Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[belly-deep]

Anyone claiming to be in love with the Constitution should be upset with McConnell giving the sitting president the finger because anything you let your side "get away with" today will be used against you tomorrow.

What clause exactly is he violating?

 

[Excaliber]

Some of you crack me up. What do you want the Republicans to do? Should they let Obama appoint who ever he wants to the SC? If so you could likely be watching your 2nd amendment rights be overturned by a court dominated by liberals.

Is that worth fighting for? I'm sure it will go 5-4 in the other direction should Obama get his way.

They should have kept their mouth shut and went through the motions only to not confirm any of his appointments. Stealth is one thing they lack.

Why fight at all. Lets just give the country up right now without a fight. I'm pretty sure the Republicans will cave like they have on everything else.

 

[Big Fin]

Some of you crack me up. What do you want the Republicans to do? Should they let Obama appoint who ever he wants to the SC? If so you could likely be watching your 2nd amendment rights be overturned by a court dominated by liberals.

Is that worth fighting for? I'm sure it will go 5-4 in the other direction should Obama get his way.

They should have kept their mouth shut and went through the motions only to not confirm any of his appointments. Stealth is one thing they lack.

Why fight at all. Lets just give the country up right now without a fight. I'm pretty sure the Republicans will cave like they have on everything else.

It is a comment like that "cracks me up." Complete hypocrisy of some who think the Constitution only applies when the outcome will guarantee what they want.

Yes, I want Obama to appoint someone. I want him to follow the Constitution. Then I want Congress to vet that nominee and have a vote, either confirming or denying the nomination. I want them to follow the Constitution. How simple is that. Follow the damn Constitution.

I've deleted about 20 Facebook "friends" in the last few days who are always railing about the Constitution this and the Constitution that, but now they don't want the Constitution to be followed. It is not a Constitution of convenience. It is the document that many people take seriously and last I checked, all of them in DC have taken an oath to uphold.

For anyone to even suggest that any side should not fulfill their Constitutional duties to appoint, vet, and vote, is a joke. To expect the President and Congress to do what the Constitution requires is not a matter of "giving up" or "caving in." It is a matter of following the US Constitution, a fabulous declaration of free people that I think is pretty damn successful document, in spite of the slowness at which it moves in order to respect the rights and liberties of a population that is growing in size and diversity.

 

[shoots-straight]

Randy, I agree 100% with that post. I too have been vaporizing people on my social networks that are living the hypocritical lifestyle. No more!

 

[DeepCountry]

I want Obama to follow the Constitution too. But, has he? Especially when things aren't going his way? I have both an idealistic and a practical view of this, so I get it. But hell, if you really want to get real, non of this would matter as much as it does IF the whole damn bunch weren't overstepping their original Constitutional duties and powers so badly. And no Randy, I don't think our public lands should go under state control, and I'm not a truther.... I am an originalist, and want both sides to go back to that and leave us the hell alone.

 

[Nameless Range]

When I discipline my six year old daughter, so often she will, in her ever-so-whiny voice, say, "But Sheeee did it first.." Or "Daaad, her parents don't punish her this way..."

It is then that I remind her that I'm not talking to or about them. I am dealing with her behavior in this situation.

My daughter has mastered the format of 99% of American political conversations.

 

[belly-deep]

Can any of you constitutional scholars tell me where in the Constitution it says this has to be done by the next election?

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Can any of you constitutional scholars tell me where in the Constitution it says this has to be done by the next election?

There isn't, but I agree with Randy and those who say get with the program from both sides. Let him nominate his choice in due time, which is not a year from now after the elections. Then the Senate can have it's time and do what they are mandated by the Constitution to do on the nomination.

What I am really puzzled about is the fact that a higher up like Justice Scalia was is that no autopsy was performed when the owner of the ranch stated he found the Justice lying in bed with a pillow OVER his head. All that was done was put him in an ambulance for a trip back to DC and the ruling in Texas was that he died of natural causes without anyone to the best of my knowledge taking any look at him. It would seem like a minimal autopsy of at least blood being drawn and tested for substances that could kill and make it look like it was due to natural causes should have been done. All I heard through the media is that the family didn't want an autopsy, but a family usually has no say in something like this. Maybe I just watch too many episodes of Forensic Files on HLN, LOL!

