Debate: Republican contenders say no court nominee for Obama

[rooster59]

Debate: Republican contenders say no court nominee for Obama

JULIE PACE, Associated Press
WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press


GREENVILLE, South Carolina (AP) — Republican White House hopefuls called for President Barack Obama to step aside and allow his successor to nominate the next Supreme Court justice, in a debate jolted by Saturday's death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Only Jeb Bush said Obama had "every right" to nominate a justice during his final year in office. The former Florida governor said there should be "consensus orientation on that nomination" — but added that he didn't expect Obama would pick a candidate in that vein.

The five other candidates on the stage Saturday urged the Republican-led Senate to block any attempts by the president to get his third nominee on the court.

"It's up to Mitch McConnell and everybody else to stop it," Donald Trump said. "It's called delay, delay, delay."

Just six contenders took the debate stage in South Carolina, far from the long line of candidates who participated in earlier Republican events. Yet the Republican race remains deeply uncertain, with party elites still hoping that one of the more mainstream candidates will rise up to challenge Trump and Cruz. Many Republican leaders believe both would be unelectable in November.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton told a Democratic dinner in Denver that Obama has the right to nominate another justice. He "is president of the United States until Jan 20, 2017. That is a fact my friends, whether the Republicans like it or not."

"Let's get on with it," said Democrat Bernie Sanders, arguing that the Senate should vote on whoever Obama nominates.

Trump and Bush tangled in some of the night's most biting exchanges, highlighting the bad blood between the real estate mogul who leads the Republican field and the former Florida governor who was once expected to sail to the nomination. In a particularly heated confrontation, Trump accused Bush's brother — former President George W. Bush — of having lied to the public about the Iraq war.

"Obviously the war in Iraq was a big fat mistake," Trump said.

Bush, who has been among the most aggressive Republican candidates in taking on Trump, said that while he doesn't mind the real estate mogul criticizing him — "It's blood sport for him" — he is "sick and tired of him going after my family."

Trump was jeered lustily by the audience in a state where the Bush family is popular with Republicans. Former President George W. Bush plans to campaign with his brother in Charleston on Monday, making his first public foray into the 2016 race.

Candidates used Scalia's sudden death to raise the stakes for the general election.

Cruz cast the moment in stark terms, saying allowing another Obama nominee to be approved would amount to Republicans giving up control of the Supreme Court for a generation. An uncompromising conservative, Cruz urged voters to consider who among the Republican candidates would nominate the most ideologically pure justices.

Saturday's debate came one week before South Carolina's primary. Cruz and Trump emerged from the first two voting contests with a victory apiece and appear positioned to compete for a win in the first Southern primary.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich defended himself against attacks on his conservative credentials, particularly his decision to expand Medicaid in Ohio despite resistance from his Republican-led Legislature. Kasich argued that his decision was a good deal for the state in the long run.

Bush played the aggressor again, saying that Kasich's actions amounted to "expanding Obamacare" — a deeply unpopular concept among Republicans.

Sanders, a Senator from Vermont, spoke to reporters Saturday before flying to Colorado for a Democratic dinner at which both he and Clinton appeared. He used unusually blunt words to express frustration with his opponent.

"I am really stunned by some of the attacks we are getting from Secretary Clinton," he said. "Clearly they have been unraveled by the results in Iowa, by our victory in New Hampshire and the progress we are making all over this country."

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-01-14

[Scott]

A post with the aberrant spelling of a politician's name has been removed. Such comments are inflammatory and trolling.

[OMGImInPattaya]

It's gonna be tough with the Democrats having only 46 seats in the Senate. Obama will need 4 Republican votes...so look for a bland moderate nominee.

[brewsterbudgen]

Smart money here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan

[Pinot]

Thoroughly enjoyed that food fight at the insane asylum debate. A classic!

