View Poll Results: Should Obama pick the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice, or wait for New President

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    23 85.19%
  • No

    4 14.81%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48

Thread: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died today at age 79

  1. #1
    You give Love..A BAD NAME
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Loveland
    Posts
    657

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died today at age 79

    Justice Scalia's death will trigger lengthy battle over replacement

    Quote Originally Posted by USAToday
    WASHINGTON — Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death will trigger a protracted battle over his replacement, one that may not end until 2017 after a new president is sworn into office.

    The Supreme Court is down to eight members and must move forward with a heavy caseload with that number. As such, the court is effectively deadlocked, with four liberals and four conservatives — although Justice Anthony Kennedy often sides with the left.

    That raises the stakes for the nation's conservatives — in Congress and prominent legal circles — to derail any nominee President Obama puts forward. Within minutes on Saturday, Republican lawmakers and conservative legal experts were demanding that the seat remain empty until the next president is elected.
    Who could replace Scalia? Here are 10 names

    Quote Originally Posted by USAToday
    WASHINGTON — Who could replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia if Republicans don't block all of President Obama's nominees, as appears likely? Here are 10 possibilities:

    Sri Srinivasan: The 48-year-old federal appeals court judge was confirmed unanimously in 2013 for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — a traditional stepping-stone to the Supreme Court. He would be the court's first Indian-American justice.


    USA TODAY
    Sri Srinivasan: Supreme Court justice in the making?

    Patricia Millett: Srinivasan's 52-year-old colleague on the D.C. Circuit is popular in both parties and is frequently mentioned as a possible candidate. She argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court as an advocate.

    Merrick Garland: At 63, Garland is older than most nominees, since presidents want their choices to stick around for decades on the bench. He is a moderate who serves as chief judge on the D.C. Circuit court and could be a compromise choice.

    Kamala Harris: California's attorney general, 51, could be another leading candidate. She has the added luster of holding political office, a life experience that is sorely lacking on the Supreme Court. She's currently running for the U.S. Senate seat of retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer.

    Deval Patrick: The former governor of Massachusetts, 59, is a close friend of the president who served in the Justice Department during President Bill Clinton's administration.

    Amy Klobuchar: If the Senate would be less inclined to block one of its own, the senior senator from Minnesota, 55, might be someone Obama would consider.

    Goodwin Liu: He was Obama's choice for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2010, but Republicans blocked his nomination, making him a less likely choice now. At 45, he sits on the California Supreme Court.

    Paul Watford: A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Watford, 48, is another Obama nominee with a potentially stellar future.

    Jane Kelly: She is a 51-year-old judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit who was a career public defender. From Iowa, she has enjoyed the prior support of Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    David Barron: He is a 48-year-old judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st District.

    ***DO YOUR JOB***

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sex Prison USA
    Posts
    268
    Of course Obama, as the current POTUS should nominate to fill the SCOTUS vacancy.

    At least GOP is being honest by saying no way instead of saying "we'll work with Obama to confirm a candidate reflective of what the American public wants" and then obstruct the nominee at every opportunity.

  3. #3
    Of course, indeed. In fact, Obama has a responsibility to do so. The math is pretty simple: Obama has 342 days left in his presidency, and on average it has taken 25 days to confirm, reject, or have the nominee's name withdrawn. It has never taken more than 125 days for a vote, and it has been nearly 30 years since a nominee has been rejected. There is plenty of time, and it could be disastrous to go an entire year with a vacant seat. The fact that Republicans (and perhaps many on this board) don't want another Obama appointee is understandable, and entirely beside the point in this case.

  4. #4
    Delightful and Voluptuous Lou Simone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    354
    Great day for humanity.
    What is gonna happend to Clarence, who's pocket dog is he gonna be now?

