Of course they're "digging in for a fight", and why is that presented as though it were a surprise of some sort? EVERYTHING in this country has turned into a big fight. On the one side we have the GOP and the forces of evil and darkness that want to LIMIT our freedoms and on the other we have everyone else. I'd like to think that waiting until after the next election would be a good thing in that those that are most sinister would be thrown from office by the good will of the American people but then again they WERE elected in the first place, weren't they? I doubt that the next election will being the forces of good back into a majority in the Senate and certainly won't provide 60 votes to prevent a filibuster and so therefore we have deadlock. Better to keep the seat permanently empty, however, than to ever accede to replacing Scalia with someone as destructive as he turned out to be ~ leave the seat empty until it can be filled by someone who CARES about "Equal Justice Under Law."
2
Is today President's Day, or did it get postponed until after the election?
3
The people 'weighed in' when they elected & re-elected Barack Obama.
The 'weighed in' argument would have far more strength if the seat opened up on -or after - Labour Day when the candidates are nominated, in full campaign mode & their party platforms are established.
Lastly, the not so small matter of the workload to be carried by the reduced b# of justices is another real problem the Senate Republicans are overlooking...
The 'weighed in' argument would have far more strength if the seat opened up on -or after - Labour Day when the candidates are nominated, in full campaign mode & their party platforms are established.
Lastly, the not so small matter of the workload to be carried by the reduced b# of justices is another real problem the Senate Republicans are overlooking...
3
Republicans have been blocking for 8 years. Nothing new here.
What jurist of renown will play the football in this political scrimmage? Anyone?
1
Talk about poetic justice. with all due respect to the late Justice Scalia. Republicans have obstructed and opposed, belittle, and racially abused this president for seven whole years. And what has he done? For the most part he has been the embodiment of civility and humility, though he has cleverly laid his own hefty blows!!!
And what happens when he's about to finish he's last term?! He gets to appoint an extra Supreme Court justice and swing the court, and rub it into them on his way out!!!!
Not even Hollywood could have come up with that script!! Lord forbid he gets to nominate even another one, to replace another conservative!!
That would be the mother of all ironies!!!!
And what happens when he's about to finish he's last term?! He gets to appoint an extra Supreme Court justice and swing the court, and rub it into them on his way out!!!!
Not even Hollywood could have come up with that script!! Lord forbid he gets to nominate even another one, to replace another conservative!!
That would be the mother of all ironies!!!!
2
I took a course in constitutional law over 30 years ago. I remember -- with fondness -- that I used to think of Supreme Court justices as non-political. Maybe I was just young and naive, but I know I've lost something. Now I see the justices as being first and foremost Republican or Democratic. Every bit as political as elected officials.
End { digression }. Back to the politics of selecting -- or not selecting -- Scalia's replacement.
End { digression }. Back to the politics of selecting -- or not selecting -- Scalia's replacement.
The Republicans, again, are showing they care more about getting THEIR WAY instead of responsibly governing, like 4 year olds. Pathetic.
2
Frankly, it would probably serve us all well if many of the ideologues who vent their spleen against their fellow Americans in their comments to this editorial as well as in other pieces relating to the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia would take the time to check the Court's record.
For example, during the 2014 Term the Court released 74 merits opinions. This is how the things went: Thirty cases were unanimous 9-0 decisions and 19 cases were 5-4 decisions; but only 15 of the 5-4 decisions were swing-vote splits between the so-called “liberal” and “conservative” justices, defined by the political party of the President who appointed them.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote in 13 cases. In eight cases, Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, sided with the bloc of justices appointed by a Democratic president, viz: Justices Ginsburg (Clinton), Breyer (Clinton), Sotomayor ( Obama), and Kagan ( Obama).
In five cases, Kennedy sided with the justices appointed by a Republican President: Chief Justice Roberts ( George W. Bush) and Justices Scalia ( Reagan), Thomas (George H.W. Bush) and Alito (George W. Bush). And in two others cases, Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts were the swing voters, siding with the liberal bloc of Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
I respect other views, but please tell me, is it somehow essential that the Court rubber stamp every "progressive" demand in order to quell the vitriol?
For example, during the 2014 Term the Court released 74 merits opinions. This is how the things went: Thirty cases were unanimous 9-0 decisions and 19 cases were 5-4 decisions; but only 15 of the 5-4 decisions were swing-vote splits between the so-called “liberal” and “conservative” justices, defined by the political party of the President who appointed them.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote in 13 cases. In eight cases, Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, sided with the bloc of justices appointed by a Democratic president, viz: Justices Ginsburg (Clinton), Breyer (Clinton), Sotomayor ( Obama), and Kagan ( Obama).
In five cases, Kennedy sided with the justices appointed by a Republican President: Chief Justice Roberts ( George W. Bush) and Justices Scalia ( Reagan), Thomas (George H.W. Bush) and Alito (George W. Bush). And in two others cases, Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts were the swing voters, siding with the liberal bloc of Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
I respect other views, but please tell me, is it somehow essential that the Court rubber stamp every "progressive" demand in order to quell the vitriol?
I have no doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot the same reaction would occur. Democrats threatening a lame duck Republican president not to announce a replacement until after the election. I'm amused by the fact that everyone is acting like this is a total surprise ....a sitting president is stonewalled in their nomination if there is the slightest chance the other party could have a crack at it.
On another note....it seems odd that Supreme Court Justice Scalis's death is not going to be investigated. Everyone seems satisfied..without an autopsy....that it was a natural death. How can they be sure? Especially with all the ramifications of his demise. I am not a conspiracy nut....just seems very odd.
On another note....it seems odd that Supreme Court Justice Scalis's death is not going to be investigated. Everyone seems satisfied..without an autopsy....that it was a natural death. How can they be sure? Especially with all the ramifications of his demise. I am not a conspiracy nut....just seems very odd.
1
@ Elenaore Whitaker--it is liberal derision for "Mutton Chops and Corn Pones" that alienates many average Americans, not just the corn pones themselves. Apparently if you do not live in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut or California you live in flyover country and need to be told what is in your best interests. It is this very derisive attitude and the accompanying collective sneer that keeps Democrats from doing better in off election years. i.e. the public is so stupid and I hate them so much, why won't they vote for me?
1
Gallup polls for January 2016 - President Obama's approval rating - 47% Congress approval rating 16%. The people have spoken.
2
Obama should appoint himself during the Senate recess. Biden will become president, and let the games begin!
I'm still trying to figure out the deadline that GOP Senators say a lame duck President like Obama has to meet to be entitled to nominate someone to the Supreme Court.
Was it on January 19, 2016--when he still had 1 year + 1 day left in office?
Was it on December 31, 2015--the last day before the 2016 election year started?
Was it before the 2016 Presidential campaign began--May 1, 2015?
Was it before the 2014 mid-term election--November 4, 2014?
Can anyone enlighten me?
Was it on January 19, 2016--when he still had 1 year + 1 day left in office?
Was it on December 31, 2015--the last day before the 2016 election year started?
Was it before the 2016 Presidential campaign began--May 1, 2015?
Was it before the 2014 mid-term election--November 4, 2014?
Can anyone enlighten me?
1
Talk, talk, talk; it matters not. Now is the time for every moderate, every liberal, and every Democrat to buy a gun and stock up on ammo.
This reminds me of what my father would say to peevish children: "Even if it was good, you wouldn't like it."
2
Some people are elected to try to make the country better, and others...well, let' see:
McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
2
Why not let President Obama appoint a new Supreme Court Justice and wait until we replace this lame duck Senate next year to confirm the appointment?
Just then you think the GOP can't sink any lower or become more irresponsible, they do. The laws are only for the democrats ind illegal immigrants to follow. Republicans could care less about our Constitution.
1
Next, McConnell will promise to shut down the government if the President dares to nominate someone. That oughta fire up The Base.
1
Are we to believe that if Mitt Romney won the 2012 election and was running for re-election in 2016, and Scalia had died, that the Republican senators would be telling him--"Sorry, Mitt. We won't act on a Supreme Court nomination from you until after the Presidential election is over and the new Senate is seated on January 3, 2017. Even though there is a risk that the election might result in you being defeated and the Democrats gaining control of the Presidency and Senate."
Does anyone believe that would happen?
Does anyone believe that would happen?
2
Why are progressive NYT commentators so eager to have Obama make an immediate SC nomination? Any candidate with a prayer of confirmation, will need to be pretty conservative. Wouldn't it be much better to wait until the Democrats regain control of the Senate?
the word and concept of "republicans" has become a "dirty" word. the shameful behavior of congress is the most obvious of the many reasons. truly, have they absolutely not one active and open brain cell that can comprehend beyond their fear and ignorance? appalling.
The question for McConnell: Will he pledge in return that all sitting Republican senators will refrain from voting in the last years of their respective terms?
If so the bargain might be worth considering.
If so the bargain might be worth considering.
Re the voters also spoke by electing a majority Republican Senate after electing a Democratic President: only 1/3 of the Senate is up for reelection in any given year. The President is elected by all the people.
1
I used to be a registered Republican. Some years ago I changed to registered Independent. Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republicans who are threatening to deny our current President his right to put forth a nominee to replace Justice Scalia only reinforce my disgust for the Republican Party and their obstructionist tactics.
The people of this country elected Barack Obama not once, but twice and it is his responsibility to nominate someone to fill Justice Scalia's seat on the court. And it is the responsibility of the United States Senate to confirm the appointment. I only hope that American voters are watching and taking note and then send the Republican Senators packing.
The people of this country elected Barack Obama not once, but twice and it is his responsibility to nominate someone to fill Justice Scalia's seat on the court. And it is the responsibility of the United States Senate to confirm the appointment. I only hope that American voters are watching and taking note and then send the Republican Senators packing.
1
In his death, Scalia has proven to be a Godsend for Democrats. First of all, the Republican presidential clown car is about to go off a cliff, Donald Trump behind the wheel. His performance on the Republican's version of "SNL" could have competed with the actual program. Trump has hosted both and pulled out all the stops, calling just about everybody there a liar, including someone who wasn't, the brother and former president of one of the candidates whose name ends in an exclamation point. Could it get much worse for the GOP?
Yes, it can. On the same day in fact conservative Republicans lost a hero of theirs, probably second only to Ronald Reagan. But before the body of Antonin Scalia was cold, the cold calculating Canadian carpet bomber was declaring war, proclaiming he would once again man-up, put on his adult diapers, and commandeer a one-man filibuster on anyone President Obama nominated to fill Scalia's vacancy. This was followed by Mitch The Turtle coming out of his shell to climb upon the Obstructionist bandwagon along with a motley assortment of Senators all aflutter about some hogwash which translated into some made-up precedent ruling that a lame-duck president in his final year not being able to nominate anyone for anything.
2016 should be a banner year for the GOP. By its end Republicans will not only have killed any chances of their candidate becoming president, they will have lost the majority in the Senate. Now that's an accomplishment.
DD
Manhattan
Yes, it can. On the same day in fact conservative Republicans lost a hero of theirs, probably second only to Ronald Reagan. But before the body of Antonin Scalia was cold, the cold calculating Canadian carpet bomber was declaring war, proclaiming he would once again man-up, put on his adult diapers, and commandeer a one-man filibuster on anyone President Obama nominated to fill Scalia's vacancy. This was followed by Mitch The Turtle coming out of his shell to climb upon the Obstructionist bandwagon along with a motley assortment of Senators all aflutter about some hogwash which translated into some made-up precedent ruling that a lame-duck president in his final year not being able to nominate anyone for anything.
2016 should be a banner year for the GOP. By its end Republicans will not only have killed any chances of their candidate becoming president, they will have lost the majority in the Senate. Now that's an accomplishment.
DD
Manhattan
4
I must add: Having read and analyzed the Major Supreme Court Cases when I was attending the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (I graduated from there in 1997), I must say - that such high degree of intelligent decisions, made by those Supreme Court Justices, all of which I agree with, with one exception being that I agreed with Justice Brennan on the issue of Human Rights in the Case involving the young boy, a "Substantive Due Process issue" of the 14th Amendment of the Bill of Rights delineated in the Constitution of the United States of America. On that issue, I hope that the light of the truth that Justice Brennan shed on that issue, that is, the need for Human Rights to be not left out when Justices make their decisions, being cognizant of the fact that people do have the Right to Human Rights which must be upheld by all people in all decisions made by all people. Continued...
We have Laws to stop crime. "Crime" is another word being manipulated to serve the self interest of those in positions of power who are manipulating the American people, and their cohorts, at the expense of Justice, Liberty, and Freedom. Such are the tactics of those who aspire to Authoritarianism , Dictatorship, and Totalitarianism. Many crimes involve physical and/or emotional harm to another person. Such crimes are crimes because they are not in the best interest of anyone; rather, they are detrimental, harmful to all people. Thus, they are a hindrance to the Security of the Nation, to the Country, to the people, to all our existence here in our Universe. When one tries to impose one's devious will upon another, it is then that harm is done. For Justice to prevail, we need Laws to protect against such harm, and we need virtuous Official in positions of authority to ensure that the Rights of the person are upheld. Only some soul searching and appropriate behavior on the part of each and every individual can help at this moment in time. I ask each and every one of you to do that, to search your soul and strive to do what is right, rather than what is wrong. Humans need to restore humanity to it's true place, the place to where humanity truly is humane. Make decisions that include the rights of human beings, Human Rights. Debra J. (Bonner) Nester, B.A., "Distinguished Academic Achievement in Psychology" and "Distinguished Academic Achievement in National Security."
From history reading, I was amazed at how the ante bellum south could protect itself by loading the Supreme Court with pro slavery justices - always thought it stupid of slave class to go to war when they had the Supreme Court in their pocket. Now I read President Obama may take pro-corporate judge. To me, though it's not quite morally the same, the legal protection of the corporation is to people like Mr. McConnell what the protection of slavery was to the representatives of the slave-owning class back then; they are now terrified they could lose a pro-corporate majority on the Supreme Court. Decisions making legal corporate money in campaigns (protected as free speech!), making corporations legal persons, the misinterpretation of the second amendment in favor of weapons companies, etc. - a Supreme Court that does things like that is what is at stake. What I dislike about the Supreme Court is that it is a blatantly political power without any restraints other than their powers of creative interpretation. What a fiction, that the Supreme Court just interprets law! It defines policy parameters and protects (or not) the powers that be, for good and ill. Mostly for ill these days.
I recall FDR, when Republicans went on a tirade against Social Security, President Roosevelt responded. "I welcome their hate." So should President Obama.
In August '74, another president, a study in self-hate, Richard Nixon, on the day he resigned, finally seemed to understand what all the fuss was about. Nixon spoke candidly about mistakes made, how no one is above the law, and other thoughts consequential and not. But then he spoke about hate, self-hate. He said those who hate will lose in the end because although the hater thinks they are winning, in actuality the opposite is occurring.
Those who hate, Nixon went on, will eventually have that hate turn inward, eating away at the origin of that hate. It will destroy from within. It took Nixon his last hour as president to realize this. It was too late for him.
Senate Republicans are exhibiting almost identical traits which saw the collapse of Nixon's presidency. The obstructionism we are guaranteed to witness concerning President Obama's intention to do his duty, to nominate someone, during an already volatile election year, is sure to expose Republican hate in all its ugliness. This battle may last the year maybe beyond if Cruz, 2016's Nixon, has his way.
Pitting a president who's faced obstruction since Day One against recalcitrant Republicans, if they refuse to do their duty, to advise and consent, it will not only exact a death blow to their candidate, but their majority in the Senate as well.
DD
Manhattan
In August '74, another president, a study in self-hate, Richard Nixon, on the day he resigned, finally seemed to understand what all the fuss was about. Nixon spoke candidly about mistakes made, how no one is above the law, and other thoughts consequential and not. But then he spoke about hate, self-hate. He said those who hate will lose in the end because although the hater thinks they are winning, in actuality the opposite is occurring.
Those who hate, Nixon went on, will eventually have that hate turn inward, eating away at the origin of that hate. It will destroy from within. It took Nixon his last hour as president to realize this. It was too late for him.
Senate Republicans are exhibiting almost identical traits which saw the collapse of Nixon's presidency. The obstructionism we are guaranteed to witness concerning President Obama's intention to do his duty, to nominate someone, during an already volatile election year, is sure to expose Republican hate in all its ugliness. This battle may last the year maybe beyond if Cruz, 2016's Nixon, has his way.
Pitting a president who's faced obstruction since Day One against recalcitrant Republicans, if they refuse to do their duty, to advise and consent, it will not only exact a death blow to their candidate, but their majority in the Senate as well.
DD
Manhattan
An open letter to Mitch McConnell.
Dear Mitch,
should the Senate decide to block the appointment of President Obama's nominee it will then be faced with a choice between the nominee of either President Clinton or President Sanders. We can't wait 5 more years for a new Justice. Do your Constitutional duty.
