Debate: Republican contenders say no court nominee for Obama

[Jingthing]

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

[wabothai]

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.

Well, they do vote though.

[keemapoot]

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

[Jingthing]

I think now or never for the recess option. The republicans will make sure no more recesses under Obama. No time for them to prevent the current one.

[Chicog]

Elizabeth Warren has summed up the latest example of Republican hypocrisy rather nicely:

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

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. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

[chuckd]

I think now or never for the recess option. The republicans will make sure no more recesses under Obama. No time for them to prevent the current one.

Senator Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro forma sessions to prevent GWB from making recess appointments during the last year of the Bush Presidency.

Both sides have done it.

[chuckd]

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

"2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office."

His last two weeks in office will be right after a new Congressional session has begun.

There will be no recesses during that period.

Edited February 15, 2016 by chuckd

[NeverSure]

Obama won't want "advice and consent" because he won't get the consent part. He thinks he's King of the US and emperor of the executive order.

People here aren't seeing that without the consent of the Senate, it isn't supposed to happen, even though they can quote the "consent" part. It just so happens that the people elected a Republican Senate.

Quicherbichin.

[keemapoot]

Obama won't want "advice and consent" because he won't get the consent part. He thinks he's King of the US and emperor of the executive order.

People here aren't seeing that without the consent of the Senate, it isn't supposed to happen, even though they can quote the "consent" part. It just so happens that the people elected a Republican Senate.

Quicherbichin.

Isn't there a tricky little bit in there somewhere about advice and consent "unless such consent is unreasonably withheld?" Is holding the process up one year "unreasonably withholding advice and consent?

[NeverSure]

Obama won't want "advice and consent" because he won't get the consent part. He thinks he's King of the US and emperor of the executive order.

People here aren't seeing that without the consent of the Senate, it isn't supposed to happen, even though they can quote the "consent" part. It just so happens that the people elected a Republican Senate.

Quicherbichin.

Isn't there a tricky little bit in there somewhere about advice and consent "unless such consent is unreasonably withheld?" Is holding the process up one year "unreasonably withholding advice and consent?

Not that I'm aware of. The Senate blew away a Supreme Court nominee named Bork creating a new word "Borked". "He was Borked". Bork was nominated by the Republican Pres, Ronald Reagan.

Obama's nominee if any just might be Borked.

Edited February 15, 2016 by NeverSure

[SpokaneAl]

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?

Actually not much has changed. The shoe is merely on the other foot.

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

[keemapoot]

Obama won't want "advice and consent" because he won't get the consent part. He thinks he's King of the US and emperor of the executive order.

People here aren't seeing that without the consent of the Senate, it isn't supposed to happen, even though they can quote the "consent" part. It just so happens that the people elected a Republican Senate.

Quicherbichin.

Isn't there a tricky little bit in there somewhere about advice and consent "unless such consent is unreasonably withheld?" Is holding the process up one year "unreasonably withholding advice and consent?

Not that I'm aware of. The Senate blew away a Supreme Court nominee named Bork creating a new word "Borked". "He was Borked". Bork was nominated by the Republican Pres, Ronald Reagan.

Obama's nominee if any will likely be Borked.

Admittedly, I haven't cracked a Constitutional Law casebook in over 30 years, and though there is no explicit requirement of reasonableness in Article II of the Constitution, I seem to recall this in some case or other. I'm sure one of our resident Constitutional experts will be along shortly to confirm or deny.

[SpokaneAl]

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

This is much, much more than a current political issue. The ramifications of who is chosen will affect Supreme Court decisions for decades, well past the lifetimes of many of us on this forum.

To accuse one side or the other with blocking a nominee or being unwilling to compromise on a nominee suggests that either side should ignore its core beliefs in the spirit of compromise.

That is really offensive in my opinion.

Edited February 15, 2016 by SpokaneAl

[Jingthing]

I think now or never for the recess option. The republicans will make sure no more recesses under Obama. No time for them to prevent the current one.

Senator Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro forma sessions to prevent GWB from making recess appointments during the last year of the Bush Presidency.

Both sides have done it.

I never denied that. Just saying Obama must act now or never if he wants to make a recess pick. He would have a good reason to do that if that's his choice.

[mopar71]

In a 5-4 decision Scalia went straight to hell

Very doubtful. Liberal SC Judge Ginsberg was one of his closest friends. I'm sure she knew him much better than any of the hateful posters here and elsewhere reveling in his death.

[Chicog]

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

This is much, much more than a current political issue. The ramifications of who is chosen will affect Supreme Court decisions for decades, well past the lifetimes of many of us on this forum.

To accuse one side or the other with blocking a nominee or being unwilling to compromise on a nominee suggests that either side should ignore its core beliefs in the spirit of compromise.

That is really offensive in my opinion.

But sadly also entirely feasible.

[IAMHERE]

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.

...

One persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist.

The Republicans have halted the Democrats liberal agenda to socialize America. Good that they are so good at what they do.

[lannarebirth]

Obama won't want "advice and consent" because he won't get the consent part. He thinks he's King of the US and emperor of the executive order.

People here aren't seeing that without the consent of the Senate, it isn't supposed to happen, even though they can quote the "consent" part. It just so happens that the people elected a Republican Senate.

Quicherbichin.

Isn't there a tricky little bit in there somewhere about advice and consent "unless such consent is unreasonably withheld?" Is holding the process up one year "unreasonably withholding advice and consent?

Not that I'm aware of. The Senate blew away a Supreme Court nominee named Bork creating a new word "Borked". "He was Borked". Bork was nominated by the Republican Pres, Ronald Reagan.

Obama's nominee if any will likely be Borked.

Admittedly, I haven't cracked a Constitutional Law casebook in over 30 years, and though there is no explicit requirement of reasonableness in Article II of the Constitution, I seem to recall this in some case or other. I'm sure one of our resident Constitutional experts will be along shortly to confirm or deny.

I don't think there is a requirement of reasonableness but they did swear an oath to faithfully discharge their duties.

[lannarebirth]

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

This is much, much more than a current political issue. The ramifications of who is chosen will affect Supreme Court decisions for decades, well past the lifetimes of many of us on this forum.

To accuse one side or the other with blocking a nominee or being unwilling to compromise on a nominee suggests that either side should ignore its core beliefs in the spirit of compromise.

That is really offensive in my opinion.

What does the Senate do I ask you, when Obama sends a nominee that the Senate approved several years previously 97-0 for an Appellate seat? What could the justification possibly be for withholding approval?

[Nobb]

If they nominate Obama for the Justice job what are his true reason to be nominated. Hilary Clinton his appointed Sec of State violated security by leaking high classified emails. Looks bad for him when he can not do justice and ignore her act of treason. You can talk the talk but drop out if you can not walk the walk Mr. Obama!

[Jingthing]

I'd love to see Obama on SCOTUS. Bring on Hill!

[SpokaneAl]

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

This is much, much more than a current political issue. The ramifications of who is chosen will affect Supreme Court decisions for decades, well past the lifetimes of many of us on this forum.

To accuse one side or the other with blocking a nominee or being unwilling to compromise on a nominee suggests that either side should ignore its core beliefs in the spirit of compromise.

That is really offensive in my opinion.

What does the Senate do I ask you, when Obama sends a nominee that the Senate approved several years previously 97-0 for an Appellate seat? What could the justification possibly be for withholding approval?

Because one group of senators voted one way years ago does not require current senators to vote the same.

[keemapoot]

Isn't there a tricky little bit in there somewhere about advice and consent "unless such consent is unreasonably withheld?" Is holding the process up one year "unreasonably withholding advice and consent?

Not that I'm aware of. The Senate blew away a Supreme Court nominee named Bork creating a new word "Borked". "He was Borked". Bork was nominated by the Republican Pres, Ronald Reagan.

Obama's nominee if any will likely be Borked.

Admittedly, I haven't cracked a Constitutional Law casebook in over 30 years, and though there is no explicit requirement of reasonableness in Article II of the Constitution, I seem to recall this in some case or other. I'm sure one of our resident Constitutional experts will be along shortly to confirm or deny.

I don't think there is a requirement of reasonableness but they did swear an oath to faithfully discharge their duties.

Indeed, whether the test is reasonableness or faithful discharge of duties, we are likely headed for eventually a Supreme Court case at the end of this to define exactly what are the duties of the Senate in these cases.

[lifeincnx]

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.

Much earlier? That is utter nonsense and constitutionally incorrect.

From nomination to confirmation, it took only 73 days for Justice Kennedy to sit on the bench. He was nominated on November 30, 1987, just 31 days before that year's end. The Senate confirmed him on February 3, 1988, and he received his commission eight days later. President Obama has ELEVEN MONTHS for the process to move forward.

FYI - at least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years.

[Chicog]

If they nominate Obama for the Justice job what are his true reason to be nominated. Hilary Clinton his appointed Sec of State violated security by leaking high classified emails. Looks bad for him when he can not do justice and ignore her act of treason. You can talk the talk but drop out if you can not walk the walk Mr. Obama!

What "high classified emails" has she "leaked"? I'd really like to see your evidence for that claim.

Now if you wanted to indict a President for Treason, I'd have started with Ronnie Reagan for Iran Contra and moved onto Bush Jr. for sending thousands of US troops to their deaths based on a lie.

[Berkshire]

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

This is much, much more than a current political issue. The ramifications of who is chosen will affect Supreme Court decisions for decades, well past the lifetimes of many of us on this forum.

To accuse one side or the other with blocking a nominee or being unwilling to compromise on a nominee suggests that either side should ignore its core beliefs in the spirit of compromise.

That is really offensive in my opinion.

What does the Senate do I ask you, when Obama sends a nominee that the Senate approved several years previously 97-0 for an Appellate seat? What could the justification possibly be for withholding approval?

There would be no justification, it would be purely politics and the American people will know it. The Republicans are on full display (again) with their obstructionist policy and partisan effort to prevent the President from doing his job. This has been going on for the better part of seven years, yet Obama has been able to get major legislation through. That will be his legacy, to be victorious over the do-nothing Republican Congress.

[stevenl]

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

This is much, much more than a current political issue. The ramifications of who is chosen will affect Supreme Court decisions for decades, well past the lifetimes of many of us on this forum.

To accuse one side or the other with blocking a nominee or being unwilling to compromise on a nominee suggests that either side should ignore its core beliefs in the spirit of compromise.

That is really offensive in my opinion.

What does the Senate do I ask you, when Obama sends a nominee that the Senate approved several years previously 97-0 for an Appellate seat? What could the justification possibly be for withholding approval?

There would be no justification, it would be purely politics and the American people will know it. The Republicans are on full display (again) with their obstructionist policy and partisan effort to prevent the President from doing his job. This has been going on for the better part of seven years, yet Obama has been able to get major legislation through. That will be his legacy, to be victorious over the do-nothing Republican Congress.

Unfortunately not a do-nothing Congress but an obstructionist congress.

[samran]

Old habits die hard it seems.

The GOP loonies and their fanboys think Obama only gets 3/5ths of a term.

[NeverSure]

Maybe Obama SHOULD do the recess appointment. Why would anyone even accept a regular nomination now knowing they were going to be jerked around by the republicans?

This really sets up some fantastic game theory scenarios:

1. Everyone knows the GOP will block any nominee, and any early nominee knows that so why would they go through the hassle and brain damage? Ans. Obama, Sanders & Clinton make a deal with the early nominee to take one for the team in return for a powerful cabinet appointment in the next administration.

2. At the same time, Obama, expecting blockage, will save the most liberal judge he can for the final play, which will be the recess appointment in his last 2 weeks in office.

Result: GOP has egg on its face, loses voters with obstructionism, and loses the Justice appointment with its worst horror as a new Justice.

On the other hand, the GOP has to be running games theory on this too, so should be interesting watching

This is much, much more than a current political issue. The ramifications of who is chosen will affect Supreme Court decisions for decades, well past the lifetimes of many of us on this forum.

To accuse one side or the other with blocking a nominee or being unwilling to compromise on a nominee suggests that either side should ignore its core beliefs in the spirit of compromise.

That is really offensive in my opinion.

What does the Senate do I ask you, when Obama sends a nominee that the Senate approved several years previously 97-0 for an Appellate seat? What could the justification possibly be for withholding approval?

Maybe he didn't do a good job. Maybe he was a big disappointment.

[Ulysses G.]

No maybes about it.