Political Wrinkles

Political Wrinkles (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/)
-   The Constitution & The Judicial Branch (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/constitution-judicial-branch/)
-   -   The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/constitution-judicial-branch/45942-gop-s-supreme-court-strategy-dicey-but.html)

mlurp 02-19-2016 06:21 PM

The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
I know the President can and should apoint a replacement

Quote:

The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But its potential payoff is massive.


Looking objectively at the impending Supreme Court confirmation battle between President Obama and Senate Republicans, it seems like at every turn, Republicans are put on the defensive. Almost all of the scenarios we envision playing out make life harder for Senate Republicans than for the president.

No matter whom Obama picks, anti-Obama sentiment on the right is so strong that Senate Republicans have no choice but to vote down ó or not even consider ó the nominee.

This gives Obama a few paths to go down that could make Republicans squirm. He could choose a groundbreaking liberal nominee who might rally the Democratic base to go to the polls in November, betting a Democratic president and Senate .............. Continue At Site .......................................
https://www.yahoo.com/

:wow sense I stopped using Yahoo they now seem to have all the news links on one site. :sad if true.

This bit of news is about 5 to 7 stories down from the top of Yahoo.

saltwn 02-19-2016 08:36 PM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
God save us from a trifecta, we'll all be wearing barrels.
i hear there's only 10 republicans remaining to win over.

mlurp 02-20-2016 10:20 AM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

I know the President can and should appoint a replacement
That Yahoo thingy made me forget what else I wanted to say. I want them to hold the POTUS pick up and wait till after the elections.

Because Obama would make his pick worst than Ginsberg is a Liberal and that would screw up the court big time.

:eek

saltwn 02-20-2016 02:08 PM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp (Post 803628)
That Yahoo thingy made me forget what else I wanted to say. I want them to hold the POTUS pick up and wait till after the elections.

Because Obama would make his pick worst than Ginsberg is a Liberal and that would screw up the court big time.

:eek

it is the president's constitutional duty to appoint when there is a vacancy in the court.
that doesnt mean the senate cant do whatever it wants...drag its feet, vote up or down :shrug
but they are afraid that will look to political so they wud rather bamboozle obama (sounds like a country song :p) into delaying. but a freakin year is too long.

300 H and H 02-20-2016 09:47 PM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn (Post 803661)
it is the president's constitutional duty to appoint when there is a vacancy in the court.
that doesnt mean the senate cant do whatever it wants...drag its feet, vote up or down :shrug
but they are afraid that will look to political so they wud rather bamboozle obama (sounds like a country song :p) into delaying. but a freakin year is too long.

The Senate hasn't let a lame duck President of either party select the candidate for SCOTUS in over 80 years... Either party.

I see NO reason to do it now. Besides, Obama has had 2 selections already, and judging by those we don't want another Latino or woman more on the court.

We'll get by until the ne+t President is seated, no matter who or what party is elected. We've been down this path before, several times. :wave

Regards, Kirk

Topcat 02-20-2016 10:03 PM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Obama wants Holder? That's the best he can come up with? :eek

saltwn 02-20-2016 10:04 PM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H (Post 803749)
The Senate hasn't let a lame duck President of either party select the candidate for SCOTUS in over 80 years... Either party.

I see NO reason to do it now. Besides, Obama has had 2 selections already, and judging by those we don't want another Latino or woman more on the court.

We'll get by until the ne+t President is seated, no matter who or what party is elected. We've been down this path before, several times. :wave

Regards, Kirk

It is not up to the Senate to allow the POTUS to nominate a supreme court judge.

their has not been one die in office in a lame duck session is where you are getting the 80 years meme from.
read the freaking constitution if you dont believe me. but the 80 year thing is not a precedent set by presidents refusing to do it; it a precedent of none of them had died in a lame duck /election year while in office. :thumbsup

saltwn 02-20-2016 10:09 PM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Topcat (Post 803754)
Obama wants Holder? That's the best he can come up with? :eek

not that I've seen. Obama's Supreme Court short list - POLITICO

Where did you hear that?

mlurp 02-21-2016 03:39 AM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H (Post 803749)
The Senate hasn't let a lame duck President of either party select the candidate for SCOTUS in over 80 years... Either party.

I see NO reason to do it now. Besides, Obama has had 2 selections already, and judging by those we don't want another Latino or woman more on the court.