Sincerely yours
JB
Dear Mitch,
should the Senate decide to block the appointment of President Obama's nominee it will then be faced with a choice between the nominee of either President Clinton or President Sanders. We can't wait 5 more years for a new Justice. Do your Constitutional duty.
Sincerely yours
JB
1
Shame on you, Mitch. Your Constitutional duty is to hold hearings, deliberate, and vote- nothing less. You are opening yourself to removal by your rash statements. you were better than that, once. Get yourself together and be a leader.
2
Justice Scalia’s notion of the Constitution as a “Dead Document” is about as close to non compos mentis as one can get and sill appear to be in a rational world. The Constitution evolved during its writing and again markedly shortly thereafter and in fits and starts since. To say it has ironclad interpretation is baloney. The original document encoded subjugation and disenfranchisement of whole classes of those under its jurisdiction. One such would dictate no female be eligible for president let alone vote for one. Mr. Scalia’s conservative view of the “original” Constitution can be considered nothing more than a smokescreen to disenfranchise any members of society that gained benefits from civil rights laws by abolishing those laws in the name of “Constitutional Purity.”
2
Given that Obamacare has had 39 repeal votes to date (and counting) the Republicans have come to believe that obstructionism is either a policy or their duty—perhaps both.
The shortsighted propagandists at Fox News and conservative talk radio will savor another opportunity to drive up ratings by reflexively swinging into action, offering up such choice Republican In Name Only (RINO) litmus tests, and my personal favorite, the “cats and dogs living together…mass hysteria!” that we’ve all come to expect. With the Oregon occupiers all arrested, and Trump threatening to sue Cruz who in turn threatened the Spanish language, the conservative media’s next desperate push was to reveal that the new Robot Rubio’s suit was made by---union labor.
The timeliness of the SCOTUS selection benefits the Democratic Party as voters, especially Independents will once again witness the Republican party's abandonment of moderates and independents for their lunatic fringe.
Ultimately, it is the insatiable desire of the conservative media's ecosystem to drive up ratings that forms their reactionary policies and feeds the Republican Party's incoherence---all in time for the elections. Clinton and Sanders thank you.
The shortsighted propagandists at Fox News and conservative talk radio will savor another opportunity to drive up ratings by reflexively swinging into action, offering up such choice Republican In Name Only (RINO) litmus tests, and my personal favorite, the “cats and dogs living together…mass hysteria!” that we’ve all come to expect. With the Oregon occupiers all arrested, and Trump threatening to sue Cruz who in turn threatened the Spanish language, the conservative media’s next desperate push was to reveal that the new Robot Rubio’s suit was made by---union labor.
The timeliness of the SCOTUS selection benefits the Democratic Party as voters, especially Independents will once again witness the Republican party's abandonment of moderates and independents for their lunatic fringe.
Ultimately, it is the insatiable desire of the conservative media's ecosystem to drive up ratings that forms their reactionary policies and feeds the Republican Party's incoherence---all in time for the elections. Clinton and Sanders thank you.
2
Here's a thought..."let's appeal the decision of the senate to not consider the nominations to the Supreme Court"... let the USSC decide if they want 8 or 9 justices for the coming year... Surely there are constitutional issues at stake here. LOL.
John Marshall was nominated for Chief Justice six weeks before John Adams left office. He was confirmed and sworn in less than two weeks later. That’s how the Founding Fathers rolled.
3
Everyone worries about Trump being elected? Well look at the INCUMBENT Senate majority McConnell! The guy is absolutely off his rocker and he somehow manages to get re-elected each term! This is the most blatant disregard of political process and Mitch McConnell is getting away with lunacy. Now you know why Congress has a 9% approval rating.
2
From what I know of the Justices, Breyer is the most rock solid logical and realistic one there.
We need another Breyer.
Please, no more "Stylish" choices.
We need another Breyer.
Please, no more "Stylish" choices.
Starting with Mitch McConnel I would like to see Senator's who refuse to do their job impeached.
I hope voters do not forget that Ted Cruz's shutdown cost 24 Billion dollars.
I hope voters do not forget that Ted Cruz's shutdown cost 24 Billion dollars.
2
I believe the only way to get any cooperation from the Republicans is for President Obama to turn into Mitch McConnell.
How can Justice Scalia's admirers justify his support of CITIZENS UNITED in terms of an "originalist" philosophy?? Wou ld the Founders have agreed that corporations (which did not exist in the 18th century) should be treated as "persons"??
1
Mitch McConnell and his gang is appalling in their attitude toward American people. Obstructionists like him will pay in November - there are enough independents and moderates who will remember Mitch & company and show him the door for dereliction of duty.
4
Mr. President, please nominate another woman to the Supreme Court. One who is versed in consumer rights, Civil Rights, and/or technology and privacy issues. There are plenty of worthy candidates beyond your (supposed) short list who would leave a lasting legacy, including overturning Citizen's United.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/nominate-woman-who-experience...
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/nominate-woman-who-experience...
"Fierce Battle Lines Drawn" ? This congress can do nothing else.
Unlike the vast majority of NYT commenters, normal folks remember and know that Democrats have done the exact same thing that they are simply assuming the GOP will do, if not far worse. Get over yourselves. Truly the age of hypocrisy in the liberal ranks. This is precisely what drove me away from the party. The party of tolerance is anything but.
Whew -- lucky us!
"Shame on Senate Republicans! If this were happening in any other nation, we would be condemning such actions as lawless."
Fortunately for the Republicans, the Democrats long ago "legitimized" the act of rejecting Supreme Court nominees for political reasons.
"Shame on Senate Republicans! If this were happening in any other nation, we would be condemning such actions as lawless."
Fortunately for the Republicans, the Democrats long ago "legitimized" the act of rejecting Supreme Court nominees for political reasons.
No doubt McConnell would prefer that the Republican state governors and legislatures select the next Supreme Court Justice. Get working on that Constitutional amendment, wouldja Mitch?
2
Evangelicals, take note. If people like Pat Robertson can suggest that Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath against America for its policies on abortion, then it seems equally likely that Justice Scalia's death is God's retribution for the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision just last Tuesday halting the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. God doesn't like coal-polluted skies on the doorstep of Heaven, and it appears that He blames the conservative Justices for not putting a stop to it.
3
The US government is a system based on checks and balances and the three institutions of Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches. That's what we were taught in school. These dreams die hard. IMHO it's an honor and a privilege for POTUS to nominate judges to SCOTUS (part of the job description). Let's have a real dogfight now about issues that matter.
2
A thought experiment: there are two universes. In one universe, Obama puts up a candidate for SCOTUS now. The candidate is relatively moderate as Obama wants the appointment to pass muster in the Senate and he can't do that with a "more liberal" appointee. This is the universe as things exist today. In the other universe, the republican obstructionists get their way in the short term and no appointment is confirmed, BUT the 2016 election breaks for the Democrats and they win both POTUS and the Senate. The next president, for sure, will shove it down Republican throats with a much more liberal appointee. Which scenario would Republicans really like to see?
2
Where is Obama going to find a candidate would would subject him/herself to certain humiliation?
1
The Republicans do not want to govern, the want to rule. McConnell should start wearing ermine.
3
I am not a fan of Justice Scalia’s ideology. However, I find it appalling that Mr. McConnell made his announcement “about an hour after Scalia’s death in Texas had been confirmed.”
(www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-co...
So much for family values! What about respecting the memory of the man? What about allowing his family to mourn without bringing politics into his death? Couldn’t this have waited until a few days after Justice Scalia’s funeral?
I will resist the temptation to write more; otherwise I too will stoop to the level of disregard being shown by the politicians for the death of another human being.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to Justice Scalia’s family.
(www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-co...
So much for family values! What about respecting the memory of the man? What about allowing his family to mourn without bringing politics into his death? Couldn’t this have waited until a few days after Justice Scalia’s funeral?
I will resist the temptation to write more; otherwise I too will stoop to the level of disregard being shown by the politicians for the death of another human being.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to Justice Scalia’s family.
Not mewntioned here is Justice Ginsberg is 82. If she chooses to retire this year, will GOP blocjk any appointee for her position or is she willing to risk staying another eight years?
This is the last gasp of an antiquated political party in its death throes.
Period.
If Obama is smart he will nominate Loretta Lynch, whom the Republicans already confirmed for Attorney General.
McConnell can't claim that Obama should not be allowed to nominate someone since he is in the last year of his second term as president.
McConnell had no problem confirming Justice Kennedy in Reagan's last year as president.
The entire Congress took a sworn oath to the Constitution. If the Republicans REFUSE to confirm ANY candidate for the Supreme Court named by Obama, they can go ahead and order their political tombstone.
Good riddance!
Period.
If Obama is smart he will nominate Loretta Lynch, whom the Republicans already confirmed for Attorney General.
McConnell can't claim that Obama should not be allowed to nominate someone since he is in the last year of his second term as president.
McConnell had no problem confirming Justice Kennedy in Reagan's last year as president.
The entire Congress took a sworn oath to the Constitution. If the Republicans REFUSE to confirm ANY candidate for the Supreme Court named by Obama, they can go ahead and order their political tombstone.
Good riddance!
1
Scalia was on the bench a long time. Here's an interesting look at SCOTUS seniority and tenure: http://threestory.com/scotus/
Here is a lesson in history of supreme court vacancies for the ignorant liberals trolling in this forum. (Source: thefederalist.com)
"President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!
Most recently, Abe Fortas resigned May 14, 1969. His replacement, Harry Blackmun, was in office starting June 9, 1970, making the gap just longer than a year."
The Constitution says that the president shall appoint with THE CONSENT AND ADVISE of the senate. If the advise of the senate is that he not nominate during an election year and if the senate does not consent to his nomination, then there is no breach of constitutional obligation.
Liberal cool-aid drinkers must stop being such low- or no-information opinionated people.
"President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!
Most recently, Abe Fortas resigned May 14, 1969. His replacement, Harry Blackmun, was in office starting June 9, 1970, making the gap just longer than a year."
The Constitution says that the president shall appoint with THE CONSENT AND ADVISE of the senate. If the advise of the senate is that he not nominate during an election year and if the senate does not consent to his nomination, then there is no breach of constitutional obligation.
Liberal cool-aid drinkers must stop being such low- or no-information opinionated people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful on at least the first try. Of those 29:
12 were fully considered and formally rejected by the Senate
20% of nominations don't make it. 3/5 of these (12%) were stopped before they got to the Senate.
As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful on at least the first try. Of those 29:
12 were fully considered and formally rejected by the Senate
20% of nominations don't make it. 3/5 of these (12%) were stopped before they got to the Senate.
1
Regarding the blanket response of the Repubs about not acting on any supreme court nomination, I can only say that this has really cemented my vote in the upcoming presidential election. I don't care if the Dems put up a corpse as their candidate. I will vote for that candidate. The Repub mindset on this matter is outrageous and illustrates a central problem with our failing government today, and why when candidates talk of measures to address these matters, is traction from the public obtained. These politicians forget that the nation comes first, NOT their party or THEM. The repubs will likely get blasted come the election, and statements like they have just made shows they deserve it. OUTRAGEOUS.
3
We need to make sure that the November 2016 election has the highest voter turnout of any election in American history.
Then there will be no doubt as to which political philosophy (Republican "play dirty" or Democratic "follow the rules laid down in the Constitution") is subscribed to by the majority.
If you fail to make your opinion known on the one day when it actually counts, what do you expect any of us ordinary citizens to do for you on any other day. Listen to you bellyache?
If you do not vote, do not bother to complain to any one of us that do vote.
Then there will be no doubt as to which political philosophy (Republican "play dirty" or Democratic "follow the rules laid down in the Constitution") is subscribed to by the majority.
If you fail to make your opinion known on the one day when it actually counts, what do you expect any of us ordinary citizens to do for you on any other day. Listen to you bellyache?
If you do not vote, do not bother to complain to any one of us that do vote.
2
"The GOP is broken."
Obviously -- there's talk about them Borking an Obama nominee.
Obviously -- there's talk about them Borking an Obama nominee.
This election cycle has been going on now for a year... with almost another year to go. The new President won't be sworn in until late January of 2017.
Be careful, Mitch, on limiting any office of this government on when and how they are to perform their legal duties, for if you win, then that win will be the means to limit the election cycle in this country.... as it is legally restricted in many European countries.
Your refusal to do YOUR Constitutionally required duty places you within a hair's breadth of treason.
Rescind your words.
Be careful, Mitch, on limiting any office of this government on when and how they are to perform their legal duties, for if you win, then that win will be the means to limit the election cycle in this country.... as it is legally restricted in many European countries.
Your refusal to do YOUR Constitutionally required duty places you within a hair's breadth of treason.
Rescind your words.
4
If the GOP stalls on next SCOTUS pick until the next POTUS, then who’s going to cast the tie vote when SCOTUS has to pick that POTUS?
Scoff all you want but since Bush v. Gore, this is, indeed the world we now live in.
Scoff all you want but since Bush v. Gore, this is, indeed the world we now live in.
1
I would find it absolutely delicious if the GOP obstructionists continue to run down the clock as they probably will- and when Hillary or Bernie get elected, they nominate Barrack Obama to the SCOTUS. Hopefully, the Senate will have turned control over to Dems by then.
Be careful what you wish for McConnell- you just might get it in spades.
Be careful what you wish for McConnell- you just might get it in spades.
4
PERHAPS we can revive William Kunstler .That the GOP is obstruction as usual is not a surprise. The level of immaturity and outright malicious mendacity of this crowd of hooligans is an embarrassment that we the people must suffer in front of the civilized world. The last debate looked like a trailer for madam part3, THUNDERDOME and Beyond. Where are the William F Buckley's of the conservative wing? I grew up conservative but can not ever imagine voting for the GOP for decades.Lets take back the country from the plutocracy and kill Citizens United and get back to Freedom and Justice for all, not just those who bribe there way there.
2
This obstruction issue can be easily solved:Call the Republican's bluff.
Invite each one, publicly, to sign an iron-clad oath that each Presidential candidate will, under no circumstances appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court if one or more shall die within one year of them finishing their term of office, irrespective of them running for re-election, and, that no member of their party will encourage them to break that oath.
Get on that, Mitch. Get it in writing from every member of your party.
It should be easier than trying to find JOBS,JOBS,JOBS!
Invite each one, publicly, to sign an iron-clad oath that each Presidential candidate will, under no circumstances appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court if one or more shall die within one year of them finishing their term of office, irrespective of them running for re-election, and, that no member of their party will encourage them to break that oath.
Get on that, Mitch. Get it in writing from every member of your party.
It should be easier than trying to find JOBS,JOBS,JOBS!
2
Here is a sweet dream or a nightmare:
The Republicans dig in their heels and block the president from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court. In January 2016, President Sanders nominates Barack Obama.
The Republicans dig in their heels and block the president from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court. In January 2016, President Sanders nominates Barack Obama.
2
The GOP is acting as if president Obama was elected by the illegal immigrants, thus the Republicans are depriving him even of his constitutional right to nominate the Supreme Court Justices.
Of course, we have to make it clear what the GOP really meant with their personal animosity toward the president.
The conservatives don’t have the problem with him personally but with the fellow Americans that dared to vote for him, thus hurting the feelings of the right wingers...
Mr. Obama didn’t enact the ACA law but the lawmakers elected by the American citizens.
Somehow in the minds of the GOP leadership, all of that is solely Obama’s fault...
Once the Americans are sick and tired of the democrats they will hand both the White House and the Congress into their hands.
The last time the American gave the full control of the federal government to the Democrats, they were sick and tired of the Republicans, the crumbling economy and the foreign wars.
Don’t the Republicans have any short-term memory? I was less than 8 years ago...
The people like them only if they don’t have any power... That’s why they reelected Obama...
Of course, we have to make it clear what the GOP really meant with their personal animosity toward the president.
The conservatives don’t have the problem with him personally but with the fellow Americans that dared to vote for him, thus hurting the feelings of the right wingers...
Mr. Obama didn’t enact the ACA law but the lawmakers elected by the American citizens.
Somehow in the minds of the GOP leadership, all of that is solely Obama’s fault...
Once the Americans are sick and tired of the democrats they will hand both the White House and the Congress into their hands.
The last time the American gave the full control of the federal government to the Democrats, they were sick and tired of the Republicans, the crumbling economy and the foreign wars.
Don’t the Republicans have any short-term memory? I was less than 8 years ago...
The people like them only if they don’t have any power... That’s why they reelected Obama...
1
If they refuse to do their job, let's refuse to pay them.
4
Have the guts to vote on the nomination.
2
The problem with four to four?; How will the Supreme Court decide our elections for us?
1
It shouldn’t be impossible for Obama or the next President to find a nominee who could garner the votes to overcome a hold, and it’d be desirable to have someone of wide approval. If not, we may just have to get used to an eight-judge Supreme Court into the indefinite future.
The GOP proclaims to worship the Constitution, and yet they ignore that the President is bound by that same absolute legal contract to nominate a justice. What a bunch of hypocrites!
1
It is a game of chicken for the highest stakes. Obama will likely nominate someone like Srinja Srinivisan or Jane Kelly, who were confirmed in the last couple of years 97-0 and 96-0 respectively, including with McConnel, Rubio and Cruz' votes, leaving the ever-increasingly unhinged GOP writhing between a rock and hard place where their hypocrisy is on full display.
As with the government shutdown in 2011, the GOP is unerringly choosing narrow short-term gain with its hard right base over actually getting what they want, and adding yet another major factor to the likelihood they will lose not just the Presidency but the senate in 2016. Be careful what you wish for, GOPPERS. Your churlish obstructionism could well gift you a Dem President and Senate in 2017.
How does Chief Justice Obama sound to you?
As with the government shutdown in 2011, the GOP is unerringly choosing narrow short-term gain with its hard right base over actually getting what they want, and adding yet another major factor to the likelihood they will lose not just the Presidency but the senate in 2016. Be careful what you wish for, GOPPERS. Your churlish obstructionism could well gift you a Dem President and Senate in 2017.
How does Chief Justice Obama sound to you?
4
It seems there's a subtext to Mr. McConnell's idea to delay appointing a new Supreme Court Justice until the next administration, and it sounds to me like this:
"We should wait until we have a real president"
"We should wait until we have a real president"
1
Lest anyone buy into this notion that Sen. Schumer's position on a Bush SCOTUS nominee in 2007 is in any way analogous to the entire Republican Party's position on an Obama nominee in 2016, I give anyone interested the actual text of Sen. Schumer's speech in 2007 that everyone is (mis-)citing:
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/text-of-senator-schumers-speech
Sen. Schumer did not argue in any way, shape or form that President Bush didn't have the right to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, nor did he suggest in any way, shape or form that a Bush nominee should not get a hearing before the Senate.
The New York Times and other members of the responsible, adult news media should do more to set the record straight. Not because of any matter liberal or conservative, but rather as regards the truth.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."
- the late, great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/text-of-senator-schumers-speech
Sen. Schumer did not argue in any way, shape or form that President Bush didn't have the right to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, nor did he suggest in any way, shape or form that a Bush nominee should not get a hearing before the Senate.
The New York Times and other members of the responsible, adult news media should do more to set the record straight. Not because of any matter liberal or conservative, but rather as regards the truth.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."
- the late, great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
3
Say what you want, if you think that the Republicans are going to sit back and let a liberal nomination for the Supreme Court happen without trying to do something about it you are crazy. Question: if we had a Republican POTUS and Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, what would you, average NYT reader, urge your Democratic Senators to do? I thought so.
2
I for one would urge them to do their duty. As they did when Pres Bush nominated Harriet Myers and John Roberts.
1
The Republican position is untenable, constitutionally and politically. A naked attempt at Supreme Court coup d'etat would throw the nation into Latin American turmoil and get Democrats out-to-vote like never before, playing directly into the hands of Sanders/Clinton.
Therefore, McConnell is faking it and really only "negotiating" for a center-of-the-road nomination, which will upset liberals who have a clear shot at Supreme Court Nirvana. Or, the Republicans really are dysfunctional and are willing to defy the constitution and throw this country is utter turmoil.
EITHER WAY, Obama has to remain strong and EITHER WAY, Obama have the better hand. Therefore, Obama should NOT be in compromise mode now, looking for an unsure middle-of-the-road nomination. Watching Obama operate for 7 years, that's the real risk.
That would be the tragedy.
Therefore, McConnell is faking it and really only "negotiating" for a center-of-the-road nomination, which will upset liberals who have a clear shot at Supreme Court Nirvana. Or, the Republicans really are dysfunctional and are willing to defy the constitution and throw this country is utter turmoil.
EITHER WAY, Obama has to remain strong and EITHER WAY, Obama have the better hand. Therefore, Obama should NOT be in compromise mode now, looking for an unsure middle-of-the-road nomination. Watching Obama operate for 7 years, that's the real risk.
That would be the tragedy.
1
There is no ethical or reasonable argument against voting for a new justice - just politics. Same old same old republican dirty tricks. The American people spoke when they elected Obama twice.
1
And now the demise of law. Is this how the Roman Empire began its decline?
1
The GOP again making an "unwise" call. Blind in defying our President and costing tax payers $$ with delays; this could and should cost them the presidency.
2
Charles Koch told Mitch to stonewall. End of story
2
Maybe Obama can compromise by nominating Robert Bork?
Mr. McConnell: It’s one thing to object to a nominee based on that individual’s merits. It’s something entirely different to violate the Constitutionally-mandated replacement process and to state, preemptively, that you will refuse to allow a confirmation vote on ANY nominee put forward by the sitting president. In so doing, you are denying President Obama a right and responsibility given him by the people of the United States when we elected him, on whose behalf he exercises the powers of his office. You represent the State of Kentucky. You do not represent me. President Obama represents me, as he does every citizen of our country. I feel you are attempting to deny me (through my representative, the president) of my Constitutional right.
3
Strict constitutionalist Antonin Scalia is not even in his grave yet... and he's most assuredly rolling in his grave at this baldly Constitution-defying GOP stance.
1
The President will nominate Judge Srinivasan, who was approved by a 97-0 vote. Let the R's try to rationalize there way out of that mess.
1
This is an outrageous abuse of power and abrogation by Senate Republicans of their constitutional responsibilities. I hope the NYTimes and all other major newspapers in this country rebuke Mr. McConnell and his cohorts in the most strenuous possible terms. Mr. McConnell should be investigated by the FBI for treason against the government of the United States.
3
President Obama should nominate a Republican who agrees with Democrats on gay marriage, guns, etc. How about Rudolph Giuliani?
Even before anyone is nominated the Republicans are threatening to refuse to confirm anyone? If every there was proof of Republican obstructionism, this is it. They are gambling on a Republican win of the White House, but as things look now, American won't be crazy enough to vote for the leading candidates. And if by chance Trump is elected, they can't count on him to select the conservatives' favorite. A pox on your house, Mitch.
1
4-4 tie LIBERALS WIN
On Abortion, contraception, unions, voting rights, affirmative action and immigration, it appeared that conservatives would prevail.
NOW THE LIBERALS WIN.
Thank you Scalia.
On Abortion, contraception, unions, voting rights, affirmative action and immigration, it appeared that conservatives would prevail.
NOW THE LIBERALS WIN.
Thank you Scalia.
2
Senator Cruz's advice for the President to not perform his constitutional duties while in office, by not even nominating a replacement to the SCOTUS, is NOT what was meant by the Constitution and it just shows how dysfunctional Congress has become.
It would be a historically weak President that didn't nominate a SCOTUS replacement before he leaves office.
It would be a historically weak President that didn't nominate a SCOTUS replacement before he leaves office.
1
Isn't the vow by McConnell and other republicans to block Obama's nomination--before he's even stated who he's nominating--obstruction of justice in the most literal sense?
3
Ah, let the “Bork, Bork” bleatings of the Republican sheep be heard throughout the land! How dare any Republican nominee for the Supreme Court be questioned, let alone rejected? As always, a look at the facts would be illuminating.
On June 13th, 1967, President Lyndon Baines Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall for the Supreme Court. On June 14th 1993, President William Jefferson Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the intervening twenty-six years, Republican presidents successfully nominated eleven—count them—eleven justices: Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Conner, William Rehnquist, again (for Chief Justice), Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas. Only three nominees were rejected during the same time span: Robert Bork, G. Harrold Carswell, and Clement Haynsworth. My math makes that practically an 80% hit rate for the Republicans, which is way better than both Ruth and DiMaggio combined!
Moreover, each rejection was bipartisan. True, only six Republicans voted against Bork, but he did manage to get two Democratic votes to confirm. Maybe, just maybe, all the Democrats had it in for Bork because he was the one that actually fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox at the behest of Richard Nixon. Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus, both honorable Republicans before that term became an oxymoron, resigned rather than take part in the Watergate cover up.
On June 13th, 1967, President Lyndon Baines Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall for the Supreme Court. On June 14th 1993, President William Jefferson Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the intervening twenty-six years, Republican presidents successfully nominated eleven—count them—eleven justices: Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Conner, William Rehnquist, again (for Chief Justice), Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas. Only three nominees were rejected during the same time span: Robert Bork, G. Harrold Carswell, and Clement Haynsworth. My math makes that practically an 80% hit rate for the Republicans, which is way better than both Ruth and DiMaggio combined!
Moreover, each rejection was bipartisan. True, only six Republicans voted against Bork, but he did manage to get two Democratic votes to confirm. Maybe, just maybe, all the Democrats had it in for Bork because he was the one that actually fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox at the behest of Richard Nixon. Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus, both honorable Republicans before that term became an oxymoron, resigned rather than take part in the Watergate cover up.
1
For admirers of Justice Scalia and the textualists reading this, I offer a question: Does the language of the Appointments Clause tell us anything about whether the President should nominate a successor to Justice Scalia in the last year of his term?
Starting with the obvious, a basic rule of statutory and constitutional construction is that “shall” is ordinarily construed to mean roughly the equivalent of “must.” Also, a difference in the language used in two clauses of the Constitution or a statute, suggests the drafters intended those clauses have different meanings. Indeed, some conservatives have interpreted the minor difference in the language of the “vesting” clauses of Articles I and II of the Constitution as the basis for an expansive theory on the power of the Executive Branch — The Unitary Executive. With that, let’s look at the language of the Appointments Clause.
As to treaties, the Constitution says the President “shall have [the] Power … to make Treaties....” By contrast, as to appointments to the Supreme Court, it says the President “shall nominate … Judges of the supreme Court….” Under the Constitution the President must nominate a successor to Justice Scalia? What would Justice Scalia say? Should the answer to this question be the same if this were the last year of President Obama's first term and he could still be reelected?
Starting with the obvious, a basic rule of statutory and constitutional construction is that “shall” is ordinarily construed to mean roughly the equivalent of “must.” Also, a difference in the language used in two clauses of the Constitution or a statute, suggests the drafters intended those clauses have different meanings. Indeed, some conservatives have interpreted the minor difference in the language of the “vesting” clauses of Articles I and II of the Constitution as the basis for an expansive theory on the power of the Executive Branch — The Unitary Executive. With that, let’s look at the language of the Appointments Clause.
As to treaties, the Constitution says the President “shall have [the] Power … to make Treaties....” By contrast, as to appointments to the Supreme Court, it says the President “shall nominate … Judges of the supreme Court….” Under the Constitution the President must nominate a successor to Justice Scalia? What would Justice Scalia say? Should the answer to this question be the same if this were the last year of President Obama's first term and he could still be reelected?
2
Running around saying the most outrageous things they can think up may be a great way to attract GOP donors and FOX cameras, but a terrible way to, you know, win elections. This will be yet another reminder that those have consequences.
1
If the Court is split 4-4; how will Cruz get a vote saying he is elegible to be President?
2
The Supreme Court consists of a group of 9 (currently 8) former lawyers in black robes appointed to lifetime positions by politicians. What is wrong with this picture...?
1
Maybe President Obama should veto every bit of legislation that comes before him this year. But that would be a dangerous, nonsensical abdication of his constitutional duties. And it would be precisely what the Republicans are pushing: A constitutional crisis. Or, maybe all the Republicans up for reelection or retiring should abstain from voting this year. Let the voters decide in November. Yeah, you get my drift. The terms are for four and six years folks. You don't get to pick and choose when to fill a Supreme Court vacancy any more than you get to pick and choose when or how to you to fund education, the military, health care, or any other government function. Saddle up and do your jobs folks. It's what we elected you to do.
1
The latest generation of Republicans are all babies/bullies...but a segment of the population gives them a voice. Disheartening.
3
The WH will try divide and conquer followed by favors on pet projects. The question for the Republican Senators is "if Harry & Dick are for it how can I be, without it being obvious that they own me"?
The GOP is saying let’s wait until we have a real president to nominate a replacement for Scalia. Have they forgotten what happened when the invited Bibi to speak in well of Congress. It might play well with their side but all it does is put some steel in the spine of the left. Without daring Obama to knock the chip off his shoulder Mitch could have dragged his feet on this for however long he wanted to. As the Speaker did with Bibi now the Majority Leader is doing with the Scalia replacement. The left is preparing to circle the wagons and take Mitch up on his dare..
2
Maybe if the Republicans drag this out long enough, Hilary will be inaugurated and she can nominate Obama to the Supreme Court!
1
Let's remember it was the Democrats rejection of Robert Bork that led to this partisan bickering in the first place.
The party of "no" strikes again. And with the assumption that a Republican will be elected President! Galling.
Voters do indeed count in choosing a Supreme Court justice. And American voters spoke fairly clearly in electing Mr. Obama to his second term.
1
The republican leadership & rank & file in Congress are a disgrace & ideological hypocrites; they should be impeached if they disregard their constitutional duty to advise & consent on the President's nominee.
1
As "originalists" and "textualists," it seems Republicans are bound to act in precisely the opposite way than they are... Huh, strange!
1
The Republicans never disappoint, just when you thought they could not be any more hypocritical and cynical, they step up there game.
And what would the GOP position be if President John McCain was beginning the final year of his second term?
Is there any GOP presidential candidate smart enough to understand they cannot prevent the POTUS to nominate somebody to the SCOTUS?
Is there any GOP Senator or House Representative courageous enough to publicly scold his or her party colleagues for the childish behavior?
Is there any ex-GOP president smart enough to properly advise his foolish candidates of completely wrongful behavior?
Is there any GOP governor, state attorney general or think tank member capable of doing the same and advising their friends they are completely on the wrong track?
The question is whether there is anybody within the GOP smarter than the fifth grader.
Is there any GOP Senator or House Representative courageous enough to publicly scold his or her party colleagues for the childish behavior?
Is there any ex-GOP president smart enough to properly advise his foolish candidates of completely wrongful behavior?
Is there any GOP governor, state attorney general or think tank member capable of doing the same and advising their friends they are completely on the wrong track?
The question is whether there is anybody within the GOP smarter than the fifth grader.
1
What if, hypothetically, President Obama had beaten Mitch McConnell's statement by five minutes, while Scalia's body was still warm, and said: "I think we can live with a 4-4 Democratic/Republican split Supreme Court for a year. The constitution doesn't give a time limit to a President, to nominate a Supreme Court replacement, so I'm going to wait and give the American people the chance to elect a Democratic senate and a new Democratic president, which I'm convinced will occur, and then in late January 2017 our new Democratic president will nominate and approve the most liberal new Supreme Court justice in history. Let the American people decide nine months from now!
The Republicans would righteously object, and they would be justified. However what they are doing is equivalent to this absurd hypothetical. IOKIYAR - It's OK If You Are Republican.
The Republicans would righteously object, and they would be justified. However what they are doing is equivalent to this absurd hypothetical. IOKIYAR - It's OK If You Are Republican.
1
Apparently, McConnell forgot to read his "Terms Of Use" contract when he took his oath of office.
Obama's rushing into picks while Scalia's grave isn't cold yet just indicates the kind of callousness and opportunism that makes him look like a hungry beneficiary at the reading of the family will.
Abhorrent, uncivil. It will boomerang on him shortly.
Abhorrent, uncivil. It will boomerang on him shortly.
1
I do not see the President rushing into any "picks," but I do see a lot of Republicans stomping and pouting that they'll refuse to confirm anyone whom he does choose. The callousness and opportunism you speak of belongs to the Republicans, who vowed obstruction before President Obama had uttered a word about the death of Justice Scalia.
A Republican threat will force Obama to make a more moderate pick than a devout leftist like Sotomayor or Ginsberg.
More tiresome junior high antics from the GOP.
It's government, not the lunchroom. Please be serious.
It's government, not the lunchroom. Please be serious.
1
"Obama should appoint a justice while they're in recess. It's been done several times before."
It has? News to me.
It has? News to me.
Is it because President Obama is black that he doesn't get to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the Republican view?
4
Scalia was uncouth and unprincipled. He put his religious and political beliefs before the Constitution and the law. His allegiance to the Koch Brothers and his other owners damaged this country.
2
It is not hard to imagine what the reaction from Mitch McConell would be if the president was a republican.
Say it loud again and again- they offer nothing but obstruction.
1
I thought that the Republican Party was opposed to "Activist Judges". I guess that Donald Trump is correct; the Establishment lies!
Now that the Republicans are "digging in", as you report, perhaps they will continue digging a lot farther. The voters will be glad to "cover them up" in November.