They'll eventually have to choose someone and thank Buddha, it won't be Anthony Scalia again

In a 5-4 decision Scalia went straight to hell

[lannarebirth]

Thoroughly enjoyed that food fight at the insane asylum debate. A classic!

They'll eventually have to choose someone and thank Buddha, it won't be Anthony Scalia again

In a 5-4 decision Scalia went straight to hell

This was my first Republican debate and I had it to turn it off after 5 minutes. Unwatchable IMO. Although that explains why fake wrestling and soap operas are so popular. Apparently there's an audience for that shit.

[Chicog]

13th Feb 2016: Mitch McConnell says: "“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.”

5th Feb 1988: Mitch McConnell approves Reagan nominee Anthony Kennedy as a Supreme Court justice.

Funny how it wasn't important when it was a Conservative nominee, eh?

Edited February 14, 2016 by Chicog

[Usernames]

13th Feb 2016: Mitch McConnel says: "“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.”

5th Feb 1988: Mitch McConnell approves Reagan nominee Anthony Kennedy as a Supreme Court justice.

Funny how it wasn't important when it was a Conservative nominee, eh?

The conservative nominee was originally Robert Bork, who was nominated after Powell resigned in JUNE 1987. The Bork nomination was defeated, and the second nomination, Ginsburg, withdrawn, which is why it took until FEBRUARY 1988 for the "moderate" Anthony Kennedy to be confirmed. So, perhaps the Senate will need to examine three nominations again before they decide to accept one???

[Jingthing]

The current presidential race was already VERY interesting (and entertaining) but now with this SCOTUS thingie it's all that on STEROIDS.

[willyumiii]

The only thing the republicans have done in the past seven years is obstruct everything they possibly could.

It is the party of do nothing, and stop everything you can from being accomplished.

They are pretty good at it, but they have failed to stop Obama from much of what he tried to accomplish.

I am sure the party of sore losers, racists, and geriatric brats will do their best to deny the democrats their right to appoint another Justice.

But if there is any justice, they will fail.

I think their efforts will just turn more reasonable Americans against the Republican party and their childish antics.

RIP GOP in 2016!

And don't let the door hit you on your way out!

Edited February 14, 2016 by willyumiii

[willyumiii]

Thoroughly enjoyed that food fight at the insane asylum debate. A classic!

They'll eventually have to choose someone and thank Buddha, it won't be Anthony Scalia again

In a 5-4 decision Scalia went straight to hell

This was my first Republican debate and I had it to turn it off after 5 minutes. Unwatchable IMO. Although that explains why fake wrestling and soap operas are so popular. Apparently there's an audience for that shit.

It is like the Democrat ans Republican debates come from different planets.

The Democratic debates consist of mature adults discussing important issues, like adults.

The Republican debates have been like a combination of a circus and a reality show on TV.

The GOP is killing itself.

[Usernames]

The only thing the republicans have done in the past seven years is obstruct everything they possibly could.

It is the party of do nothing, and stop everything you can from being accomplished.

They are pretty good at it, but they have failed to stop Obama from much of what he tried to accomplish.

I am sure the party of sore losers, racists, and geriatric brats will do their best to deny the democrats their right to appoint another Justice.

But if there is any justice, they will fail.

I think their efforts will just turn more reasonable Americans against the Republican party and their childish antics.

RIP GOP in 2016!

And don't let the door hit you on your way out!

Hysteria. Exaggeration.

[Publicus]

Republicans and other rightwhingers didn't even wait for a nominee to be named by President Obama. The Party of No Against Barack Obama simply confirmed the obvious, i.e., that they reject in the absolute anything and everything President Obama is or does.

This nattering negativism is already crystalising unsure voters and other voters who are not yet committed to either side to move toward voting for the Democrat in the general election. The Republican nabobs nattering their nonstop negativism have finally gone too far and are too far away from reason and good government.

The Constitution says the potus "shall" nominate a successor in the event of a judicial vacancy. With the advice and consent of the Senate. The Constitution absolutely does not say the Senate shall reject a nominee before a nominee becomes the nominee, whomever it may be until after an election and more than a year later.

President Obama has one-quarter of his second term remaining which is plenty of time and rightfully so. If a successor justice is not seated this year, it will not be until spring of next year that a new justice could be sworn and seated. This is not the American way.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Publicus

[sirineou]

Smart money here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan

"Smart money here?"

No question mark needed

[willyumiii]

Interesting...

Let's say the GOP does delay, delay, delay and Obama does not get to make the appointment he is entitled to make as President.

The next President, if a Democrat ,could and may appoint Obama as the next Justice.

Lawyer, Law Professor, former Senator and President, and willner of a Nobel Prize....

The man is qualified.

The Republicans are no where near a shoe in for the next Presidency and should be thinking about this.

Obama as a justice for life...

.

The GOP would just love that!

[NeverSure]

The next justice will be appointed by the new Republican POTUS and confirmed by the Republican majority Senate.

Get used to it.

Cheers.

[Jingthing]

The next justice will be appointed by the new Republican POTUS and confirmed by the Republican majority Senate.

Get used to it.

Cheers.

Sure thing, buster.

[chuckd]

The Democrats had full control of both Houses of Congress and the White House for the first two years of this Presidency.

What did they give the country?

Obamacare!

Maybe it's a good thing the Republicans have been obstructionists to avoid any repeats of that mess.

[up2u2]

The US Supreme Court is in desperate need of reform. An unbiased totally independent Judicial system is a key pillar of a functioning democracy. Partisan politics should never be a consideration. The only thing they consider is the rule of law. The mere mention of a Judge on the Supreme Court being politically motivated in a Judgement should see that Judge impeached and thrown off the Bench. A Federal Supreme Court should look more like an adversary to a ruling Government not a co conspirator. Another example of where American institutions simply have been corrupted.

Of course Republicans don't want another Judge appointed before the election they want to plant their own co-conspirator.

[NeverSure]

There have been more than 200 years of discussion, official debate, and rulings based on the Constitution. There are also other writings by the founders to refer to for information about what they intended.

Now the Democrats would like nothing more than to gerrymander the results they want when making decisions. Four of the members of the SC do exactly that. Decisions are often 5-4 in a partisan manner which is proof that "someone" is voting ideals instead of being strict constructionists.

If those Dems want to change the Constitution there is a proper process. Proper is not getting it twisted up by any Supreme Court.

Because the Senate has to confirm any new member of the SC, and because the Senate is majority Republican, I'll predict right here that Obama and his "progressives" will have a hell of a time getting any nominee confirmed by the Senate before Obama's term ends.

The people in the US have had it "up to here" with elitist leaders who think they know what's best for the people regardless of what the people or the Constitution says. This is evidenced by the rapid rise of Trump and Sanders. Many people and perhaps a majority want to throw out the career politicians who haven't kept a promise to the people in decades.

Obama has pissed a lot of people off with his "executive orders" and he'll have a hell of a time getting a SC nominee confirmed by the Senate.

Cheers.

[Ulysses G.]

Of course Republicans don't want another Judge appointed before the election they want to plant their own co-conspirator.

The democrats want someone to help them circumvent the constitution and Obama already has a record of doing that. They are so sure that Hillary Clinton will be elected - despite her many crimes - and she would nominate someone like Obama or Michael Moore. What are they worrying about?

Edited February 14, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[lannarebirth]

Of course Republicans don't want another Judge appointed before the election they want to plant their own co-conspirator.

The democrats want someone to help them circumvent the constitution and Obama already has a record of doing that. They are so sure that Hillary Clinton will be elected - despite her many crimes - and she would nominate someone like Obama or Michael Moore. What are they worrying about?