We'll get by until the ne+t President is seated, no matter who or what party is elected. We've been down this path before, several times. :wave

Regards, Kirk

Kirk. the fact is 14 Presidents in their lame duck have done just that, elected to the S.C. a judge. In fact because Justice Scalia had died and a replacement is called for, it was R. Reagan who put him in his S.C. chair...

I to don't like this idea of another Liberal in this top court. Every Liberal with have an organism if it is done. But as great as he was with Constitutional law and as sorry as Obama is at it, to not allow the POTUS a qualified menber of society to be his choice is Un-Consititional.

So yes it is :sad and means further downward spiral of American law. Because the Liberals see this document as a living piece of paper, which of course it is not.
The intent of each line of the text should not be up to a mind 136 + years later.

AZRWinger 02-21-2016 09:06 AM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp (Post 803781)
Kirk. the fact is 14 Presidents in their lame duck have done just that, elected to the S.C. a judge. In fact because Justice Scalia had died and a replacement is called for, it was R. Reagan who put him in his S.C. chair...

I to don't like this idea of another Liberal in this top court. Every Liberal with have an organism if it is done. But as great as he was with Constitutional law and as sorry as Obama is at it, to not allow the POTUS a qualified menber of society to be his choice is Un-Consititional.

So yes it is :sad and means further downward spiral of American law. Because the Liberals see this document as a living piece of paper, which of course it is not.
The intent of each line of the text should not be up to a mind 136 + years later.

The 14 lame duck confirmations have been when the Senate and the President have been of the same party. As Obama filled with self importance, crowed after he shut down the Federal government, if Republicans want their way they first have to win elections. Well they did exactly that, taking a Senate majority in the 2014 midterms. Of course what Obama meant was "I won" so bow down before me.:rolls

There is nothing in the Constitution specifying the number of SCOTUS justices or setting a.schedule for Senate confirmation. FDR wanted to pack the court with justices sympathetic to his fascist new deal. The court doesnít stop when there is a vacancy on the bench. So all the howling about how the Senate has to move on Obama's nominee is just partisan bickering by Democrats. :thumbsup

ShivaTD 02-21-2016 09:25 AM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H (Post 803749)
The Senate hasn't let a lame duck President of either party select the candidate for SCOTUS in over 80 years... Either party.

I see NO reason to do it now. Besides, Obama has had 2 selections already, and judging by those we don't want another Latino or woman more on the court.

We'll get by until the ne+t President is seated, no matter who or what party is elected. We've been down this path before, several times. :wave

Regards, Kirk

From the sidelines, as a Libertarian, what I find interesting is that Republicans have repeatedly stated, "Obama isn't doing his job" and now they apparently don't believe that "Obama or Congress should do their job" as established by the US Constitution.

The Constitution is very explicit when it comes to filling vacancies on the Supreme Court but Republicans apparently don't believe they have any obligation when it come to either the President or the Congress in filling a vacancy.

Instead Republicans choose to take a political gamble that will cost them significantly because of the potential 4-4 split on Supreme Court decisions on already scheduled issues.

For Republicans to win they would have to win both the Presidency and retain control in the Senate and that's highly unlikely to happen. Because of the Electoral College held by Democrats the odds of the Republican candidate winning is less than 50% and with 24 of the 34 Senate seats up for election held by Republicans the odds of them retaining their four-seat advantage is very slim.

In all of this the fact is that the Constitution imposes an obligation upon both the President to fill the vacant seat left by Scalia's untimely death. Why do Republicans believe it's acceptable for them to ignore this Constitutionally imposed requirement on both the President and the Senate?

Since when should partisian politics ever take precedent over the US Constitution? "God" help America if Republicans have their way (which means were screwed because "God" has never helped America).

300 H and H 02-21-2016 10:14 AM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
If it were the other way around the Democrats would be doing the very same thing... :rolls :wave

IF the Senate chooses not to confirm anyone till after the election, they have my support.

Any one who thinks other wise can be left crying in their spilled milk... pun intended. :D

Regards, Kirk

AZRWinger 02-21-2016 10:25 AM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ShivaTD (Post 803808)
From the sidelines, as a Libertarian, what I find interesting is that Republicans have repeatedly stated, "Obama isn't doing his job" and now they apparently don't believe that "Obama or Congress should do their job" as established by the US Constitution.

The Constitution is very explicit when it comes to filling vacancies on the Supreme Court but Republicans apparently don't believe they have any obligation when it come to either the President or the Congress in filling a vacancy.

Instead Republicans choose to take a political gamble that will cost them significantly because of the potential 4-4 split on Supreme Court decisions on already scheduled issues.

For Republicans to win they would have to win both the Presidency and retain control in the Senate and that's highly unlikely to happen. Because of the Electoral College held by Democrats the odds of the Republican candidate winning is less than 50% and with 24 of the 34 Senate seats up for election held by Republicans the odds of them retaining their four-seat advantage is very slim.

In all of this the fact is that the Constitution imposes an obligation upon both the President to fill the vacant seat left by Scalia's untimely death. Why do Republicans believe it's acceptable for them to ignore this Constitutionally imposed requirement on both the President and the Senate?

Since when should partisian politics ever take precedent over the US Constitution? "God" help America if Republicans have their way (which means were screwed because "God" has never helped America).

There is no Constitutional mandate to fill SCOTUS vacancies. Senate Republicans are well within their Constitutional authority to delay confirmation until after the election. Neither is there a specification of the number of SCOTUS justices. It is not surprising that Obama has turned the SCOTUS into a political circus, it is typical whenever he doesn't get what he wants.:thumbsup

jimbo 02-21-2016 10:46 AM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ShivaTD (Post 803808)
From the sidelines, as a Libertarian, what I find interesting is that Republicans have repeatedly stated, "Obama isn't doing his job" and now they apparently don't believe that "Obama or Congress should do their job" as established by the US Constitution.

The Constitution is very explicit when it comes to filling vacancies on the Supreme Court but Republicans apparently don't believe they have any obligation when it come to either the President or the Congress in filling a vacancy.

Instead Republicans choose to take a political gamble that will cost them significantly because of the potential 4-4 split on Supreme Court decisions on already scheduled issues.

For Republicans to win they would have to win both the Presidency and retain control in the Senate and that's highly unlikely to happen. Because of the Electoral College held by Democrats the odds of the Republican candidate winning is less than 50% and with 24 of the 34 Senate seats up for election held by Republicans the odds of them retaining their four-seat advantage is very slim.

In all of this the fact is that the Constitution imposes an obligation upon both the President to fill the vacant seat left by Scalia's untimely death. Why do Republicans believe it's acceptable for them to ignore this Constitutionally imposed requirement on both the President and the Senate?

Since when should partisian politics ever take precedent over the US Constitution? "God" help America if Republicans have their way (which means were screwed because "God" has never helped America).

The Constitution is explicit that the President shall nominate a person to fill the vacancy. The Constitution also states that Congress has approval or rejection rights. Nowhere in the Constitution is any time limit on either imposed. SCOTUS can do just fine with something other than 9 judges, and has several times in the nation's history.

But again, the liberals use whatever suits the needs of the day. The current President has failed to meet the deadlines on submitting a budget several times. I've not seen any demand from the left to do so.

ShivaTD 02-21-2016 10:57 AM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H and H (Post 803817)
IF the Senate chooses not to confirm anyone till after the election, they have my support.

Regards, Kirk

in short you don't believe the President or the Senate should fulfill their Constitutional obligation to fill a vacany in the US Supreme Court.

Don't ever claim to support the US Constitution if that is your position.

mlurp 02-21-2016 11:43 AM

Re: The GOPís Supreme Court strategy is dicey. But
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger (Post 803806)
The 14 lame duck confirmations have been when the Senate and the President have been of the same party. As Obama filled with self importance, crowed after he shut down the Federal government, if Republicans want their way they first have to win elections. Well they did exactly that, taking a Senate majority in the 2014 midterms. Of course what Obama meant was "I won" so bow down before me.:rolls

There is nothing in the Constitution specifying the number of SCOTUS justices or setting a.schedule for Senate confirmation. FDR wanted to pack the court with justices sympathetic to his fascist new deal. The court doesnít stop when there is a vacancy on the bench. So all the howling about how the Senate has to move on Obama's nominee is just partisan bickering by Democrats. :thumbsup

well for sure as any other time the President picks from a qualified member of his party. That is part of this Political Game, right. I was addressing the fact that was said not one President in 80 years as a lame duck etc.

As for this second situation in bold reguardless, it is the President right to pick now as it is the Republican's right to hold it up till/IF tey win the W.H. come Nov/January 20th, 2017.

The 3rd in bold has to be the Dem's in this situation {reality takes hold} as why would any "R" bother to complain at this moment? :wave


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0