I wonder what Mitch McConnell thinks of Civil Wars, and how they get started?
2
As a constitutional scholar & facing his lifetime legacy - it is most likely that President Obama will select the most qualified, rational, least ideological cabdidate for the Supreme Court. He has been a centrist & conciliator for 7 years--often to the chagrin of the left.
Loretta Lynch- already vetted - has an impeccable record, is not Catholic, will balance the diversity of SCOTUS and bring front line prosecutorial savvy in a time of terrorism & domestic violence.
Loretta Lynch- already vetted - has an impeccable record, is not Catholic, will balance the diversity of SCOTUS and bring front line prosecutorial savvy in a time of terrorism & domestic violence.
4
Is "not Catholic" a new liberal requirement for a nominee? Would "not Jewish" or "not black" be OK also?
How could anyone other than the already hopelessly indoctrinated right-wing voting-bots still believe that the republicans care about anything other than winning at politics any way they can. They put politics ahead of god, country and anything else that gets in their way. Money and power are all they understand and they are without shame. And there will be an accounting someday.
1
Whats next, civil war? Glad we're all armed to the teeth. Should be interesting...
2
Of course they're "digging in for a fight", and why is that presented as though it were a surprise of some sort? EVERYTHING in this country has turned into a big fight. On the one side we have the GOP and the forces of evil and darkness that want to LIMIT our freedoms and on the other we have everyone else. I'd like to think that waiting until after the next election would be a good thing in that those that are most sinister would be thrown from office by the good will of the American people but then again they WERE elected in the first place, weren't they? I doubt that the next election will being the forces of good back into a majority in the Senate and certainly won't provide 60 votes to prevent a filibuster and so therefore we have deadlock. Better to keep the seat permanently empty, however, than to ever accede to replacing Scalia with someone as destructive as he turned out to be ~ leave the seat empty until it can be filled by someone who CARES about "Equal Justice Under Law."
2
Make a recess appointment; how long would a recess appointment be valid for?
Hey GOP leaders: you mean to tell us you're waiting for President HRC to make the appointment instead of President BHO?
3
@R*sicario: Please read up on how our government works. The president does NOT appoint SCOTUS justice. He only nominates one. That is his decision.
Then the Senate makes its decision. Delaying till after election is one of the options the senate can decide on. If voters don't like any of these decisions, they can vote them out.
Then the Senate makes its decision. Delaying till after election is one of the options the senate can decide on. If voters don't like any of these decisions, they can vote them out.
It's critical that the Democrats nominate a strong presidential candidate and get behind him so they can take the Senate. A large number of Republican seats are open and many of those are in blue or purple states where Democrats have a good chance. This is no time for a Bernie Sanders left wing insurgency. The Democrats must lock up the middle of the electorate and take back the Senate. McDonnell can't like what he has been made to do. He wanted to show his party could govern, but he has been hijacked by the crazies. Time for Democrats to take their best shot. They are facing the same people who disgracefully showed their contempt for Bob Dole when he observed a veterans' vote go down to defeat in the Senate well while sitting in his wheelchair. These zealots need to be brought down, and if it costs the jobs of honorable capable Republicans like Rob Portman or Kelly Ayotte, so be it.
So... After almost 48 hours of non-stop SCOTUS pondering, I have a few observations... I'll start with these...
1. Listening to the mantra of Cruz, Rubio, McConnell, et. al. on the Republican side... "Let the voters decide." I can't help but wonder where that sentiment was when the 5-4 Supreme Court decision prevented the Florida recount in the Bush-Gore election. And... to take that one a step further, would anyone want a lower court to decide the presidency based on a a 4-4 Supreme Court split? So let's not get carried away with this lame duck nonsense. Barack Obama is the president and he has the explicit constitutional duty to nominate for the empty seat on the bench.
2. If this wasn't already an important election, with issues like woman's rights, voting rights, civil rights, freedom of choice, LBGT rights, gun rights, privacy rights, global climate change, global political instability, affordable healthcare and corporate greed all under discussion (or siege), it is now an election of generational opportunity with all 3 branches of government suddenly in play. Anyone who sits out this election cycle will have to answer to their children and their children's children. Your civic responsibility to vote has never been more important or of greater consequence in our lifetime.
VOTE IN NOVEMBER!!!
1. Listening to the mantra of Cruz, Rubio, McConnell, et. al. on the Republican side... "Let the voters decide." I can't help but wonder where that sentiment was when the 5-4 Supreme Court decision prevented the Florida recount in the Bush-Gore election. And... to take that one a step further, would anyone want a lower court to decide the presidency based on a a 4-4 Supreme Court split? So let's not get carried away with this lame duck nonsense. Barack Obama is the president and he has the explicit constitutional duty to nominate for the empty seat on the bench.
2. If this wasn't already an important election, with issues like woman's rights, voting rights, civil rights, freedom of choice, LBGT rights, gun rights, privacy rights, global climate change, global political instability, affordable healthcare and corporate greed all under discussion (or siege), it is now an election of generational opportunity with all 3 branches of government suddenly in play. Anyone who sits out this election cycle will have to answer to their children and their children's children. Your civic responsibility to vote has never been more important or of greater consequence in our lifetime.
VOTE IN NOVEMBER!!!
4
Message to the Senate: Do your job as mandated by the Constitution, not by your political affiliation.
1
It appears as if all the GOP do these days is cause Internal Battles while breaching Our Constitution. Do they disrespect this nation so very much that they do not Honor Our Laws Our Bill OF Right nor our Constitution? And if this is correct then what on this Country's Earth are they doing in any Political Office when they so deeply disrespect all that said office Stands For! I say this as an American; not as a GOP or Dem Supporter!
And to point out the obvious-
I am certain all these Republicans would be saying the exact same thing if Mitt Romney were in the White House right now.
I am certain all these Republicans would be saying the exact same thing if Mitt Romney were in the White House right now.
1
Your next headline will read: "Republicans agree with President Obama's Supreme Court appointment."
It would be great irony if POTUS didn't get anyone confirmed this year, but then a Democratic president nominated Obama for SCOTUS.
4
The GOP is howling because O is following the Constitution.
Could the irony be any more hysterical?
Could the irony be any more hysterical?
3
But it's VERY DIFFERENT when Democrats call for the same thing:
https://grabien.com/file.php?id=78068&searchorder=relevance
https://grabien.com/file.php?id=78068&searchorder=relevance
Democrats misjudge republicans if they think there will be a backlash against republican senators for obstructing Obama's nominations. Quite the opposite is true. We do NOT want another anti constitution "progressive" on the Supreme Court.
The reality is that many of the comments, and there are many, in this NYT forum have stated this: The GOP will not agree to, discuss , or back anything the President wants to do for this country. The fact is that if a liberal judge had passed away the fight would be just the same.....
Dear Congress - If you ever wondered why the American people, in mass, hate you then look no further back then the last 36 hours.
1
What we are seeing is the logical result of letting your legal system fall into the paws of the Federalist Society and right-wing think tanks, ALEC, and the John Birch Society of the Koch Brothers.
These are the people my father fought for in WW2?
These are the people my father fought for in WW2?
To start their pathetic trantrums before anyone has been nominated is traitorous... The Koch Brothers must be giving out orders...
1
Comparing the situation that happened with Bork nomination is wrong-headed. No one at the time (Democrat or Republican) ever came out - that I know of - to say "Don't nominate anyone to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court until after the next election" ... EVERY ELECTION is "consequential" to someone - maybe not "presidential" - but certainly it is consequential to the Legislative Branch of our government, which in turn is "consequential" to the good overall governance of our country.
Further, to say "wait" because certain members of the Legislative Branch are "in a tough re-election fight" is irresponsible!
Further, to say "wait" because certain members of the Legislative Branch are "in a tough re-election fight" is irresponsible!
1
It is amazing -- Jeb Bush appears to be the only Republican candidate smart enough to realize that if McConnell wins his gambit, that the political factions which control McConnell -- and not the new Republican president -- will dictate to any new Republican president who the nominee shall be.
Voters: Beware of any candidate so hungry for office they that don't appear to be aware -- or to care -- that McConnell is damaging the presidency they seek.
Voters: Beware of any candidate so hungry for office they that don't appear to be aware -- or to care -- that McConnell is damaging the presidency they seek.
1
Are there any Constitutional law experts reading this? Question!
Do the Senators really have a legal option of NOT enacting their duties as senators? Is refusing to take action really a legal option for them?
Do the Senators really have a legal option of NOT enacting their duties as senators? Is refusing to take action really a legal option for them?
2
I'm imagining with glee the Koch Brothers, how much money they've spent to subvert OUR democracy and now how much more they will have to cough up to try and continue they're cabal of deceit......what goes around finally has come around!!
1
I think there's a case to be made that McConnell could be put in jail for this.
2
How is it that the Republicans think that Obama's term should be limited to 3 years in the case of judicial nominations?
2
President Obama should name Judge Srinivasan to the Court as a recess appointment and bypass McConnell's obstructionism.
2
Let's wait for Donald.
3
Senator McConnell would do well to heed the words of another Republican who said on a blood soaked battlefield "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Senator McConnell and his Republican cohorts are a disgrace to the memory of Abraham Lincoln. He sought to heal a nation and bring it together, not tear it apart. He sought union not divisiveness. The Republicans have brought nothing but shame to their Party and to this nation.
2
I am truly embarrassed to be a Republican.
4
Then don't be. Vote Democratic.
Bork 'em all!
The Republicans, once again, telling the world they're stupid. McConnell should have said there would be cooperation between the Senate and the White House, then let the White House die with hope. Not McConnell, he not only telegraphs his punches, he announces when and where. The country now knows the party of "no" is gearing up to say "no" at a pivotal time in our history. The Republicans, blocking progress once again.
1
Why doesn't Mitch McConnell realize that this makes him look like a petulant two-year-old?
2
The modern gop... party first, country second (if at all).
1
Wake up America. Vote these treasonous republican scoundrels out. Their selfish disregard for the will of the people of this country is, frankly, immoral
3
I was disappointed that Trump didn't seize on this and call the GOP out for their obstructionism. He is, after all, the least "Goppy" of them all (up on that stage).
Well, we now know what the constitutional originalists want: the President considered as 3/5 of a man, serving only 3/5 of his term.
President Obama serves until January 20th, 2017. THATS 340 MORE DAYS.
President Obama serves until January 20th, 2017. THATS 340 MORE DAYS.
2
Thank you for the perfect description of Obama's last year.
"a final year that had been shaping up as an extended exercise in legacy-building."
"a final year that had been shaping up as an extended exercise in legacy-building."
1
I suggest he be replaced by a Modern Human.
1
"As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful on at least the first try. Of those 29:
12 were fully considered and formally rejected by the Senate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Co...
Of the 20% who didn't make it only 2/5 were voted on. The rest were stopped before consideration by the senate.
President Obama should make his nomination but after that its the usual hard ball partisanship- Washington business as usual.
12 were fully considered and formally rejected by the Senate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Co...
Of the 20% who didn't make it only 2/5 were voted on. The rest were stopped before consideration by the senate.
President Obama should make his nomination but after that its the usual hard ball partisanship- Washington business as usual.
1
I love Elizabeth Warren, but even she doesn’t get it. Prove what to who?
Those who already know that “Abandoning their Senate duties would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk,” already know it! Those who she is hopefully addressing her comment to – most of them, if not all – already know it, but just DON’T care!
Those who already know that “Abandoning their Senate duties would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk,” already know it! Those who she is hopefully addressing her comment to – most of them, if not all – already know it, but just DON’T care!
While I certainly feel President Obama should have the right to nominate the person to fill the Scalia vacancy;it is obvious the G.O.P. will never allow it. Why after 7 years of blocking everything Obama at every step if they could; would anyone believe the good of the country will take precedence over the Tea Party nuts controlling the Republican Party. They are already on the war path in blocking any nominee the President might present; no MATTER WHO that person might be; or their credentials. Shame on them.
1
Well this just goes to show how weak the Democratic party has become. Under Obama losses in Congress and state legislators and governorships have been staggering. Is the DNC really going to double down on a losing strategy by going with Hillary Clinton? Wow just wow.
The GOP is saying you're elected for 3 years and we won't pass anything you want. In the fourth year, we still won't give you anything
we were elected by the top tier of the rich. We're only doing things for them. Anything we say about helping the middle class and the poor, that's your problem.
we were elected by the top tier of the rich. We're only doing things for them. Anything we say about helping the middle class and the poor, that's your problem.
1
Whenever we think the Republicans have bottomed out and can stoop no lower, they reward us with even more shameless obstructionism.
1
Republicans dismayed at President Obama's opportunity to name another justice would do well to heed some political advice from the late Justice Scalia:
"Get over it!"
"Get over it!"
4
If Senator McConnell refuses to hold hearings, is that not an abdication of his duties as a US Senator under the constitution?
Impeach him.
Impeach him.
3
No, it's not. The Senate has no Constitutional obligation to take action on a nomination.
The sword cuts both ways.
S.RES. 334.
S.RES. 334.
1
Is it true, that if Republicans refuse to consider a nominee, Obama can appoint a Justice through a recess appointment?
Today’s NYTimes decries the threat by the Republican Senate to block an Obama appointee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy should he or she be too far to the Left, and the prospect of an ineffective hung court in the meantime. But the Republicans are correct in their stand, as I will explain.
First, one example out of many from today’s paper: Paul Klugman, “How America Was Lost”: “. . . without Mr. Scalia the justices are evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees — which probably means a hung court on many issues.”
Similar fears are offered in other articles. The NYTimes is raising the specter of a future Supreme Court packed with conservatives, blocking any “liberal” decision, and a hung court today, if no Obama nominee is accepted. History refutes that argument.
The NYTimes’ list of significant 2015 decisions shows there is but one block that has never wavered The liberals. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/major-supreme-court-cases-in-... lists 14 split decisions; in every one, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breye voted as a block. In the five 5-4 or 6-3 decisions, they were joined by at least one justice from the supposed Right and their view prevailed; only once did the Right vote as a block.
The Republicans are correct in fearing a packed court, should an Obama appointee be accepted. It would be Left and voting as a block. It’s those on the Right that listen to the arguments and makes up their individual minds.
First, one example out of many from today’s paper: Paul Klugman, “How America Was Lost”: “. . . without Mr. Scalia the justices are evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees — which probably means a hung court on many issues.”
Similar fears are offered in other articles. The NYTimes is raising the specter of a future Supreme Court packed with conservatives, blocking any “liberal” decision, and a hung court today, if no Obama nominee is accepted. History refutes that argument.
The NYTimes’ list of significant 2015 decisions shows there is but one block that has never wavered The liberals. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/major-supreme-court-cases-in-... lists 14 split decisions; in every one, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breye voted as a block. In the five 5-4 or 6-3 decisions, they were joined by at least one justice from the supposed Right and their view prevailed; only once did the Right vote as a block.
The Republicans are correct in fearing a packed court, should an Obama appointee be accepted. It would be Left and voting as a block. It’s those on the Right that listen to the arguments and makes up their individual minds.
2
Blah, Blah Blah, - Chuck Schumer made all the same noise in 2007, at a time when there was not even an opening on the Court. It just politics folks, relax. The President will nominate and then the Senate will do what it does. No Democratic Presidents nominee has been rejected ever. Abe Fortas got Borked 45 years ago but that was for Chief Justice, he was already on the Court.
2
the low information voters are what hobbles the Republic...we did a diservice to our wonderful country when we stop giving Civics lessons to our children who now grow into sheep that will follow whoever leads them at the "front"...even the D students of Civics understand the separation of the branches of Government and that no one Branch may impede the duties of another...therefore, separation
the lowliest voter should be enraged at the overreach of the Congress to impede Presidential powers...no matter who holds the Office
the lowliest voter should be enraged at the overreach of the Congress to impede Presidential powers...no matter who holds the Office
Republicans refuse to act on anything. They define the Party of "No!"
1
Treason!
2
Now, my fellow Americans, do you at last understand the subtext of President's witty response to the suggestion he "make nice" and invite Mitch McConnell over for cocktails?
"*You* have a drink with Mitch McConnell."
Haven't we the people had enough of the GOP's stomping their cloven little hooves if they can't get their way? This November give all of them one-way tickets out of D.C. and your state houses.
"*You* have a drink with Mitch McConnell."
Haven't we the people had enough of the GOP's stomping their cloven little hooves if they can't get their way? This November give all of them one-way tickets out of D.C. and your state houses.
4
Why shouldn't the GOP block any Supreme Court nomination until Obama leaves office? We're only talking about 12 months. Please go to the link below and see how the esteemed liberal Senator from New York wanted to block nominations for 18 MONTHS when GWB was in the White House:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/sen-schumer-senate-ca...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/sen-schumer-senate-ca...
1
there are no surprises here: republicans do what they want; democrats scream.
1
After 7 years of being naively polite to the obstructionists, THIS is the fight Obama needs to solidify his legacy. He should NOT yield an inch. Bottom line, the upcoming campaign should focus incessantly on throwing the bums out at election time.
2
McConnell has made many misplays in his ham-handed zeal to promote the Republican cause. He is about to do it again.
The Constitution allows Senate advice and consent on SCOTUS nominations, not a pocket veto.
The Constitution allows Senate advice and consent on SCOTUS nominations, not a pocket veto.
2
With this kind of behavior from the Republicans, is it any wonder Donald Trump is topping the polls?
1
>
Since Jan 1972 (44-yrs) the GOP has controlled the SCTOUS, by hook or crook they're going to keep it.
Since Jan 1972 (44-yrs) the GOP has controlled the SCTOUS, by hook or crook they're going to keep it.
2
Elizabeth Warren said it all.
1
Mitch McConnell and his band of merry obstructionists better get their collective act together quickly, because what they are proposing is beyond the status quo in the US Senate, it's treason.
1
This is ridiculous. If they block this we will go OVER A YEAR with no 9th justice. Inauguration is Jan 20, 2017. Even if the first thing the next president does is nominate someone, on February 15, 2017 we would still be without a 9th justice. However, I'm not surprised - craziness is this Congress's modus operandi.
1
Why are the republicans so scared of voting on a Supreme Court replacement for Scalia?
Clearly, they'd rather NOT vote than have a vote recorded!
Why is that? Well, they have, I believe, 24 GOP Senate seats up for grabs this election year. And God forbid any incumbents have to explain those votes to the electorate!
Mitch McConnel is trying to protect his Fraidy Cat Senate GOP hypocrites from a vote they are mandated to have by the constitution.
Home of the Brave, my foot!
Clearly, they'd rather NOT vote than have a vote recorded!
Why is that? Well, they have, I believe, 24 GOP Senate seats up for grabs this election year. And God forbid any incumbents have to explain those votes to the electorate!
Mitch McConnel is trying to protect his Fraidy Cat Senate GOP hypocrites from a vote they are mandated to have by the constitution.
Home of the Brave, my foot!
2
McConnell needs to be targeted specifically by the media and social media as he is the spokes person and majority leader. He IS obstructing democracy. Sign all petitions! Vote on a new nominee.
No rush required. Let's get a genuine independent thinker, not another establishment Golmdan Sachs -connected and compensated justice like Elena Kagan.
1
I wonder if there is a mechanism to take this to the Supreme Court. After Bush v. Gore, anything is possible.
2
The party of "No" continues to burnish that reputation.
Thank you Newt Gingrich
Thank you Newt Gingrich
President Obama - show 'em how its done!
1
The national Republican Party once again shows it cannot govern
They are an opposition party, willing to fight themselves or democrats
To oppose what you don't even know us just wrong
They are an opposition party, willing to fight themselves or democrats
To oppose what you don't even know us just wrong
3
I am most concerned about Clarence Thomas. What is he going to do now without his puppet master pulling his strings.
1
The GOP Senators do have a point: they haven't done any work for more than seven years, so why start now?
1
"And [Scalia] would likely not have taken a stand BEFORE a nominee was proposed!"
No question that McConnell should not have said he'd block Obama's nominee before he even knew who that nominee would be. That was a pretty minor faux pas, though, since it's entirely predictable that Obama will nominate someone to the left of what McConnell and other Republicans will find acceptable.
Most likely, Obama will nominate someone a bit to the right of what he would like, a bit to the left of what the Republican-controlled Senate would like, and then insist that the Republicans are politicizing the Justice-selection process. That, of course, will be exactly what the Republicans proceed to do (just as the Democrats would do if the tables were turned), all the while denying that that is what's happening.
No question that McConnell should not have said he'd block Obama's nominee before he even knew who that nominee would be. That was a pretty minor faux pas, though, since it's entirely predictable that Obama will nominate someone to the left of what McConnell and other Republicans will find acceptable.
Most likely, Obama will nominate someone a bit to the right of what he would like, a bit to the left of what the Republican-controlled Senate would like, and then insist that the Republicans are politicizing the Justice-selection process. That, of course, will be exactly what the Republicans proceed to do (just as the Democrats would do if the tables were turned), all the while denying that that is what's happening.
1
Any and all Senators supporting McConnell's obstructionism are as guilty of irresponsible conduct as Mitch and deserve to be ostracized and voted out of office as their terms expire. These people are disrupting the process of justice in this country and denigrating the constitutional processes which have served this country so well since its inception. This is shameful conduct and it needs to be called out.
1
Better to leave the seat empty than to fill it with someone who shares the ideology of Scalia and Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell et. al. Democrats are just as capable of appointing regressive justices as Republicans - the most recent that comes to mind was Kennedy's only appointment of the disappointing Byron White. So while President Obama clearly has a duty to nominate someone and the Senate to vote on the nomination, were the GOP to carry out their heinous threat of turning back all submissions then I say so be it. The current 4-4 split is, by any stretch, better than the 5-4 minority that the sensible justices on the court have had to endure these past many years.
1
Of course the president will appoint someone. It's he right and actually his duty. It also his opportunity to use this choice to control a significant part of the political conversation over he next few months. He could pick someone Republicans could accept. On the other hand he could pick someone the Republicans could never accept. Then they could be painted as obstructionists. It is hard to be seen as obstructionist just because you pick someone who would never be confirmed. All you have to do is list all the qualities of legal accomplishments. It's a smart move, politically. So we will see how this plays out. The chances are the President will figure he can't lose this fight even if his choice is rejected
It is really high time Republicans, both office holders and voters, be roundly disabused of their belief that elections have consequenc only when they prevail, and that they, and they alone, are entitled to govern when duly elected. So, to that end . . .
Listen up, conservatives. YOU are not the arbiters of who, or what, is 'American.' You have no claim to being 'patriots' beyond what every single other American has. You are not the only ones who 'care about America.' Your values, to which you are perfectly entitled, are neither normative for nor binding upon the rest of us. You do not own the Constitution, nor are you the final authority on how the Constitution is to be interpreted. Your belief in your own superior intellect does not actually constitute evidence of the same. That single mom receiving welfare and food stamps -- whom you so utterly despise -- is every bit as American as you are, and every bit as entitled to participate in the political process. The fact that your family came here on the Mayflower entitles you to nothing beyond what a citizen who was naturalized last week is entitled to.
And all of this applies equally to liberals, progressives, moderates, or any other political or demographic subgroup in this country -- but most of the other groups don't seem to have the same problem remembering it that conservatives have!
Listen up, conservatives. YOU are not the arbiters of who, or what, is 'American.' You have no claim to being 'patriots' beyond what every single other American has. You are not the only ones who 'care about America.' Your values, to which you are perfectly entitled, are neither normative for nor binding upon the rest of us. You do not own the Constitution, nor are you the final authority on how the Constitution is to be interpreted. Your belief in your own superior intellect does not actually constitute evidence of the same. That single mom receiving welfare and food stamps -- whom you so utterly despise -- is every bit as American as you are, and every bit as entitled to participate in the political process. The fact that your family came here on the Mayflower entitles you to nothing beyond what a citizen who was naturalized last week is entitled to.
And all of this applies equally to liberals, progressives, moderates, or any other political or demographic subgroup in this country -- but most of the other groups don't seem to have the same problem remembering it that conservatives have!
3
Should Obama bow down and obey the illegal and anti-constitutional directives of the Republicans? Or, should he do what he was elected for by a majority of Americans?
1
I often wonder if Justice Scalia was a Democrat or if a Democratic leaning Justice was the Supreme court Justice instead of Justice Scalia , that Justice would've allowed the counting of the 'Chad' in the Ballot papers in Florida until Al Gore was declared President in 2001.
And if Al Gore was the President, there wouldn't be any attack on 9/11 of 2001 as Gore would've been working in the White House and reading the Classified report sent by the F.A.A. (as stated in 9/11 Commission Report), about the impending attack on the Twin Towers and other NYC landmarks.
And if Justice Scalia was not there in the Supreme Court before, we could've seen a clean 'Obamacare' without any caveats that the states can refuse to set up their Websites if they wanted and refuse to expand Medicaid as they're doing it now even at a huge loss.
Without Justice Scalia, we could've Voting Rights Act of 1965 as it was written where the Southern States could not make any changes without taking permission from the Justice Dept. as they can do now.
Also without Justice Scalia, all the Naturalized Citizens and the Residents' parents would've been legalized by this time as Obama proposed and a Texas Judge refused .
And the Same Sex Marriage and many other liberal ideas would've been implemented by this time only if a liberal Judge was there in Supreme Court instead of Justice Scalia.
Maybe Obama will appoint somebody of his choice and we'll see a better America than what we saw under Justice Scalia
And if Al Gore was the President, there wouldn't be any attack on 9/11 of 2001 as Gore would've been working in the White House and reading the Classified report sent by the F.A.A. (as stated in 9/11 Commission Report), about the impending attack on the Twin Towers and other NYC landmarks.
And if Justice Scalia was not there in the Supreme Court before, we could've seen a clean 'Obamacare' without any caveats that the states can refuse to set up their Websites if they wanted and refuse to expand Medicaid as they're doing it now even at a huge loss.
Without Justice Scalia, we could've Voting Rights Act of 1965 as it was written where the Southern States could not make any changes without taking permission from the Justice Dept. as they can do now.
Also without Justice Scalia, all the Naturalized Citizens and the Residents' parents would've been legalized by this time as Obama proposed and a Texas Judge refused .
And the Same Sex Marriage and many other liberal ideas would've been implemented by this time only if a liberal Judge was there in Supreme Court instead of Justice Scalia.
Maybe Obama will appoint somebody of his choice and we'll see a better America than what we saw under Justice Scalia
1
If Republican senators up for reelection in blue states this fall support refusing to even bring the President's nominee up for a vote, it will be one of their last votes. Are you listening, Mark Kirk?
1
"The President shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court . . ."
Either there is a Constitution, or their isn't. Republican elites do not get to pick and choose when to acknowledge it.
Either there is a Constitution, or their isn't. Republican elites do not get to pick and choose when to acknowledge it.
2
Advice from the Senate: Get Lost! We're putting our chips on winning it all. Consent? The Republicans already said clearly years ago their agenda was to block Obama at every turn. We can only hope that voters rise up and take back the Senate. The Republicans are counting on High Turnout from religious zealots seeing a chance to win their biggest prize - stop Roe v Wade. Wake up America - and women and LGBT especially, because the American "Taliban" believe this is their time to take America back - back to time when a lot of things were shamed into closets and liberty was underneath the boots of religious authorities. This election, more than most will be about who turns out.
1
What happened to these Republican senators pledge to uphold the constitution?
1
Since not enough republicans weighted in when Obama was elected, they need another shot to get it right, so the Supreme Court stays right. ho ho ho.
The Republicans know Obama: He will fold. He will offer a Wall Street friendly, lover of the Corporate oligarchy like himself and they will slap him down.
And the idea of the Republicans losing the Senate is a fantasy. The only fear Republican Senators have is a primary challenge from the even crazier Right Winger.
Our Government is corrupt and our Democracy is a pathetic sham, so please stop handicapping nominees, it just not going to happen.
And the idea of the Republicans losing the Senate is a fantasy. The only fear Republican Senators have is a primary challenge from the even crazier Right Winger.
Our Government is corrupt and our Democracy is a pathetic sham, so please stop handicapping nominees, it just not going to happen.
Are Republicans Americans?
Do Republicans believe in the Constitution?
Does Republican hatred, resentment, fury over a black president negate their pledge of allegiance to the Republic?
Why don't Republicans all move to Texas and like their racist ancestors, secede from the United States? This time the Union would just wish them good riddance!
Do Republicans believe in the Constitution?
Does Republican hatred, resentment, fury over a black president negate their pledge of allegiance to the Republic?
Why don't Republicans all move to Texas and like their racist ancestors, secede from the United States? This time the Union would just wish them good riddance!
The Republicans trying to prevent the twice elected President from actually governing is not really news these days.
"Mitch McConnell reaches out to President Obama to see if a consensus candidate is possible". Now there's a legitimate front page, above the fold breaking news headline !!
Instead, within an hour of the announcement of Justice Scalia's death the leader of the Senate decided that this particular President is only allowed 3 years on his term..
A question for the "Textualist" interpreters of the Constitution.. Just where is that Democrats only get 3 year terms clause found in the text of the Constitution?
"Mitch McConnell reaches out to President Obama to see if a consensus candidate is possible". Now there's a legitimate front page, above the fold breaking news headline !!
Instead, within an hour of the announcement of Justice Scalia's death the leader of the Senate decided that this particular President is only allowed 3 years on his term..
A question for the "Textualist" interpreters of the Constitution.. Just where is that Democrats only get 3 year terms clause found in the text of the Constitution?
5
I have to agree with Lippity Ohman. Republican congressmen could blow up the new World Trade Center, blame terrorists while providing no proof, and still be re-elected.
2
Are all 6 remaining GOP presidential candidates willing to pledge that they will give up their right to make appointments to the Supreme Court in an election year? Didn't think so.
5
As much as I disliked Scalia's tenure, I imagine he would have gotten great joy if he had known what a fuss his passing has created.
The republicans are just following the democrat's lead with respect to ~confirming an Obama lame duck nominee:
Video: Schumer insists that lame-duck president should not get Supreme Court pick
Video: Schumer insists that lame-duck president should not get Supreme Court pick
1
Can you imagine how the Republican party would react if the roles were reversed and a Democratic led senate would refuse to act on a Republican Supreme Court nomination? They would be out of their minds screaming about how it is a violation of the constitution and their responsibilities... I am so tired of whiny republicans having tantrums and blocking everything Obama tries to do just because a Democrat is in office.
7
Not just a Democrat, but a black Democrat: either Republicans are overtly motivated by racism or they are merely reaching for power knowing that their racist constituency won't penalize them for it.
2
I have a serious question for Republican leaders, why must everything be done in the most juvenile, grandstanding way possible even in situations where the likely outcome is not going to be good for anyone, including your party? I'm sorry, but you don't get to continue to complain about some of your frontrunners in the campaign for potus who you understand would likely cost you the election when you continue to behave in a similar radical and disrespectful fashion. If Mitch McConnell in particular wants to understand why the political climate has degenerated to the level of the kind of embarrassing spectacle we saw in the last GOP debate, he should look no farther than his sore loser pledge on the eve of Obama's first election to obstruct every single thing possible during his tenure. That's right, before the legitimately elected president of the US took one step as president that might signal a reason to worry, McConnell decided, as he has just done again, to preemptively carpet bomb protocol and any respect for governance into oblivion for the sake of ... I honestly don't know, as it has certainly not led to wide scale respect even from his own base. So, Senator McConnell, if you wonder why your party appears to be deciding between two men, each extreme and alienating in his own special way, look in the mirror.
3
I told my teacher that I will get to my homework after the Nov elections. Now I'm sitting in the principal's office. Any advice from anyone out there on what to tell her? Anyone?
2
If President Obama nominates Judge Sri Srinivasan, I believe the Senate might have a difficult time explaining how they will now refuse to consider Srinivasan - since the Senate approved his nomination for the U.S. Court of Appeals 97-0 in 2013.
3
At what point do we start calling these continuous outrageous Republican shenanigans what they really are? Treason
1
And the Democrats are holding the budget bill hostage over a bailout for Flint. This is politics, get over it.
2
"Get over it." The classic rebuttal of someone whose ox isn't in the ditch and apparently never will be.
Get that slogan tattooed (backwards) on your forehead: people being people, there will come a day when you find yourself at odds with the law makers you have supported and whose behavior you condone. When they fail to consider your argument, then demonize you and exploit their position to steamroll you, you need only look in the mirror to remind yourself what your reaction should be.
It won't take much longer to reach humanity's nadir as the country, and indeed the world, becomes less and less willing to consider opposing viewpoints or cede any ground whatsover.
(And nice try on reframing the issue in Michigan, but the beneficiary of the "bailout" would be Republican Governor Snyder, whose fingerprints are all over the mess, even as his administration was seeing to it that GM and state employees in Flint didn't have to use the tainted water, all the while telling the people of Flint that the water was fine.)
Get that slogan tattooed (backwards) on your forehead: people being people, there will come a day when you find yourself at odds with the law makers you have supported and whose behavior you condone. When they fail to consider your argument, then demonize you and exploit their position to steamroll you, you need only look in the mirror to remind yourself what your reaction should be.
It won't take much longer to reach humanity's nadir as the country, and indeed the world, becomes less and less willing to consider opposing viewpoints or cede any ground whatsover.
(And nice try on reframing the issue in Michigan, but the beneficiary of the "bailout" would be Republican Governor Snyder, whose fingerprints are all over the mess, even as his administration was seeing to it that GM and state employees in Flint didn't have to use the tainted water, all the while telling the people of Flint that the water was fine.)
Republican lie #3,456: they love the Constitution. Clearly, they don't. Anyone who still votes Republican, is an idiot. It's astounding.
3
At first, I was "Oh no, the Republicans will start delay, delay & delay." If only there were 2 years until the next change over not >1.
Then I thought, well, maybe a pending, critical, in-the-face issue would finally rally stay-at-home voters into the process. IMHO the majority of we the people want neither far right nor the far left to ram in their ideology via the supreme court. A large turn out would give a more just outcome and be best for our country
Then I thought, well, maybe a pending, critical, in-the-face issue would finally rally stay-at-home voters into the process. IMHO the majority of we the people want neither far right nor the far left to ram in their ideology via the supreme court. A large turn out would give a more just outcome and be best for our country
2
As much right as President Obama has to put forward name (clearly, he does!), the opposition has the same right to oppose.
But why oppose anything, before a name is even submitted?
But why oppose anything, before a name is even submitted?
1
I guess you've forgotten Schumer's pledge in 2007 not to confirm any of Bush's Supreme Court nominees, should there be one, or the Democratic Senate's refusal to give hears or floor votes to several of Bush's appellate court nominees. Not that this would be blatantly hypocritical or anything.
It is surprising that the GOP has so little understanding and respect for the Constitution they so often preach about,and wave in the air like a prop.
Do your duty Mr President,nominate someone as soon as possible.
Do your duty Mr President,nominate someone as soon as possible.
2
Donald Trump is the top candidate for the GOP party because Republicans are sick to death of the way the GOP operates in Washington. Here is a classic example of the GOP refusing to do the job they were elected to perform. McConnell will do anything to protect Citizens United and he will try to get the blue-collar conservatives to back him by making them believe he has their best interest in mind. They see through this tactic now, bud.
It's a sick and disgusting political party.
It's a sick and disgusting political party.
2
If anyone had doubts about where to point fickle finger of blame for "Why is Washington Polarized?", that doubt is gone.
GOP, thy name is "Do nothing until we get in the White House."
It is a party that does not respect elections. It will haunt them.
GOP, thy name is "Do nothing until we get in the White House."
It is a party that does not respect elections. It will haunt them.
2
Mr. McConnell's spokesman makes a claim that the democrats "did it too" (such a mature pov) which isn't even close to the truth. The GOP won't even hold a confirmation hearing! They will however hold a few more Ms. Clinton Benghazi hearings. How many does that make...5, 8, 10? Same as with the president's new budget. They are simply halting the wheels of government until they get what they want. Vote the fascists out!
3
The GOP is always invoking messages from God, so I take them at their word.
I think that the passing of Justice Scalia is God's way of telling us He wants President Obama to select the next Supreme Court Justice.
I think that the passing of Justice Scalia is God's way of telling us He wants President Obama to select the next Supreme Court Justice.
7
As disturbing as this is, the sheer hypocrisy of the Rupublicans is just too rich not to enjoy watching.
I particularly liked Marco Rudio's sanctimonious plea that they need someone just like Justice Scalia, who will strictly follow the Constitution - all the while blatantly ignoring the clear language of the Constitution itself. I guess if you graduate middle of your class from the 61st ranked law school in the country you can be excused for missing contradictions like that, yet somehow be considered a serious candidate for President.
The man must be spinning in his grave.
I particularly liked Marco Rudio's sanctimonious plea that they need someone just like Justice Scalia, who will strictly follow the Constitution - all the while blatantly ignoring the clear language of the Constitution itself. I guess if you graduate middle of your class from the 61st ranked law school in the country you can be excused for missing contradictions like that, yet somehow be considered a serious candidate for President.
The man must be spinning in his grave.
4
Rubio, the young whipper snapper, has not yet developed a decent attention span, and probably hasn't listened to Scalia describe his approach. Still being entranced by shiny things. Inexperienced--uninformed? What a surprise.
Speaking of hypocrisy, how about the threat that Schumer made in 2007 not to confirm any of Bush's future Supreme Court nominees? Oh but Schumer is a liberal, so the rules don't apply.
Considering the ages of the remaining Justices, there soon might be only seven sitting Justices. Problem solved. Sorta.
The GOP reminds me of most Christians (no wonder they're great friends).
Love the book/Constitution except when it doesn't suit them.
Love the book/Constitution except when it doesn't suit them.
2
The Constitution does not require the Senate to act on a nomination.
1
Just one obvious but no rhetorical question though: Why to have a Supreme Court if the present political circus shows pretty well that it has nothing to do with law, balance or justice?
3
Apparently, Republicans in Congress only "respect" the Constitution when it suits their partisan agenda.
1
Why no timely autopsy under the watchful eye of the FBI, even over wife's objections ? It is the right of all of our citizens for the highest quality and integrity in government, just like our rights to have clean water and air to breathe.
3
I remember reading similar remarks when Bork and Thomas were nominated – though I don't think those remarks were made by the same people back then:
"When one side ignores reason and logic completely and acts as if nothing else but getting their way matters [bad results follow]"
"When one side ignores reason and logic completely and acts as if nothing else but getting their way matters [bad results follow]"
2
If the Republicans want to appoint the next supreme court justice they should have just told Justice Scalia to die when there was a republican president
2
I wish I outright could refuse to do the parts of my job that I don't like or disagree with and still get paid.
5
No matter how long they wait...they will never find anyone quite like him, he was one of a kind, he changed all of our lives in ways that have taken our once great democracy, to the path of destruction! Horrible decisions that will play out for a very long time. Republicans are going to find it very difficult without him!
2
Irrational behavior is no problem for Republicans, they seem not to notice, and relish it.
They use the Constitution, like the Bible, or the Koran, to justify their hateful vision of the world.
They use the Constitution, like the Bible, or the Koran, to justify their hateful vision of the world.
1
We are entering peak government dysfunction.
1
Sorry to see Mr. McConnell immediately attacking President Obama without regard to respecting the death of Chief Justice Scalia. Common decency and manners in waiting should have been the norm. Oh wait, this is the Republican Party. They have no manners and they have no decency when it comes to throwing rocks at the President of the United States.
2
I say to Republicans: go right ahead. Do it. Really. I mean it. Block any nominee the President puts forward, thereby refufsing to discharge your duties under the Constitution, and preventing the President from fulfilling his duties under it. Do it. In an election year in which, if you have any hope of taking the White House (God forbid!), you will need the votes of a great many independent voters, and see how that works out for you come November.
This is a temper tantrum and nothing more. It is but another variation of shutting down the government. And as I recall, that didn't go very well for you either in the subsequent elections.
This is a temper tantrum and nothing more. It is but another variation of shutting down the government. And as I recall, that didn't go very well for you either in the subsequent elections.
4
For all the prattling here about the Constitution, not too many people have actually read it. The Constitution does not require the Senate to act on a nomination.
2
Clinton and Sanders should both vow to nominate Obama if elected.
End of republican resistance.
End of republican resistance.
3
Well, Obama could appoint himself right now during the Senate recess. That would elevate Biden to the presidency, and as Obama is a constitutional law scholar and has consistently acted in a centrist manner, the world would continue to spin on its axis instead of on its ear.
Obama should nominate himself.
Biden assumes Presidency.
Sanders nominates next Supreme Court opening.
He nominates Biden.
The next nominee is Daffy Duck.
The show goes on. Donald Trump followed by the insane, delusional and out-of-touch Republicans.
Who suffers: everyone.
Biden assumes Presidency.
Sanders nominates next Supreme Court opening.
He nominates Biden.
The next nominee is Daffy Duck.
The show goes on. Donald Trump followed by the insane, delusional and out-of-touch Republicans.
Who suffers: everyone.
1
Of course, the President will nominate someone and the Senate WILL confirm them -- the usurpers in the GOP are stupid but they're not stupid. They're stupid in thinking they can scare President Obama (and they've certainly tried before). They're not stupid in that they will eventually realize their actions would bring them a more massive defeat in November than they already expect with Donald J. Trump, the TV comedian.
If at the moment the President were a Republican, and the Senate was controlled by Democrats, do any of the commentators here actually believe the NYT Editorial Board would admonish the Democratic Senate to confirm the President's choice? Of course not. To even ask the question is absurd.
2
The voters need to remember that the current senators are loyal to those that have bought them and own them, which is not the voters.
2
Republicans continue to demonstrate that they are unfit to govern.
1
Republicans are so stupid. They haven't leaned by now that every time they try to thwart Obama, he finds a way to win. Obama can now use this issue to help get out voters to ensure that a Democrat is elected.
Have the Republicans really not noticed the risk they take in trying to block the vote? If they get Obama to nominate a moderate (he'd be a fool to do so) and they allow it to be confirmed, they will have won, because... the far worse outcome for them is that the Democrats hold to the White House, as seems at this point overwhlelmingly likely, and the new President nominates a real left-winger. We'd finally get a left-of-center Supreme Court! And all thanks to the GOP, who should have taken a moderate nominee while they could. If Obama's smart, he'll see this play, and name a liberal, not a centrist.
1
Jack Lee made a comment which is a flat out misstatement of Constitutional Law. This mischaracteration of the clear language of the Constitution was "picked" by the NYT. Why? This is a very perilous period for our country. The New York Times has an obligation to refrain from in effect endorsing comments which are patently incorrect. Unfortunately, the average American is clueless about subjects taught in what used to be called Civics. Most people believe the last thing they heard some talking head say on TV. The NYT should educate its readers and vet statements of fact made by a commentator before it endorses that comment.
3
You have just described the chief reason that I have cancelled my subscription as of the end of the month. I don't need to pay real money for such irresponsibility.
2
Obama should nominate a left-leaning centrist and dare the Republicans to gamble that they will get a better result for them from a President Clinton or President Sanders.
1
We chose Obama to be President, so he should do his job. The Senate was elected, they should do their jobs. Hello! The rest of us don't get to say that we will do our jobs next year, when we don't like the timing or assignment. If Senators cannot or will not do your job, resign and get off the taxpayers payroll.
1
The Senators would be better off by doing their job, holding hearing and voting on nominees. Of course, if those nominees are unacceptable to a majority and are voted down, that's part of the political process.
The Senate is not required to act on a nomination.
1
It is ironic that after the death of an originalist justice, the constitution is so thoroughly ignored.
1
The important -- and damaging, and short-sighted -- precedent McConnell has set is NOT in opposing a president's nominees, but rather in pre-emptively announcing that opposition.
What McConnell fears is not any nomination by Obama -- what McConnell fears is a nomination by Obama that would be acceptable to a majority of senators present and voting -- in other words, a nominee who would be 'conservative enough.'
McConnell had to get is blanket opposition out now -- even before Scalia's still-warm ashes were sealed in the columbarium -- because to wait, would mean to look the fool at opposing a nominee obviously talented, qualified and ideologically-balanced enough to get the support needed to be confirmed.
If McConnell feared a 'left-winger' nominee, he need not have made his unconstitutional and hypocritical announcement -- such a candidate could be dismissed on being 'not qualified.'
Instead McConnell had to move, to keep his 'conservative' (ie, Authoritarian) wing happy, and minimize risks to himself and his party. But it was a risky move -- so who did McConnell shift the risks to?
Not Obama -- Not the American people. They'll be OK in the short term.
The thing that will take 'one for the team' is the institution of the Presidency. McConnell must know this. He knows that if McConnell is successful (he very well may not be), he will hand any future Republican president an office with a wound in its appointment powers placed there by Mitch McConnell.
What McConnell fears is not any nomination by Obama -- what McConnell fears is a nomination by Obama that would be acceptable to a majority of senators present and voting -- in other words, a nominee who would be 'conservative enough.'
McConnell had to get is blanket opposition out now -- even before Scalia's still-warm ashes were sealed in the columbarium -- because to wait, would mean to look the fool at opposing a nominee obviously talented, qualified and ideologically-balanced enough to get the support needed to be confirmed.
If McConnell feared a 'left-winger' nominee, he need not have made his unconstitutional and hypocritical announcement -- such a candidate could be dismissed on being 'not qualified.'
Instead McConnell had to move, to keep his 'conservative' (ie, Authoritarian) wing happy, and minimize risks to himself and his party. But it was a risky move -- so who did McConnell shift the risks to?
Not Obama -- Not the American people. They'll be OK in the short term.
The thing that will take 'one for the team' is the institution of the Presidency. McConnell must know this. He knows that if McConnell is successful (he very well may not be), he will hand any future Republican president an office with a wound in its appointment powers placed there by Mitch McConnell.
The GOP right, those ardent constitutionalists, want President Obama to ignore the constitutional command that he “shall nominate“ persons to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court (Article II, Section 2.), until 11 months from now.
Not gonna happen.
Obama will no doubt promptly nominate someone very well qualified, moderate, and fairly recently confirmed by the Senate to a Court of Appeals (there are several good candidates). The Senate Republicans (who announced before Obama’s inauguration that they would oppose everything he proposed, and have largely done so) will then stall and obstruct, without end.
This will dominate headlines all year, whenever the Democrats want to drill on this issue, and with each 4-4 decision. And the GOP can’t get rid of it, short of permitting a vote on the nominee.
Think LBJ’s jackrabbit in a hailstorm.
What better issue for the Democrats than GOP obstruction of the government? That issue was already going to be there, but the post-Scalia fight moves the issue to center stage, with trumpets.
And the issue is simpler and more important than most issues Republicans have obstructed, and may well swell the population of Democratic voters in November. What’s not to smile about?
See also: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/will-the-g-o-p-response-to-an...
Not gonna happen.
Obama will no doubt promptly nominate someone very well qualified, moderate, and fairly recently confirmed by the Senate to a Court of Appeals (there are several good candidates). The Senate Republicans (who announced before Obama’s inauguration that they would oppose everything he proposed, and have largely done so) will then stall and obstruct, without end.
This will dominate headlines all year, whenever the Democrats want to drill on this issue, and with each 4-4 decision. And the GOP can’t get rid of it, short of permitting a vote on the nominee.
Think LBJ’s jackrabbit in a hailstorm.
What better issue for the Democrats than GOP obstruction of the government? That issue was already going to be there, but the post-Scalia fight moves the issue to center stage, with trumpets.
And the issue is simpler and more important than most issues Republicans have obstructed, and may well swell the population of Democratic voters in November. What’s not to smile about?
See also: http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/will-the-g-o-p-response-to-an...
If I were Obama, I would put out the word that if the Senate Republicans block 1-2 Supreme Court candidates this year, he will put someone on the court during their recess next Jan. 3, 2017 who the Republicans will not like, possibly himself. Maybe then McConnell and the rest of the obstructionist Republicans will do their jobs and approve his nominee.
1
The response of the Republicans is dishonorable.
Poetic justice would be for Hilary to appoint a constitutional law expert, Barack Obama, to the Supreme Court with confirmation by a Democratic Senate.
Poetic justice would be for Hilary to appoint a constitutional law expert, Barack Obama, to the Supreme Court with confirmation by a Democratic Senate.
2
I think what the GOP Congressional "leadership" and Presidential candidates are doing is called sedition. I believe that the penalty, especially during time of war (e.g., as the U.S. currently is militarily engaged in Afghansitan) is death by firing squad. But I'd be in favor of an alternative punishment, for example, forced military service on the front lines of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until victory against the Taliban and ISIS is achieved.
As a Democrat and left of center liberal, I often disagreed with Justice Scalia's positions. I did take a great deal of pleasure reading his dissents however. He possessed a brilliant mind and incredible wit. It's ok to disagree, but now is the time to allow Justice Scalia's family and friends to mourn his passing.
So I was very disappointed on Saturday night, watching the Republican debate, when each candidate in turn talked about how inappropriate it would be for President Obama to name a replacement. Donald Trump, in his usual coarseness, implored the Senate to "delay, delay, delay."
How have we come to this place? A husband, father, and grandfather had passed just a few short hours earlier, and already his passing was made into political spectacle.
To Justice Scalia's family, my condolences for the passing of your husband, your father, your grandfather. To Justice Scalia, rest in peace Your Honor, and thank you for your service to this great country.
So I was very disappointed on Saturday night, watching the Republican debate, when each candidate in turn talked about how inappropriate it would be for President Obama to name a replacement. Donald Trump, in his usual coarseness, implored the Senate to "delay, delay, delay."
How have we come to this place? A husband, father, and grandfather had passed just a few short hours earlier, and already his passing was made into political spectacle.
To Justice Scalia's family, my condolences for the passing of your husband, your father, your grandfather. To Justice Scalia, rest in peace Your Honor, and thank you for your service to this great country.
2
By that "logic", then every senator up for re-election in 2016 should pack it up and go home. After all, why hang around and do the business of governing when the possibility of being replaced is a mere...what...300+ days away? The same goes for every member of the House.
The Republican Party continues to plumb new depths of hypocrisy and loathsomeness, proving on a daily basis that it is absolutely unfit to govern.
The Republican Party continues to plumb new depths of hypocrisy and loathsomeness, proving on a daily basis that it is absolutely unfit to govern.
1
Where are the moderate Republicans? Don't they have anything to say about this situation as well as their candidates for the Presidential nomination? I know they're out there somewhere but their silence is baffling. Shame on them for allowing things to reach this unspeakable low.
3
A military coup led by the GOP fanatics is no longer an impossibility in the United States. They are that insane.
3
The Republican Party, the Party of great leaders of this nation, like Lincoln has become a party of the Liliputs: it has no vision, nor the best interest of this nation! The Party is heading for a deluge. Of course, with leaders like what the Party is advancing and what we see now, the Party needs the transformation coming after a deluge!
After lame duck POTUS makes his liberal appointment, the Senate can hold a long leisurely vetting process, which will surely bring up something in the appointee's past or closet. They can wrangle over that until after November.
This is the best bet to deflect Democratic criticism against GOP candidates up for reelection as well as the Presidency.
This is the best bet to deflect Democratic criticism against GOP candidates up for reelection as well as the Presidency.
2
The weaker the hand the more desperate the moves, The Republican party has become the Dutch boy running out of fingers to block the crumbling dike of bankrupt philosophy and ideologies.
Perhaps the Senators who are running for re-election this year should also wait for the voters to speak and therefore not be allowed to cast their votes
3
The masks are off. The truth about the role that our judicial institutions play is revealed.
It seems that constitutional obligations or the originalism view that Justice Scalia championed only matter to Republicans when it suits their political purposes.
Ugh, I am not partisan to any party but the behavior of the Republican party is deplorable. It is an embarrassment, and if our kids acted like this they would be punished. Other countries must be laughing and ridiculing us, rightly so. It is obvious that a replacement should be picked immediately. What if we had another Bush v. Gore situation and have only eight justices who are split down the middle. Playing fast and loose with our democracy is not smart. I don't know how the Republican party evolved into this juvenile, bully club but it has and it needs to stop.
3
In how many ways must the Republican Party reveal its starkly antidemocratic nature before the American people consign it to the dust bin of history?
I hope, that at least for the last time, President Obama will actually stand up and fight for the American people and make sure that his nominee for the Supreme Court will be appointed!
Is the constitution is of the people, by the people for the people? Or is it a list of commandments in stone? Is an amendment the only way to make it relevant to an evolving reality? Even the religious have found it impossible to literally apply all of the laws in Leviticus, Matthew or the Koran to current life as we know it. Attempts to do so by one individual, group or another have always lead ultimately to violent confrontations. "Man" can interpret his laws.
Honestly, I wonder if McConnell individually can be impeached and/or the Senate generally can be sued for being derelict in their constitutional duty. The GOP hits new lows every year, so I'm not surprised. This is not just scraping, it is beneath the barrel.
2
"It was not yet clear which way the president was leaning." Undoubtedly the most deliciously funny line of the re-election season.
1
How completely phony. If a conservative Republican was sitting in the White House there would be no outcry. This isn`t about a lame duck president but about lamebrain senators who expect us to believe their partisan drivel.
President Obama should offer the Senate Majority leader this deal - they can vote on a nominee that he sends them, or they can agree to vote on the nominee that President Clinton or President Sanders sends them...
It is outrageous for the Senate majority to be taking the position that they are. Blatant, biased politics that is hypocritical and self servicing. Because if a Republican was in the presidency, they would be urging a nomination ASAP. I am disgusted by the way our politicians no longer respect the role they were elected to but are lobbyists in their own right.
Well, it's about time!
"The Republicans will be branded forever as shirkers, cowards and hypocrites,..."
After all, when it comes to blocking Supreme Court appointments for political reasons, it's the Democratic Party that has received nearly all of the criticism so far, especially since the Bork and Thomas confirmation proceedings. It's high time that some of that guilt get spread around!
"The Republicans will be branded forever as shirkers, cowards and hypocrites,..."
After all, when it comes to blocking Supreme Court appointments for political reasons, it's the Democratic Party that has received nearly all of the criticism so far, especially since the Bork and Thomas confirmation proceedings. It's high time that some of that guilt get spread around!
Certainly a sad collection of flowers on the steps of the court. It speaks volumes on what many Americans thought of Justice Scalia's record on the court.
2
If the court had any spine it would instruct the Senate to perform its duties.
Republicans don't want to be the "Republican Party", or the "Loyal Opposition", they want to be "The Party". Period. They want to remain in power without anything close to majority support.
With voter suppression and Gerrymandering, the Republicans aren't trying to get more votes, they're trying to need fewer votes.
With voter suppression and Gerrymandering, the Republicans aren't trying to get more votes, they're trying to need fewer votes.
Here's the best Obama can do:
A 47 year old former Wall Street lawyer with no appeals court credentials.
A former law school pal who was a public defender.
Neither has the chops or history to be appointed much less confirmed.
A 47 year old former Wall Street lawyer with no appeals court credentials.
A former law school pal who was a public defender.
Neither has the chops or history to be appointed much less confirmed.
2
Again, President Obama is the only adult in a room full of children.
5
The Republicans wrap themselves in the Constitution when it serves their purpose. When it does not, they spit on it. And they dismiss the votes of nearly 66 million voters who re-elected President Obama. American voters did have a say when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee--the chose Obama.
2
The Constitution does not require the Senate to act on nominations. The Senate is within its right to act by not acting.
1
The Republicans should hold out. Now they have the ability to moderate any appointee by the President. They want to gamble. They lose when Hillary wins and the Senate goes D. Then maybe Ralph Nader can be Mr. Justice Nader.
What a bunch of short sighted goons.
What a bunch of short sighted goons.
Nominate an outstanding Hispanic jurist and when the Republicans refuse to vote on the nomination it will cost them the presidency: game, set, match.
1
Not a collision with the White House . . . A collision with our Constitution. And would Scalia be rolling over in his grave if he were in it? Probably not, and that's the pity of his life on the bench. His decisions justified and elevated his private desires to public policy, just as the rest of the GOP officials seem to do all the time.
With the passing of Scalia during President Obama's second term, justice has been served, and McConnell is reminded of his top priority failure as a senator which was to make Barack Obama a one term president.
1
SCOTUS decisions require six justices to vote in order to have quorum and, therefore, any legal standing. Were I Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg, I would simply refuse to sit for any cases until the Scalia vacancy is filled.
Did I mention that I now hate the Republicans? That is beginning to include friends who have their own special pet interests-- preserving their fortunes (worth upwards of 100s of millions), Israel's hawkish behavior, and anti-gay legislation. I think I am done with all of you. Enough tolerance. Ginsberg did the country a disservice by "befriending" Scalia. He probably told her not to retire just so Obama couldn't appoint a liberal. I'm sick of hearing the kudos to this self serving individual. He gave of the worst president of my lifetime, and that is really bad. I could go on, but why? Let's get rid of these people.
This is as good a campaign issue as the Democrats could hope for to mobilize their vote. They need to get on it yesterday. However all I'm reading about, even in the Times, is what the Republicans are going to do. That's uninteresting. We always know that - nothing. Let's start hearing something from Bernie and Hillary.
One would hope that the American public would finally see how reckless and destructive this Republican party is and has been by simply listening to what they are saying right now. The Republicans are already blocking a Supreme Court nominee that doesn't yet exist. How can they claim to stand for anything when the routinely stand in opposition to nothing?
1
They can't see past their next move, and they prefer to shoot first and ask questions later. Who are these Republican stooges?
This is a coup. The Republicans have been all about the party at whatever cost to the country. This is what it comes down to: obstructing our President--because he is Black, because he is popular--even at the cost to the Constitution that they claim to uphold. Couldn't be clearer.
2
I love it when the Ds get all outraged, hypocritical, and ignorant. The Constitution does not require the Senate to act on a nomination. And the same Chuck Schumer who's now bent out of shape about the Rs made exactly the same threat to Bush in 1987, to reject anyone he nominated to the Supreme Court.
Naturally, the New York Times, which is ever further in the tank for the leftists, ignores these facts.
Naturally, the New York Times, which is ever further in the tank for the leftists, ignores these facts.
Republicans took an oath to uphold the constitution. Violating that oath is treason.
2
Justice Scalia was dead for 3 minutes- and not even officially confirmed - when the first right wing tweets came blasting out "no nomination under Obama".
Enough said. It's all politics. Even the passing of one of the Republican intellectual giants doesn't stop the wheel from turning.
RIP Sir. You must be smiling at the irony. You changed history in 2000 and you very well may again in 2016. Just different directions.
Enough said. It's all politics. Even the passing of one of the Republican intellectual giants doesn't stop the wheel from turning.
RIP Sir. You must be smiling at the irony. You changed history in 2000 and you very well may again in 2016. Just different directions.
The race has shifted from personalities to governance.
The GOP is proves, once again, they are unfit to govern.
The GOP is proves, once again, they are unfit to govern.
Nominate Ted Cruz.He has been bloviating about how important this nomination is and how the whole presidential election should be focused on this nomination. Let the president nominate Cruz; if Cruz does not want it, well I guess it is not that important. If he accepts it, let him go before all of the senators that he annoyed and see what happens. On the off chance that he is confirmed, will it be any different than having scalia.?
1
I am so disgusted by the Republican reaction. By their way of thinking, Obama shouldn't be allowed to do anything because it's an election year. How absurd is that? If anyone ever held out hope that the Supreme Court was above the political fray, that hope is gone. This is a pivotal year in defining who we are as a country, a culture, and a people, and I'm deeply afraid for my children. This is tribalism at its worst.
Were you "so disgusted" in 2007 when Chuck Schumer threatened to block anyone Bush might nominate to the Supreme Court? How about when the Democratic Senate refused to give hearings or floor votes to Bush's appellate court nominees? Oh, sweet hypocrisy!
Ted Cruz warns "We are one Justice away from the 2nd Amendment being written out of the Constitution altogether." Where does he/they get this stuff? Republicans have proven they're a danger to the nation, with bizarre leaps in logic, sinking, food-fight discourse, ignorance of facts, religion as a test for office, and so much more. If they want to live in the sewer, fine, but they won't drag the rest of us down with them.
Whatever remaining sympathy I may have had for conservatives is officially dried up. I don't care who is nominated anymore - as along as they do not check the box "republican" you have my vote.
Disgraceful, unconstitutional, behavior from our so called leaders.
Disgraceful, unconstitutional, behavior from our so called leaders.
If they refuse to have a hearing and vote then Obama needs to take them to court. At best, the republicans could get Alito and Thomas to side with them, but I don't see Roberts or Kennedy going their way.
If, after that, they still refuse to comply, Obama should have them all arrested and thrown in jail.
If, after that, they still refuse to comply, Obama should have them all arrested and thrown in jail.
I think Republicans acted hastily and took their eye off the ball while making a play to their base. By all accounts, the Republicans are playing defense in senate elections this year and by making the SCOTUS nominee a central part of the election they very likely will increase the energy and turnout of the democratic base as the Democrats try to retake the senate and retain the white house.
I'm sorry that it took someone's passing for it to occur, but seeing the the fear and panic in Republicans eyes at the very thought of their well-oiled conservative hay maker and rain maker (Citizens United, anyone?) being suddenly and catastrophically and irredeemably lost to them forever, is to see a flicker of seldom felt justice, or a least the hope for it, for those they attempted or did crush in the juggernaut that has been this SCOTUS, with Scalia as its most vocal spokesman : money corruption unparalleled in our politics, voting rights overturned and the very next day voter id laws and purges begin, shall we continue...?
Rest in Peace, Anthony Scalia. I'm sorry for your family's lost and their grief must be immense.
But the lost golden key for conservatives and the box they are now in that will reveal obstructionism and help sink their election chances in Nov? That panic and bellicosity we are witnessing from the right assures us that new right-wing train wrecks lie just ahead. And we are reminded once again that the only thing in life you can expect is the unexpected. And this time, as it too seldom does, the little guy catches a break...
Rest in Peace, Anthony Scalia. I'm sorry for your family's lost and their grief must be immense.
But the lost golden key for conservatives and the box they are now in that will reveal obstructionism and help sink their election chances in Nov? That panic and bellicosity we are witnessing from the right assures us that new right-wing train wrecks lie just ahead. And we are reminded once again that the only thing in life you can expect is the unexpected. And this time, as it too seldom does, the little guy catches a break...
Unless the press actually does it job and repeatedly calls out the GOP for Constitutional obstruction, nothing will happen.
Instead, we have the GOP repeat lies endlessly and our TeeVee news know-nothings sit back like deer in the headlights, either meekly reminding them of facts, or doing nothing at all.
Instead, we have the GOP repeat lies endlessly and our TeeVee news know-nothings sit back like deer in the headlights, either meekly reminding them of facts, or doing nothing at all.
1
The GOP touts the controversial 2nd Amendment time and again, yet will refuse to act on the President's Constitutional duty to appoint a successor. This reeks of a double standard and hypocrisy.
Mitch McConnell proudly claimed it was his duty to see Obama fail. While public sees failed Bush presidencies, including GOP primary voters - McConnell shows he's a total partisan hack. He will so the GOP elite have constitutional government on their terms...nothing balanced about it. Scalia was a partisan sham overturning centuries of constitutional interpretation. The Democratic Senate approved a Supreme Court judge in Reagan's last year in office, McConnell will stall, but still scream he's following the constitution. The public has had it endless partisan divide caused by GOP oligarchs...75% of Americans are not Republicans or Conservatives. Most of us are tired of the government being run for 25% (1%) who break laws and rules at will. Wait to November.
Don't liberals win out in any case even if the GOP stalls? With a likely 4-4 tie on many pending cases that were important to conservatives, don't the decisions of the appellate courts stand? Time for the Ninth Circuit to make hay while the sun shines!
Of course Obama cannot nominate anyone to replace Scalia, he wan't even born here.
If Obama said that he wanted to wait until after the election for a nomination the Repubs would have blabbered on about how irresponsible he was and how he was being disrespectful to his constitutional duties.
If Obama said that he wanted to wait until after the election for a nomination the Repubs would have blabbered on about how irresponsible he was and how he was being disrespectful to his constitutional duties.
Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, and the Republicans fighting the appointment are only showing America their inability to govern a country with different view points. Electorate take notice.
Lest the Republicans forget, in recent history, President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens in the last year of his presidency and President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy during the last year in office. Both were nominations were confirmed.
Further proof that the GOP has no interest in an impartial court, but, instead, one that will interpret the Constitution as a document calling for a theocracy.
The GOP is a national disgrace.
The GOP is a national disgrace.
If Justice Scalia stood for anything, it was that we should read the Constitution and follow what is written there, not adding or subtracting things as we may wish.
How sad that some of the Republicans would dishonor his memory by ignoring the plain text of Article 2 Section 2:
"...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"
How sad that some of the Republicans would dishonor his memory by ignoring the plain text of Article 2 Section 2:
"...[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"
1
I was too young for the Robert Bork nomination. I can only express my thoughts now. Supreme Court justices dying or stepping down during a Presidential term stinks for those on the other side of the spectrum from the sitting President. It is the hand which is dealt and it is wrong to refuse to carry out your constitutional duty to vet and either approve or reject the candidate. If a Senator, it is not your job to act in a partisan way and block a nomination because you don't like the President. I would say the same of a Republican President. Reagan had every right to nominate Robert Bork, the Senate had the right to not confirm him. That is all that is being asked, move forward as the Constitution dictates.
The passing of Justice Scalia durning president Obama's second term is justice served. The rabid racist on the right especially McConnell who's top senatorial priority was to make Barak Obama a one term president, his head must be exploding. Sorry Mitch you don't get to re write the constitution because the American voters have spoken, 2 times and Barack Obama was elected to 2 full 4 year terms. He will be our president until Jan 20, 2017.
2
Republicans don't mind violating the constitution when it suits their purposes of maintaining power.
1
Regardless of one's political affiliation, I find it a sad state of affairs when elected officials can publicly announce that they are not going to do their job and they face no recourse. First the Senate finance committee refuses to even look at the budget and now defiance of even holding a hearing for a new nominee. Do your job!
Republicans had better be careful what they ask for. You want to motivate Democrats to come out for their nominee in November? Push the SC selection process to the next president when there may be 2-3 nominations.
2
The chart prepared by the Times itself shows that the last time a second term president successfully filled a Supreme Court vacancy that occurred during the president's last year in office was Andrew Jackson, over 180 years ago.
1
You will look in vain to find a time when a President voluntarily waited to replace a Justice who died in office because it was an election year. There's no tradition to uphold here.