I expect the Republicans are only posturing, but with some really dangerous rhetoric, in order to send a shot across Obama's bow with respect to a nominee. Trying to pull his choice more to the center. If they pursue the "long game" you'll be hearing talk of senate impeachments for failure to do their sworn duty which will of course play right into the Democrats hands as Independent voters turn their backs on what the Republican party has become. Be careful what you wish for.

Edited February 14, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Ulysses G.]

Be careful what you wish for.

I am wishing for a judge that does not vote on an ideological basis. Since that is not going to happen, blocking a far left nut from getting on the court will have to do.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Be careful what you wish for.

I am wishing for a judge that does not vote on an ideological basis. Since that is not going to happen, blocking a far left nut from getting on the court will have to do.

Then nobody like Scalia then.

[Estrada]

The next justice will be appointed by the new Republican POTUS and confirmed by the Republican majority Senate.

Get used to it.

Cheers.

But you're Never Sure aren't you.

[kamahele]

13th Feb 2016: Mitch McConnel says: "“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.”

5th Feb 1988: Mitch McConnell approves Reagan nominee Anthony Kennedy as a Supreme Court justice.

Funny how it wasn't important when it was a Conservative nominee, eh?

The conservative nominee was originally Robert Bork, who was nominated after Powell resigned in JUNE 1987. The Bork nomination was defeated, and the second nomination, Ginsburg, withdrawn, which is why it took until FEBRUARY 1988 for the "moderate" Anthony Kennedy to be confirmed. So, perhaps the Senate will need to examine three nominations again before they decide to accept one???

So it was okay then because the first nominee was defeated but not okay now?

[AZBill]

13th Feb 2016: Mitch McConnell says: "“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.”

5th Feb 1988: Mitch McConnell approves Reagan nominee Anthony Kennedy as a Supreme Court justice.

Funny how it wasn't important when it was a Conservative nominee, eh?

1988 was the confirmation date. He was nominated much earlier in 1987. There's no parallel there.

[boomerangutang]

Thoroughly enjoyed that food fight at the insane asylum debate. A classic!

They'll eventually have to choose someone and thank Buddha, it won't be Anthony Scalia again

In a 5-4 decision Scalia went straight to hell

This was my first Republican debate and I had it to turn it off after 5 minutes. Unwatchable IMO. Although that explains why fake wrestling and soap operas are so popular. Apparently there's an audience for that shit.

It is like the Democrat ans Republican debates come from different planets.

The Democratic debates consist of mature adults discussing important issues, like adults.

The Republican debates have been like a combination of a circus and a reality show on TV.

The GOP is killing itself.

Good. Let's sit back and watch the show. It's better than a demolition derby.

The Democrats had full control of both Houses of Congress and the White House for the first two years of this Presidency.

What did they give the country?

Obamacare!

Maybe it's a good thing the Republicans have been obstructionists to avoid any repeats of that mess.

Obamacare may not be an ideal program, but it enabled a whole lot of Americans to get medical care who would not have ordinarily been able. Sanders will tweak it to be even better, with access to even more Americans (closer to reasonable programs working well in Europe, and NZ). Better yet, a Sanders initiative will bring down costs of drugs and hospital services. Currently, the US has the highest costs for drugs ww. That's one reason why so many Americans travel over to Canada and Mexico. If Reps get in power, they will do the opposite: they will try to limit the number of Americans who have access to affordable health care and will continue their chummy relations with Big Pharma to keep drug prices rising astronomically.

[chuckd]

The Democrats would certainly never make a threat to delay confirming a Supreme Court nomination.

Or would they?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

BLAKE NEFF

Reporter

12:55 PM 02/14/2016

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40CiHVHYm

The moral of this story?

Don't do as I do, do as I say do.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Of course Republicans don't want another Judge appointed before the election they want to plant their own co-conspirator.

The democrats want someone to help them circumvent the constitution and Obama already has a record of doing that. They are so sure that Hillary Clinton will be elected - despite her many crimes - and she would nominate someone like Obama or Michael Moore. What are they worrying about?

Hysteria. Exaggeration.