 

[airlocksniffer]

It is a comment like that "cracks me up." Complete hypocrisy of some who think the Constitution only applies when the outcome will guarantee what they want.

Yes, I want Obama to appoint someone. I want him to follow the Constitution. Then I want Congress to vet that nominee and have a vote, either confirming or denying the nomination. I want them to follow the Constitution. How simple is that. Follow the damn Constitution.

I've deleted about 20 Facebook "friends" in the last few days who are always railing about the Constitution this and the Constitution that, but now they don't want the Constitution to be followed. It is not a Constitution of convenience. It is the document that many people take seriously and last I checked, all of them in DC have taken an oath to uphold.

For anyone to even suggest that any side should not fulfill their Constitutional duties to appoint, vet, and vote, is a joke. To expect the President and Congress to do what the Constitution requires is not a matter of "giving up" or "caving in." It is a matter of following the US Constitution, a fabulous declaration of free people that I think is pretty damn successful document, in spite of the slowness at which it moves in order to respect the rights and liberties of a population that is growing in size and diversity.

 

[belly-deep]

There isn't, but I agree with Randy and those who say get with the program from both sides.

Thanks Topgoon but I already knew the answer to the question.

The constitution that Randy and everyone else is urging them to follow doesn't specify, so their argument is baseless. Congress is allowed to make its own rules regarding how these things work. In essence, this process is "constitutional" because it is within the document.

This is politics at work, folks, and if you don't like it, don't pay attention. But rest assured, everything is "constitutional."

 

[mixedbag]

Both sides just play games.The Dems did it to Bush so this is how the repubs want to pay them back.They should have let him nominate and had hearings on the person.They are assuming another liberal justice,but you never know.

 

[dwm4375]

...his Constitutional Duties to hold the hearing...
...

Elections have consequences.

Nemont

The Constitution was written intentionally to set the Executive against the Legislative branch. The President is the commander in chief, but the Congress alone has the power to declare war and approve funds for the military. Congress alone may write laws, but the President has the power to veto them. The President has the sole authority to nominate, the Senate has the right to consent or not consent to the appointment. The Senate's right to withhold consent to the President's nominations is a brake on the power of the Executive branch, intentionally put there by the founding fathers who had lived under a king without such limitations.

Elections do have consequences. The people in 2008 and 2012 decided to make Barack Obama the President, but in 2010 and 2014 decided he had exceeded his mandate and elected additional Republicans to Congress to act as a check on his power. The people decided Obama would nominate the next USSC justice, and also that the R's could block that person if they so chose. Be thankful you live under a slow and inefficient system with checks and balances, the better to protect your rights from being swept away in a moment.

 

[have gun will travel]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/if-obamas-supreme-court-nominee-fails-dont-070045383.html

Interesting read.

 

[2ski]

Since when is american politics "going to battle" and "going to war"? That's the problem with politics. No one wants to compromise. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS AND WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER. We all have different values and backgrounds that influence how we see the world. These are not wrong or right. They are different. We are a melting pot.

Politics these days has morphed into name-calling and posturing. When posters here and other forums call the president "barack HUSSEIN obama" it shows this. If Obama was a R, what would have happened if the Dixie Chicks ran around saying the same thing? The respect shown Obama is on par sometimes with the disrespect that the Dixie chicks showed the office of President. The smartest thing the R's did in the last 8 years was to nickname the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. Everyone calls it Obamacare, and it carries such a negative connotation.

As far as the friendship between RBG and Scalia, that's nice to hear. They come from a different time in American politics. My grandfather was in politics in MT in the 70's and early 80's. He was a republican. Him, one of his opponents, and their wives would have dinner together. They didn't hate each other. I remember at one of my cousin's graduations, a Democrat at a top MT government position was giving the commencement speech. After the graduation was over, she sought my grandfather out to introduce herself to him(he had been out of politics for a few decades by this time). She was warm and friendly to him. No animosity. Wish we had more of that now.

