citizen(?) that is allowed to trash the Constitution? I realize that this is a privilege reserved only to a tyrant, so perhaps that is the wrong question.

He has the choice of appointing a judge that has bipartisan consensus, or he can wait. Otherwise, our party of no will say "h3ll NO!"

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House"

Buffoon, do some research before you make a fool of yourself!"

In 80 years?

Really?.....

I guess what they say is true - you really can't fix stupid

And it was a Democrat controlled Senate that year.

Rubio seems to be ignorant of many things. He stated on television that the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices is not right and he would look into doing something about it.

The dimwit should know that any change would have to be accomplished through Constitutional amendments - the same for term limits of Congress.

Rubio is digging himself into a hole without a ladder to get out of and willfind himself looking at the nomination of Jeb Bush.

Don't cut yourself so short......:a20:

And yet, you believe that Sanders is going to produce FREE COLLEGE? Anyone with any sense knows that he can't do it without Congress.

He was nominated in 1987 and confirmed in 1988. He was already an associate supreme court justice, if I recollect correctly.

I won't address your disrespectful demeanor in your reply. I can take correction and will admit my mistake, if warranted. Be careful.

Enlighten us. Did Rubio say he WOULD change the law, or did he say that "he would look into doing something about it."??? Does it require a congressional amendment for the president to "look into" something?

It seems that there is a lot of modification to Rubio's quotes going on here. Apparently, someone has a retention problem, or they just never heard him say anything and they are just repeating something from someone else. It's probably not a good idea of letting your bias cause one to slander Rubio.

No, Sanders may propose the idea of free college but since he is not going to be President, the idea does not go anywhere. :popcorn:

I agree, but no one is jumping up and down over his preposterous promises.

The problem with E. Warren's comment is she doesn't go far enough. The Constitution also says that the nominee has to be approved by the Senate. The problem with our current state of politics is there is no middle ground. If Obama puts forward a moderate, and two have been mentioned, how are the Republicans going to sell the idea that the Supreme Court just went to the left?

Both sides are trying to sell the idea that the nominee should be in line with their political philosophy. Isn't the Supreme Court suppose to be a non bias check and balance against the other two sides of government? The judges are suppose to rule on the case brought to them in a non bias manner, and enforce the law as written. Well, it appears neither party wants that to happen.

Judge Roberts, and Kennedy are raked over the coals every time they rule against the Republican leaning judges. It is a real hard sell for Republicans to throw out there that they want a middle of the road judge. In some cases. we have two.

Friend, you do not belong on the Political Forum! Your post does NOT meet the requirements for posting.

Your post was clear, articulate, was not divisive, made perfect sense, and did not insult anyone or any group.

Thank you for a breath of fresh air and to show there are still some reasonable people reading this forum.

Good post, even if I don't completely agree with it.

You have one difficult premise. You gave a hypothetical situation that is way too incredulous. You suggest that Obama would submit a nominee that is moderate. Obama is so far to the left that he makes Hillary appear conservative.

Your repub "candidates" have already said they would nominate a highly conservative. Good to see your fair and balanced though, which you say Obama is not.

I am fair and balanced but I am also conservative and would not consider a moderate unless I had a very evenly divided congress and felt it would be the only way to get someone nominated. I consider liberalism/progressive/socialism to be very damaging to the American way. Unlike the left, I do not think that my way is the only way. I do think that my way is the right way, though. :icon_wink:

Ok, you are wrong. He was NOT already an associate supreme court justice, that is the position for which he was nominated and now serves.

GOP leader Charles Grassley in the final Bush year 2008 said
"The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president's term." This of course was when there was a Democratic Senate and a GOP President, the confirmation process continued. No Democratic obstruction even though they thought it likely they would defeat McCain.

And for those who like facts rather than lies, here is the list of all the Supreme Court vacancies in the last year of an administration, facing an upcoming election since 1900.
Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years : SCOTUSblog

The present members of the SCOTUS with all the increased scrutiny now given, averaged 71 days between nomination and confirmation. The longest time from nomination to confirmation since 1900 is the 1916 nomination of Louis Brandeis which took 125 days. Obama is the POTUS for 11 months. So either admit that the sole goal is obstruction (nothing new) or get the process going. It is not that 11 months is inadequate time to evaluate and vote. If the GOP Senators wish to vote against a nominee, that is within their right, for any reason they choose. But do your job, have the hearings, and vote.