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Lou Simone View Post
    Great day for humanity.
    What is gonna happend to Clarence, who's pocket dog is he gonna be now?
    Ouch!!! Be nice to Clarence, he's in mourning....probably trying to get in touch with Anita Hill for some grief counseling :-)

  6. #6
    The question asks 2 questions??? Im sure hell try hopefully the house and senate block it

  7. #7
    Delightful and Voluptuous Lou Simone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    354
    Why do you even ask the question? Why wouldn't Obama appoint a new judge? To my knowledge he is still the President and has plenty of time to do so. No Republican or Tea party (you know, those people who vote year after year against there own interest) would ask that question if it was one of them who was in power now.

    Hey Dbiz, if you happend to know Ruth, can you tell her I am free to be her new companion for opera night, I am very good company, she won't miss Tony once she knows me!

  8. #8
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Lou Simone View Post
    Why do you even ask the question? Why wouldn't Obama appoint a new judge? To my knowledge he is still the President and has plenty of time to do so. No Republican or Tea party (you know, those people who vote year after year against there own interest) would ask that question if it was one of them who was in power now.
    Exactly. As for the nutty Republicans and their beloved Tea party, they'll do whatever their billionaire donors and the Koch brothers will tell them to do. I've never seen a political party as owned by billionaires and special interest groups like this version of the Republican party.

    The damage they've done to the country over the past 16 years will hurt the country for decades!

    "Hey Republicans, win a Presidential election for once! This way, you'll get to decide who gets on the Supreme Court. That's all you have to do in order to get another crazy right-winger on the Court!"

  9. #9
    Delightful and Voluptuous Lou Simone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    354
    Hey Monsieur Holliday, I am celebrating Scalia's death, why do you remind me that the Kosh brothers are still around!! Yark.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Lou Simone View Post
    Why do you even ask the question? Why wouldn't Obama appoint a new judge? To my knowledge he is still the President and has plenty of time to do so. No Republican or Tea party (you know, those people who vote year after year against there own interest) would ask that question if it was one of them who was in power now.

    Hey Dbiz, if you happend to know Ruth, can you tell her I am free to be her new companion for opera night, I am very good company, she won't miss Tony once she knows me!
    That would be an interesting encounter. Let me know if it happens...I might pay to watch that

  11. #11
    I wonder if he insulted people in private life as much as he did in public life.

    If so, it is going to be interesting to find out who was in his hunting party. The ones that apparently went hunting that morning without checking to see if he was okay - after he went to bed early the night before after saying he did not feel well.

    It might be kind of like a Seinfeld episode. After years of the hunting party being insulted by him - the guys can't get one bird out of a whole flock with a shotgun, the dogs couldn't manage to sniff out a buffalo in the middle of the plains - and with maybe a couple of closeted gay or bisexual guys in the group to boot, they finally decide to be rude and just leave that morning. Then they get a call on their cell phones in the afternoon while having a great hunt with lots of kills ... Uhh, sorry housekeeping found your hunting companion dead.

  12. #12
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,825
    I laugh out loud when i hear the Republicans crapping all over their appointee John Roberts. Look, there are only two times when he ruled against their interests & political agenda and he actually got it right. The way their acting, he's become a big-time liberal and has never voted in their favor ever since his nomination. Hillarious!!!

    By the way, Trump was 100% correct in that debate last night. George W. Bush WAS responsible for 9/11 and did NOT keep the country safe!! He's a war criminal!!! And Ted Cruz is the biggest liar he's met!!! Great debate!!!!

    Heck, if Trump promised to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes, i think he'd actually have a great shot at becoming the next POTUS!!!