 

[Nemont]

The Constitution was written intentionally to set the Executive against the Legislative branch. The President is the commander in chief, but the Congress alone has the power to declare war and approve funds for the military. Congress alone may write laws, but the President has the power to veto them. The President has the sole authority to nominate, the Senate has the right to consent or not consent to the appointment. The Senate's right to withhold consent to the President's nominations is a brake on the power of the Executive branch, intentionally put there by the founding fathers who had lived under a king without such limitations.

Elections do have consequences. The people in 2008 and 2012 decided to make Barack Obama the President, but in 2010 and 2014 decided he had exceeded his mandate and elected additional Republicans to Congress to act as a check on his power. The people decided Obama would nominate the next USSC justice, and also that the R's could block that person if they so chose. Be thankful you live under a slow and inefficient system with checks and balances, the better to protect your rights from being swept away in a moment.

Can you find anywhere in my post where I said the senate has to accept the nominee?

Trust me I am thankful every day that I live in the United States and that our Founder's saw fit that there is not a king.

They also wrote a document that States what is to happen.

Article II, Sect 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


So the Founders stated in the document that the President SHALL nominate a Supreme Court Justice. They didn't say that if it were an election year then don't do it, they didn't say that if it tips the balance of the court, they give to the Senate the Advice and Consent part. If the Senate doesn't like the nominee they have the right to refuse to confirm him or her. The Senate clearly have a duty to take up the nominee when the Founders added the "by" and "With" part of the the advice and consent sentence. The Senate can have vigorous debates and not have a vote to confirm, that is all in McConnell's Authority. What is idiotic is stating that the Nominee will not even be given a hearing. That ignores 240 years of how we have worked it prior and what not only the letter of the Constitution says but also the spirit.

Unless you believe that the Founders thought the words SHALL and WITH no longer apply when it is a Republican Senate and a Democrat in the White House.


Nemont

 

[Gr8bawana]

The Republicans are saying they will refuse any appointee made by Obama. They say we must wait until after the next presidential election. There are arguments on BOTH side that could be hurt by waiting and setting aside cases for probably a year is counter productive given the snails pace the supreme court moves at.
What makes the Republicans think they are going to win the next election? Especially given the pool of republican candidates. The screaming republicans say Obama is the worst president in history. Yet he was elected TWICE. So while YOU might hate Obama because he's a Democrat but most likely just because he is black, Apparently more voters than you think he is worthy of two terms.

 

[RobG]

I wanted to see how the Dems did similar things and found this article from The Federalist, who definitely have a right wing slant. This action of not even considering any nomination from a sitting president is quite a bit different than those examples, which seem mostly to be individual objections.

What is more disturbing to me is that someone did the math and decided it was more politically advantageous to be blatantly obstructionist that to pretend they have a functioning system. Are they really catering to their core voters?

I hope this blows up so badly they lose the Senate and we can overturn Citizens United and get candidates from both parties that are able to work for the people without fearing devastating attacks in their primary elections.

 

[have gun will travel]

Am I wrong or does the court still hear cases? And in the case of a tie the Chief Justice makes the decision? Or if there is a tie no change can take place. Untill the case can be heard with a full bench? Not sure exactly the process, but I'm pretty sure the government continues to operate during these times.

 

[mplane72]

Am I wrong or does the court still hear cases? And in the case of a tie the Chief Justice makes the decision? Or if there is a tie no change can take place. Untill the case can be heard with a full bench? Not sure exactly the process, but I'm pretty sure the government continues to operate during these times.

Pretty sure that in the event of a tie the lower courts ruling stands.

 

[pabearhunter]

The guy in the White House said it's his Constitutional duty to nominate someone in a timely manner to the Supreme Court. I also thought it is his Constitutional duty to make sure Federal laws were enforced.So why can he pick and chose which things he wants to do. I am speaking about Federal drug laws.