Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas r

Superfreak said:
1) Yes... the Senate can indeed decide to not accept the nomination of the President. If they were required to accept the President's nomination, there would be no need to vote.

2) Yes, they have a duty to fill vacancies. But they do NOT have to vote yes to whomever the President nominates. It is called checks and balances.
Click to expand...
I think many GOP Senators, even in some very red States would be dealing with a significant amount of pressure and public back lash, not so much as holding up the confirmation of a SCOTUS nominee for up to year and possibly longer, but due to the back log in Judicial business that would have to be put on hold. Particularly if the candidate in question is highly qualified as a Jurist. Each Senator has his/her own constituencies to answer too.

It's not like the President is powerless here either, because as POTUS, he has the power to bring tremendous public pressure on the Senate. Something I'm sure many Senators would prefer not to have happen during an election cycle. I'm pretty sure that a lot of Senators and a few GOP Presidential candidate would see their odds at election/re-election materially diminish. That could bleed into the House too.

Now the GOP could come out with the propaganda mill but they know that if the candidate is highly qualified and they do not hold hearings or give the hearings and refuse to make a decision Obama can just hit the bully pulpit, explain why his candidate is highly qualified and paint the GOP as obstructionist. I'm sure that the GOP would prefer not to have that sort of public conversation during an election cycle.

Like it or not we all know that some of that mud would stick.

So I think a lot of people kinda think that about all Barry can do is nominate a qualified candidate and if the Senate decides to play politics with a qualified nominee than the President is well within his Constitutional Rights to take that conversation to the people. In other words Barry can, and probably will, play politics too.

In fact, given the way he's beat the GOP in most of his major political fights, he'll probably win this one too. Assuming that said nominee is qualified.

Now if he nominates Jarod...he'd be fucked.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
I think many GOP Senators, even in some very red States would be dealing with a significant amount of pressure and public back lash, not so much as holding up the confirmation of a SCOTUS nominee for up to year and possibly longer, but due to the back log in Judicial business that would have to be put on hold. Particularly if the candidate in question is highly qualified as a Jurist. Each Senator has his/her own constituencies to answer too.

It's not like the President is powerless here either, because as POTUS, he has the power to bring tremendous public pressure on the Senate. Something I'm sure many Senators would prefer not to have happen during an election cycle. I'm pretty sure that a lot of Senators and a few GOP Presidential candidate would see their odds at election/re-election materially diminish. That could bleed into the House too.

Now the GOP could come out with the propaganda mill but they know that if the candidate is highly qualified and they do not hold hearings or give the hearings and refuse to make a decision Obama can just hit the bully pulpit, explain why his candidate is highly qualified and paint the GOP as obstructionist.

Like it or not we all know that some of that mud would stick.

So I think a lot of people kinda think that about all Barry can do is nominate a qualified candidate and if the Senate decides to play politics with a qualified nominee than the President is well within his Constitutional Rights to take that conversation to the people. In other words Barry can, and probably will, play politics too.

In fact, given the way he's beat the GOP in most of his major political fights, he'll probably win this one too. Assuming that said nominee is qualified.

Now if he nominates Jarod...he'd be fucked.
Click to expand...

The Senate isn't required to confirm any nominee. From what I hear Democrats saying, they expect whomever he nominates to be confirmed because it's Obama.
 
CFM said:
The Senate isn't required to confirm any nominee. From what I hear Democrats saying, they expect whomever he nominates to be confirmed because it's Obama.
Click to expand...
No they are not. That doesn't mean they won't. If it comes down to playing politics the Senate does have the deciding say but that will come with a political cost. Barry has the political constituency to make that cost a very high one. He should. That's what the bully pulpit is for.

I don't think the Senate wants that fight with a sitting lame duck President just before an election. I think this is a fight that Barry will ultimately win. Barry has less to lose.

No I think Barry will nominate someone qualified, sensible and politically moderate. If Barry does that than his nominee will be confirmed....

...but if he nominates Jarod he's screwed.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think many GOP Senators, even in some very red States would be dealing with a significant amount of pressure and public back lash, not so much as holding up the confirmation of a SCOTUS nominee for up to year and possibly longer, but due to the back log in Judicial business that would have to be put on hold. Particularly if the candidate in question is highly qualified as a Jurist. Each Senator has his/her own constituencies to answer too.

It's not like the President is powerless here either, because as POTUS, he has the power to bring tremendous public pressure on the Senate. Something I'm sure many Senators would prefer not to have happen during an election cycle. I'm pretty sure that a lot of Senators and a few GOP Presidential candidate would see their odds at election/re-election materially diminish. That could bleed into the House too.

Now the GOP could come out with the propaganda mill but they know that if the candidate is highly qualified and they do not hold hearings or give the hearings and refuse to make a decision Obama can just hit the bully pulpit, explain why his candidate is highly qualified and paint the GOP as obstructionist. I'm sure that the GOP would prefer not to have that sort of public conversation during an election cycle.

Like it or not we all know that some of that mud would stick.

So I think a lot of people kinda think that about all Barry can do is nominate a qualified candidate and if the Senate decides to play politics with a qualified nominee than the President is well within his Constitutional Rights to take that conversation to the people. In other words Barry can, and probably will, play politics too.

In fact, given the way he's beat the GOP in most of his major political fights, he'll probably win this one too. Assuming that said nominee is qualified.

Now if he nominates Jarod...he'd be fucked.
Click to expand...

Why would there be a "back log in Judicial business that would have to be put on hold"; unless you're suggesting that they can't make decisions, when there are only 8 of them??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Why would there be a "back log in Judicial business that would have to be put on hold"; unless you're suggesting that they can't make decisions, when there are only 8 of them??
Click to expand...

Precisely! No appointee would hear anything before the court for the remainder of the year. Everything before the court will be heard by the 8 justices - period! Any tie would simply result in the lower courts decision being upheld.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Found this online:


Elena Kagan: 87 days (May 10, 2010, to Aug. 5, 2010)

Sonia Sotomayor: 66 days (June 1, 2009, to Aug. 6, 2009)

Samuel A. Alito Jr.: 82 days (Nov. 10, 2005, to Jan. 31, 2006)

John G. Roberts Jr.: 62 days (July 29, 2005, to Sept. 29, 2005)

Stephen Breyer: 73 days (May 17, 1994, to July 29, 1994)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 50 days (June 14, 1993, to August 3, 1993)

Clarence Thomas: 99 days (July 8, 1991, to Oct. 15, 1991)

David H. Souter: 69 days (July 25, 1990, to Oct. 2, 1990)

Anthony M. Kennedy: 65 days (Nov. 30, 1987, to Feb 3, 1988)

Antonin Scalia: 85 days (June 24, 1986, to Sept. 17, 1986)


The amount of time it took to confirm each judge.

Let's see partisan Republicans try and justify stonewalling for THREE HUNDRED FORTY-ONE DAYS..
Click to expand...

LOL. This list makes me laugh. Especially the Kennedy one.. Nobody in their party remembers Bork and that before Kennedy was put up Bork was there and that the seat was empty for quite some time because of the opposition. Biden one year previously notably stated he would support Bork then suddenly was opposed because his party didn't want that guy. This apparent belief that any party must rubber stamp any nominee is preposterous. After Bork he proposed Douglas Ginsburg who fell under fire because he used marijuana in the past, specifically after graduation from college. Finally Kennedy was nominated, and because he supported the one thing that Democrats wanted he was finally seated in February. Basically, holding off until after November 8th would leave that seat open for less time than it was after Lewis Powell left his seat vacant.

It's silly to pretend that the Democrats have always just rubber stamped the nomination of opposition party Presidents. It's truly absurd. Even Obama worked to filibuster Bush's appointees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top