  13. #13
    A poor corrupt official
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Casablanca
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by cpp433 View Post
    The question asks 2 questions??? Im sure hell try hopefully the house and senate block it
    The House of Representatives has nothing to do with the process. A new justice must be confirmed only by a majority vote of the Senate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lou Simone View Post
    Why wouldn't Obama appoint a new judge? To my knowledge he is still the President and has plenty of time to do so.
    Obama will nominate someone and that someone will certainly be a very liberal judge. However, the Senate must confirm the nominee by a majority vote. in the current Congress , the Republicans hold a 54-46 majority over Democrats (including the two "independents" who always vote with the Democrats). It is inconceivable that with only 8 months to go until the next presidential election, 5 Republicans would vote with the Democrats to confirm the kind of liberal judge that Obama will nominate. If they did, they would signing their own death warrants for the next time they are up for election. Nevertheless, Obama will go ahead and nominate someone but there is no chance his nominee will be confirmed. Stay tuned until 2017.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Holliday View Post
    "Hey Republicans, win a Presidential election for once! This way, you'll get to decide who gets on the Supreme Court...
    Since the end of WWII, Democrats have won 8 presidential elections (with a total of 6 presidents) and Republicans have won 9 presidential elections (with a total of 5 presidents). The current SC has a balance of liberal and conservative judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans with a swing judge in the middle. Looking at those numbers, I would say that the Republicans have won their fair share of elections.
    Strasser: By the way, the murder of the couriers, what has been done?
    Renault: Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.
    Heinze: We already know who the murderer is.
    Strasser: Good. Is he in custody?
    Renault: Oh, there's no hurry. Tonight he'll be at Rick's. Everybody comes to Rick's.

  14. #14
    CaptRenault's analysis is spot on.

    From my perspective, I imagine that Obama is a pretty cool guy behind the scenes and I wonder who it is, probably Michelle, who has to yell at him to wipe that fucking smile off of your face when you go out there and express condolences.

    This is a gift to the Democrats. Two of the most qualified moderate candidates (who lean just a little bit to the left) were unanimously approved by the Senate for their current positions. The Republicans will look petty by blocking them. Although I would hate to be those people, because their lives will be scrutinized for anything that was missed in the earlier vetting process that would provide a reason for them to be rejected for the highest judicial post.

    If a blocking occurs, and the Presidential election is largely about filling that Supreme Court position, the majority of Americans are slightly left of center when it comes to Court decisions, so the Democrats will have an advantage. So the Republicans would prefer the election to be about fiscal and national security issues, where the majority of voters are slightly right of the center.

    But if no blocking occurs, the Republicans are stuck with confirming a moderate judge to replace a very conservative judge.

    The other wildcard of blocking a nominee is that it makes the Republicans look like they are creating dysfunctional government, and that becomes even worse if another old buzzard on the Court drops dead in the next year, which statistically could well happen. But I guess that would make it an even number (7 instead of 8).

    I can't see a scenario in which this does not help the Democrats in the Presidential election.

  15. #15
    A poor corrupt official
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Casablanca
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Lou Simone View Post
    Hey Monsieur Holliday, I am celebrating Scalia's death...
    I'm always amused when I see Canadians express such strong feelings of hatred (and sometimes love) towards American politicians and other leaders. They seem much more interested in American political and other leaders than in their own. There are more threads on MERB about Obama and Bush (the former president, not the female pubic hair ) than there are about Trudeau and Harper. Are Canadian political affairs really that boring?

    On the other hand, though most Americans have a favorable opinion about Canada and Canadians, they care little about what happens in the Great White North and could not tell you who is the current prime minister of Canada. Despite Justin's famous and highly accomplished father, the former drama teacher's last name is recognizable only to some hardcore left-wingers in the U.S. Most Americans do not know and do not care that Canada even has a Supreme Court. Very few Americans could recognize the name of even one member of the Canadian SC. Americans would be surprised to learn that Canada's head of state is Queen Elizabeth!

    There is a strange imbalance between the two countries when it comes to the different levels of interest that the people of each country have in the leaders and political affairs of its neighboring country.
    Strasser: By the way, the murder of the couriers, what has been done?
    Renault: Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.
    Heinze: We already know who the murderer is.
    Strasser: Good. Is he in custody?
    Renault: Oh, there's no hurry. Tonight he'll be at Rick's. Everybody comes to Rick's.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •