Scalia Replacement

[Henry Hawk]

Just to weigh in my thoughts (probably useless, but...)

It is the POTUS job to nominate another justice.  It doesn't mean he gets who he wants, but rather one that will satisfy the acting congress, whose job is to approve, so the POTUS can officially appoint.  It would behoove Obama, to pick someone who stands a chance in being approved.  If he is truly serious about quickly fulfilling the spot, he should ask McConnell and Ryan to give him a list of five people who they would pass.

Otherwise, WHY in the hell should the republican controlled house and senate pass someone, who leans left?

As I was once told on here after the 2006 election.........you lost;get over it.

The republicans are in control. Elections have consequences....We on the right are very well aware of this since 2006.

On the other hand, PH, you point out a possible consequence if the repubs lose the house or senate, along with the next election...it could be bad.

With that being said, I am tired of the accusations of the republicans being the party of NO.  Sadly, that is where politics is at now.  It was the same when Bush was in office and the dems gained control of the House and Senate........THEY were the party of NO.

It is up to the POTUS to become the leader and convince Americans, to urge their Senators and Congressmen to vote in favor of a given law or proposal.

Reagan and Clinton both were able to overcome opposing parties power by working with congress, instead of ridiculing them, telling them "They Can Ride With Us If They Want To, But They Got To Get In The Back Seat"...which Obama expressed in a speech in Philadelphia.  Telling his folks, if the republicans bring a knife to the fight, for them to bring a gun.

I'm not saying the republican party is innocent...I know they 'wanted him to fail'.....a quote by Rush Limbaugh that was used by the media left to exploit our congress.  ...

I'm getting off point.... ...sorry.

I'm anxious to see who Obama picks.  If he picks a very liberal judge, with the intention of knowing congress will not approve, so they can claim the right is stalling. 

Or if he picks a very admirable judge who has a moderate record of his decisions......then, he may have a case of stalling or perhaps actually pushing one through.........which I also want to remind everyone, that the last time a "lame duck" president pushed through a judicial nominee, was 80 years ago....so it would be unprecedented IF Obama isn't successful.

[Locutus]

Otherwise, WHY in the hell should the republican controlled house and senate pass someone, who leans left?

They're really rolling the dice on that one.  As PH duly noted, there is a very good chance the Senate will be in Democratic hands after the next election.  Couple that with a distinct possibility of Hillary in the White House (refer to the Blue Wall article), and the balance of the court could be altered for decades. 

If Obama nominates a centrist of some sort, then I think it would behoove the Republicans to at least have a vote on it.  Otherwise, they may very well end up having no say at all. 

[Purplelady1040]

I did read that every  or almost every Supreme Court Justice that has been appointed has been done by a lame duck President. Interesting.

[Henry Hawk]

They're really rolling the dice on that one.  As PH duly noted, there is a very good chance the Senate will be in Democratic hands after the next election.  Couple that with a distinct possibility of Hillary in the White House (refer to the Blue Wall article), and the balance of the court could be altered for decades. 

If Obama nominates a centrist of some sort, then I think it would behoove the Republicans to at least have a vote on it.  Otherwise, they may very well end up having no say at all. 

No argument here......it is politics at its finest. (or worst, who knows anymore  )

[Henry Hawk]

I did read that every  or almost every Supreme Court Justice that has been appointed has been done by a lame duck President. Interesting.

No president in recent memory has faced a Supreme Court vacancy that opened during his final year in office. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's current swing vote, took office during Ronald Reagan's final year in office. But Reagan had nominated him the previous November. He was Reagan's third choice -- after Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew from consideration. And the vacancy he was filling had opened the previous July.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scalia-supreme-court-vacancy-history_us_56bfaaf0e4b08ffac1258cec

Update:
The last justice to be confirmed in an election year to a vacancy that arose that year was Benjamin Cardozo -- confirmed in March 1932 to a vacancy that arose in January 1932.

[Exterminator]

Really?  So they're splitting hairs over 2 months?  As was previously mentioned, they'd better be careful what they ask for.  Not only are they playing with a political time bomb, if Hillary wins the general election and the Dems get control of the Senate, there is a very good possibility that Obama could end up with that seat on the court.

[Henry Hawk]

As was previously mentioned, they'd better be careful what they ask for.  Not only are they playing with a political time bomb, if Hillary wins the general election and the Dems get control of the Senate, there is a very good possibility that Obama could end up with that seat on the court.

I know, that has already been established.....

You know as well as I do, if it was reversed, and a republican POTUS, dem congress, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died..........it would be sandbag city.

They would say it should be up to the people to decide at the next election.....

[Palehorse]

Reading through todays postings on this topic a thought occurred to me. . .

Why wouldn't the POTUS go ahead and nominate someone that holds a judicial position on the constitution that mirrors his own? Because the GOP will say no? So what?!

Perhaps then Hillary WILL nominate HIM to the SCOTUS and he wouldn't have to go through all that job searching horse manure! 

[Y]

Ole' Hank's just been spouting more RW Noize Machine foolishness and lies he's been fed.

The truth be damned.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year.  The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election.  In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.   

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when  President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911.  The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916.  On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two.  Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican.  On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932.  A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell.  A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year.  But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956.  With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957.  The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.

And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court's liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year.  That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.

[Y]

Reagan and Clinton both were able to overcome opposing parties power by working with congress, instead of ridiculing them, telling them "They Can Ride With Us If They Want To, But They Got To Get In The Back Seat"...which Obama expressed in a speech in Philadelphia.  Telling his folks, if the republicans bring a knife to the fight, for them to bring a gun.

And more lies and misrepresentations Hank regurgitates from his handlers at Faux.

Again, truth be damned.

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201010310007

Republicans' appearances on the Sunday shows this Halloween were as predictable as any mediocre horror movie, with the lone "twist" coming from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on ABC's This Week. Cornyn lied about President Obama's stump speech, claiming that Obama wants to make Republicans "sit in the back of the bus." That's a Glenn Beck-inspired race-baiting twist on Obama's months-old metaphor about Republicans wanting the keys to the car after they drove it into a ditch, and Cornyn should know better.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/obama-guns-and-the-untouchables/

He indeed said it at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, but the quote may not "sound like Obama" because it was first uttered by Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" — a 1987 movie about Eliot Ness, a federal agent in Chicago who was credited with bringing down mobster Al Capone. Connery played Jim Malone, an honest, tough, Irish American cop recruited by Ness (played by Kevin Costner) to help deal with Chicago mobsters. Connery's character said this in the movie: "Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way!"

She also said this about the quote's context: "Obama made the comment in the context of warning donors that the general election campaign against McCain could get ugly."



    Chozick, June 13, 2008: He [Obama] warned that the general election campaign could get ugly. "They're going to try to scare people. They're going to try to say that 'that Obama is a scary guy,' " he said. A donor yelled out a deep accented "Don't give in!"

    "I won't but that sounded pretty scary. You're a tough guy," Obama said.

    "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said. "Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles fans."

[The Troll]

  Obama has to start replacing Scalia starting today, well maybe yesterday.     This is one we can't let the Republican control or pick his replacement.   

[Bo D]

IMPEACH THESE SOB'S!!! 

It is their Constitutional OBLIGATION!!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nomination-obama.html?_r=0

[Exterminator]

It is their Constitutional OBLIGATION!!!!!

They don't care.

[Henry Hawk]

IMPEACH THESE SOB'S!!! 

It is their Constitutional OBLIGATION!!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nomination-obama.html?_r=0

If they don't LIKE who he picks, it is THEIR OBLIGATION to NOT approve him/her.  Elections have consequences. 

I think they (the repubs) are rolling the dice.  If by chance, they lose control, or do not get the white house.....they still won't get their way.

btw....In 1992, Joe Biden had THIS opinion.....

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed," who was then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee...

Judiciary Committee - his committee - should "seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

You know damn well, if this was reversed the dems would be stalling too!

[Bo D]

If they don't LIKE who he picks, it is THEIR OBLIGATION to NOT approve him/her. 

True. But these SOB's have vowed not to take any action at all.

Article II, Section 2: "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court."

In other words, they have an obligation to vote on any replacement nominated. Period!