You believed the Canadian...... but he doesn't know American History.

Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy!!!!

Your ignorance is showing!!!!!!!!!

As I remember, you said the same thing about President Obama. lol

Well then admit it!

Since you brought it up...
 

we also have the right to the pursuit of happiness...where does it state a guaranteed job? free education? free health care?

He was Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at the time he was nominated in Nov 1987 He was NOT nominated in an election year. He was confirmed in an election year. Just to correct my error when I erroneously said he was an associate in 1987.

But, I was correct when I said he was NOT nominated until 1987.

And that should have said that I was correct when I said he was not nominated in 1988. He was nominated in 1987 and not confirmed until 1988. The point is that there has not been a supreme court justice nominated in an election year for decades.

:agree:

I admit that he was not nominated in an election year, just as I stated.

I'll say this again, for those that have a hard time understanding facts. There has NOT been a supreme court justice NOMINATED in an election year in over 80 years. Nomination people, not confirmed. There is a big difference. If you check back, you will see that those that were confirmed in an election year, were also nominated the year before. It is a long process, taking several months ins some cases.

Good luck!

On July 27, 2007, Schumer told his ACS audience:

" How do we apply the lessons we learned from Roberts and Alito to be the next nominee, especially if—God forbid—there is another vacancy under this president? … [F]or the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances."

"...with a unanimous declaration by the Supreme Court that the president violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed three commissioners to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief recess of the Senate"

Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog

Apparently, it is difficult thing for either party to accept Obama's political beliefs. Liberals consider him a moderate leaning a little left. Republicans consider him a far left radical. Again, the parties are so far apart, they can't agree in anything.

Take a look at your last sentence, Hillary is running as an extension of Obama. That would make her to be a far left wannbe. The last thing in the world that Hillary wants is to be considered a moderate. The electorate is angry at everything being consider a moderate is the last thing you want being held over your head . She would be happy to be considered a clear thinking liberal. Concerning her being to the far left, that position is already taken by Sanders.

Obama has to take a look at the federal district court judges that he has nominated, and approved by the Republicans. If there is a moderate, that was approved with overwhelming support, he should put that judge forward. If there is one in the DC district, that would be perfect. Republicans want that district to be the same or smaller. They could fight the replacement, and it wouldn't get that much press coverage.

Obama has made a habit of appointing minorities into positions of authority. This time he has to look beyond race, and put the best judge forward.

Sanders believes that FREE job, education and health care is a right. Part of his Socialist Utopia. It worked out well for the Soviet Union, and is failing everywhere else. It is such a progressive idea, even if it is a century old. We have such a failed system that no one wants to come to America and we need to build a wall to keep our citizens inside.

Obama has a dismal track record. If congress is smart, they will tell him to take a hike. He has used EO to circumvent them in every case he could, so now it's their turn to put the brakes on him. They should tell him to kiss their posteriors. And I would have more respect for them, if they did just that.

And we can get to the moon by just taking a longer and longer run before we jump!!!!!

Thanks, but I am no saint. While I will never start the name calling, and always try to stay on subject, it is very hard not to respond in kind to the name calling, when you are attacked by seven or eight people, most of which could care less what you said in the first place. All they want to do is start an argument.

Just because an individual was approved for a place on a lower Court bench does not necessarily mean that they are appropriate for a lifetime apt to the SCOTUS.

Beware the 17 days between Jan 3 when the new Senate is sworn in and Jan 20 when the new Pres is sworn in. There lies the possibility that the Senate has gone over to the Dems and Obama could potentially send a nominee forward asap who could then be approved by the new Senate!

So, they just don't consent. Nothing says the have to if the don't like the nominees.

McConnell can at times be a little in-artful in his speech. What he could have said is "We look forward to the President fulfilling his constitutional duty and forwarding his nominee to the Supreme Court for our advice and consent. When it arrives, we will give it all the consideration it deserves."

How very nicely politically stated!!!
Who said the republicans would not cooperate.