Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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!"

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

Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Kennedy!!!!

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Well then admit it!

Originally Posted by Guest

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.’”

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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

Originally Posted by Guest

Well then admit it!

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.

Originally Posted by Guest

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