The hapless GOP is about to hand over the reins of the party to a vulgar fascist charlatan. But to also lose the conservative Court would be very hard indeed not to credit the current Republican leadership with bad stewardship. As Oscar Wilde wrote, "To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."
2
The Republicans' response to the death of Justice Scalia reminds me of the Democrats' response to the death of Ted Kennedy. At the time, the Democrats called the Massachusetts Senate seat "Ted Kennedy's" seat. It seems the Republicans have convinced themselves that it is Justice Scalia's seat on the Court and somehow belongs to a conservative. The Democrats were wrong then and the Republicans are wrong now.
Finally, the Republican Party may be succeeding in self-destructing. Let's all do whatever we can to assist the process.
1
The Supreme Court is an institution whose members must protect us from the extremism of our politicians and protect and secure democracy. Justice doesn't exist to secure the ideologies of our political class.
This is business-as-usual for the GOP. They no longer even bother to hide it their contempt for the highest office. Without even being presented with a nominee they are saying no.
Republicans need to - in the words of the late oxymoron Justice Scalia - get over it.
I've already spoken to two acquaintances today who have been staunch Republican voters, planned to sit it out in November and now due to the escalation of Repug obstructionism are saying "enough is enough, I'm voting for HIlary or Bernie, whoever makes it."
I've already spoken to two acquaintances today who have been staunch Republican voters, planned to sit it out in November and now due to the escalation of Repug obstructionism are saying "enough is enough, I'm voting for HIlary or Bernie, whoever makes it."
1
The decision to block any nominee that President Obama might put forward could backfire on the GOP if the make-up of the Senate moves to the Dem side in November and we have a Dem president, especially if we lost another Supreme Court justice, making two vacancies. Whether we elect Sanders or Clinton, the GOP could wind up being smothered, and that could happen.
1
Some have said that in refusing to consider an Obama nomineefor the Supreme Court, McConnell is shirking his Constitutional duty as Senator. It seems to me more like treason. Federal law enforcement should take immediate action.
2
Read about the politics leading up to an following the Civil War. Slave owners and southerners in particular but northern sympathizers as well, their politicians and US Supreme Court justices used all of the arguments and positions that Republicans use today. They hide behind and twist all of the good intentions of our nation and Christianity.
However, they are absolutely uncommitted to Christianity, democracy, to the Constitution, Amendments, Bill of Rights, civil rights or humanity. They are the ultimate racists and narcissists in our nation from then until now. They are destructive and damning to everything our forefathers had in mind, without enough intellect to understand what our forefathers advocated, debated and agreed upon. We have absolutely no guarantee what an Obama administration US Supreme court appointment will result in. However to hold up this appointment, to delay justice, to expressly desire a political decision based on a future election has no basis in our Constitution or democracy.
However, they are absolutely uncommitted to Christianity, democracy, to the Constitution, Amendments, Bill of Rights, civil rights or humanity. They are the ultimate racists and narcissists in our nation from then until now. They are destructive and damning to everything our forefathers had in mind, without enough intellect to understand what our forefathers advocated, debated and agreed upon. We have absolutely no guarantee what an Obama administration US Supreme court appointment will result in. However to hold up this appointment, to delay justice, to expressly desire a political decision based on a future election has no basis in our Constitution or democracy.
Typical of Republicans to "honor" Scalia by refusing to perform their constitutional duty to hold hearings for his replacement.
Also typical is a fraud like McConnell to take less than four months to completely abandon his promise to allow the Senate to do their work.
I think they are playing with fire that's going to come back and burn them in swing states where there are a lot of competitive senate seats up for grabs this year. A significant percentage of Americans are sick to death of their elected representatives refusing to do the jobs they were elected to do and a lot of these voters are independents.
And, by doing so, Republicans could end up with Obama as the next SC justice when a Democrat wins and they also take back the senate due to an electorate that is weary and disgusted with their elected officials refusing to do their jobs. Ignore your constitutional duties at your own peril.
Also typical is a fraud like McConnell to take less than four months to completely abandon his promise to allow the Senate to do their work.
I think they are playing with fire that's going to come back and burn them in swing states where there are a lot of competitive senate seats up for grabs this year. A significant percentage of Americans are sick to death of their elected representatives refusing to do the jobs they were elected to do and a lot of these voters are independents.
And, by doing so, Republicans could end up with Obama as the next SC justice when a Democrat wins and they also take back the senate due to an electorate that is weary and disgusted with their elected officials refusing to do their jobs. Ignore your constitutional duties at your own peril.
2
The Republican politicians should have more confidence in the voters. After all, the next president will likely get to nominate 2 justices and, if the voters choose a Republican president, his nominees could almost certainly counter any liberal that Obama nominates this year.
This distinguished gentleman's autopsy is still stinking up the Mortician's room and he is not in the ground yet with full honors and politics has presided the conversation. Both sides of the political aisle make me sick of the way our system has become so slanted, so divided, so right vs wrong! Both sides declare the other is trying to ruin America for their own purposes! Grow up, all of you, and realize that in this situation a gentleman of honor and integrity (whether you agreed with him or not) has died. Let us focus on the extraordinary accomplishments, he personal man he was, and his life at this time. My prayers go out to his family, friends and colleagues.
1
No offense meant but does'nt it say something about Justice Scalia?The ink has not yet dried on his obituary and he is forgotten. The Republicans are fighting for what is not 'Constitutionalism', Justice Scalia's signature on the functioning of the Supreme Court. If the Republicans wanted to respect his legacy, they would allow President Obama to do his Constitutional duty, not hinder it. Just shows their hypocrisy and the level at which they function.
3
The Republicans' obstructionism may succeed. If so, I wonder who President Clinton will appoint to the court next year.
3
Presidents do not appoint, they nominate; and the Republican Senate obstructs indefinitely. This is the way it is now and will be for the future, maybe forever.
The Constitution does not apply to Republicans, because they've learned to win by cheating, which is the only way they can win. The end justifies the means: the old politics is dead. This is now trench warfare.
The Constitution does not apply to Republicans, because they've learned to win by cheating, which is the only way they can win. The end justifies the means: the old politics is dead. This is now trench warfare.
1
The Constitution that you so confidently prattle about does not require the Senate to act on a nomination.
The Reps aren't very good chess players, are they? There's an excellent chance the Dems are taking back the White House and they are far more likely to get a more moderate choice at this moment in time, than in January 2017.
3
Much as he would like to be Obama is not a dictator and has to follow the constitution.
He can nominate one of his liberal socialist cronies but fortunately the Senate won't approve the nomination.
Obama could solve this immediately by nominating someone who has shown they respect the law and don't rule based on their political party.
He can nominate one of his liberal socialist cronies but fortunately the Senate won't approve the nomination.
Obama could solve this immediately by nominating someone who has shown they respect the law and don't rule based on their political party.
1
Don, that's all fine. What the Republican candidates and McConnell are telling him is - he is obligated to refrain from nominating anybody, and they won't even consider anyone he puts forward. And that is an entirely different kettle of fish.
In other words, someone exactly like you, eh?
With 4 conservative justices instead of 5, we right now have a 4 to 4 balance. This might be a once in a lifetime opportunity to take on Citizens United. Just an idea.
2
The President should nominate the Attorney General of California.
The right wing curmudgeons will be so dazzled by her appearance she'll be confirmed in a heart beat.
The right wing curmudgeons will be so dazzled by her appearance she'll be confirmed in a heart beat.
If there ever was any doubt about who the 'adults in the room' are, the question has been answered. It is striking the extent to which you can simply invert what the GOP is saying to find a semblance of truth in this chaotic world.
2
The Constitution gives Congress the power to approve supreme court judges. Any suggestions they are somehow acting outside their role is partisan bluster. And lets not forget Biden wrote the book on stalling supreme court nominations.
1
Once again the GOP is looking to subvert the will of the American people. The American people voted a Democratic President, and a Republican majority Senate. The Democratic President is doing his job for the nation; the Republican majority Senate not so much.
Looks like we need to give the Democrats a chance in the Senate, maybe they will do their jobs.
Every vote counts.
Looks like we need to give the Democrats a chance in the Senate, maybe they will do their jobs.
Every vote counts.
4
Maybe there should be a list of justices approved beforehand, then serving in their order of approval when needed. This would eliminate the problem before it can becomes critical/political.
2
Republicans keep referring to Obama as a "lame duck". A sitting President is only a "lame duck" between the election and the inauguration of a newly elected President. Just one more example of Republicans rearranging the facts to advance their own agenda.
2
This is the issue that is going to make me hold my nose an vote for Hillary if I have to, twice if I could get away with it.
3
John, I'm there. It will certainly be interesting to see how this goes.
I'm ready for some grownups.
I'm ready for some grownups.
Once again, Republicans who were elected into office who swore to uphold the US Constitution are not acting accordingly.
3
What if the President did voluntarily wait and Hillary appointed Mr. Obama to the court? What a sweet coup that would be, the best part being the appointment of a highly qualified and brilliant judge supreme.
4
the GOP announcing in advance that they intend to block any nominations is plain and simple dereliction of duty.
3
Denying the right of the President to nominate a new Supreme Court justice or refusing a Senate vote on such nomination is a blatant mockery of the constitution akin to a coup d'Etat.
4
The Republican position is emblematic of the problem with the party today: They will oppose Obama's nominee no matter who it is.
1
"Mr. Schumer, in a speech, said Democrats should refuse to confirm any nominee to the court by President George W. Bush — who was then nearing the end of his presidency — as well as future Republican presidents, unless the nominees were sufficiently candid in their confirmation hearings."
--------------------------
That is a substantive reason, and one regarding actual confirmation. It presupposes that there would actually be hearings on an nomination.
The GOP is throwing up a procedural roadblock by saying it won't hold hearings on any nominee in the first place.
And more seriously, the GOP throws up a Constitutional roadblock by stating that Mr. Obama shouldn't be nominating a justice in the first place.
Shame on them and the voters that elect them.
Reporters need to point out that this is a false equivalence.
--------------------------
That is a substantive reason, and one regarding actual confirmation. It presupposes that there would actually be hearings on an nomination.
The GOP is throwing up a procedural roadblock by saying it won't hold hearings on any nominee in the first place.
And more seriously, the GOP throws up a Constitutional roadblock by stating that Mr. Obama shouldn't be nominating a justice in the first place.
Shame on them and the voters that elect them.
Reporters need to point out that this is a false equivalence.
3
Well, yes, of course if liberals do it, then it's good. And they don't need to follow the rules they'd make for others. Such is the way of naked hypocrite.
One of the many disturbing things about some of the more conservative members of the Republican party is their inconsistent rhetoric. If President Obama does something they don't like they scream "That's Unconstitutional!" regardless of whether it is or not. Now, with the death of SC Justice Scalia, the President is taking actions that the Constitution directs him to take and they vow to block him. That is amazing!
We have a dysfunctional Congress and Americans shouldn't put up with this nonsense!
We live in a civilized country and we (the people) have elected Mr. Obama, not once but, twice.
This time we should not let the GOP get away with creating such disorder.
I'm so disgusted with them I'm ready to go to Washington, DC and picket Congress.
We have a dysfunctional Congress and Americans shouldn't put up with this nonsense!
We live in a civilized country and we (the people) have elected Mr. Obama, not once but, twice.
This time we should not let the GOP get away with creating such disorder.
I'm so disgusted with them I'm ready to go to Washington, DC and picket Congress.
2
They are suing the president in the Supreme Court to enforce immigration law even as they threaten not to consider any judicial nomination he makes.
Senator Mitch McConnell vowed from day one to make President Obama a one term President. Well, that did not work out as he planned. I think Senator McConnell has far too grandiose sense of himself and abuses the power he believes he alone has to determine Constitutional matters. The Constitution directs a sitting President to nominate a Supreme Court justice as soon as possible. Senator McConnell's desire to block, postpone and dither is obstructionist at a minimum and citizens throughout this country will penalize every Republican running for elective office at the polls in November and beyond. The subtext here is Senator McConnell's racism which will undermine the Republican Party in elections going forward and not in a good way. Good luck with your racist strategy, Senator McConnell.
1
Wow the madness continues.
So now that the GOP is faced with perhaps the most clearly written prerogative in the Constitution, the right to nominate SCOTUS candidates, they deny that he should carry out his obligations?
So much for their phony belief in constitutional principles.
As to the nonsense coming from McConnell ('the people should have a say'), the people voted President Obama into office twice.
So now that the GOP is faced with perhaps the most clearly written prerogative in the Constitution, the right to nominate SCOTUS candidates, they deny that he should carry out his obligations?
So much for their phony belief in constitutional principles.
As to the nonsense coming from McConnell ('the people should have a say'), the people voted President Obama into office twice.
2
In all real ( if obviously imperfect) democracies, sometning is supposed to embody impartiality when executives and legislators can't agree. This "something" exists and works if and just if the rules are taken for granted.
The rule is the President nominates and proposes to the Senate.
The GOP has just decided they would not follow the rule anymore.
What' s next?
Is the US a still, say... governable country?
The rule is the President nominates and proposes to the Senate.
The GOP has just decided they would not follow the rule anymore.
What' s next?
Is the US a still, say... governable country?
To those making comparisons to Bork: at least the Ds let the nomination happen. You don't even want that much for the sake of the nation.
Leave it to the GOP base to be gullible enough to pay its party elite to do absolutely nothing.
We see who the freeloaders are more than ever.
Leave it to the GOP base to be gullible enough to pay its party elite to do absolutely nothing.
We see who the freeloaders are more than ever.
Can I insist that my Congressman and Senators refrain from performing their duties because their seats may one day be occupied by someone more to my liking?
1
The Republicans need to sell their message in November. If they fail to act fairly and properly now they will discredit themselves with moderate voters in November. Either way they lose.
I keep thinking my revulsion for Republicans can go no lower.
They were in the septic tank before, now they are proving evolution and becoming a new life-form out of their toxic waste.
Where's the EPA?
They were in the septic tank before, now they are proving evolution and becoming a new life-form out of their toxic waste.
Where's the EPA?
3
rosa! You ARE A GENIUS! thank you for my belly laugh of the day. You're so right.
They wouldn't be singing this song if one of the liberal justices succumbed, you can be sure.
They're nothing but a cluster of clowns in an already crowded circus car.
They wouldn't be singing this song if one of the liberal justices succumbed, you can be sure.
They're nothing but a cluster of clowns in an already crowded circus car.
1
Republicans confirmed President Obama's nomination would lose to their primary challenge from the right in the next election. Let's play hardball. President Obama should lead the Civil Rights movement of this era.
Being a strict constitutionalist and originalist, I would imagine that Scalia's wishes would be for a president to adhere to his duties -- to nominate a new candidate for Supreme Court.
Yet somehow Mitch McConnell has decided to adhere to his own convenient, non-constitutional approach. Its very very disappointing.
Yet somehow Mitch McConnell has decided to adhere to his own convenient, non-constitutional approach. Its very very disappointing.
1
If the Senators choose not to do their job, can we vote to not pay their salaries and remove their gold-plated health benefits--ie fire them before the election? That's what happens to the rest of us for not doing our jobs.
1
GOP blocking the nomination couldn't have come at a better time for Democrats who will use this to highlight how obstructionist the Congress has become. No doubt GOP will lose quite a few seats and perhaps even the Presidency due to their short sited reaction.
2
This is easy. The president should just say he refuses to fill the seat and the Republicans heads would explode.
Why do you say that, Mike? That's what the Republicans are asking for: that Obama not fill the seat.
Seems to me that the Republican senate leadership is saying they don't want to do their job, which includes to advise and consent on Supreme COurt appointments.
I wonder how Justice Scalia would view this abdication of one of the foundational elements of constitutional government.
Or maybe Mitch McConnell is just being an ironic hipster.
I wonder how Justice Scalia would view this abdication of one of the foundational elements of constitutional government.
Or maybe Mitch McConnell is just being an ironic hipster.
The Republicans are politicizing (I am shocked!) an institution that is purported to call "balls and strikes" (John Roberts' famous quote from his confirmation hearings). It seems that the Republicans are wanting to make the Supreme Court another political arm of the government. Since when are appointments to the Court determined by voters?
2
President Obama has rolled up success after success over the Republicans and I doubt they will put up much of a fight on this either.
President Obama is too strong and the country is behind him. The GOP has no choice but go along for the ride. As it should be.
President Obama is too strong and the country is behind him. The GOP has no choice but go along for the ride. As it should be.
The clever move to break this impasse will be to nominate, not a moderate Democrat, but a moderate Republican, in the nature of a Kennedy, whose only sure vote will b a swing vote. But that's unlikely to happen in this polarized climate.
Perhaps President Obama will give the people a chance to get through primary process and then tee up a Supreme candidate. Bernie has a litmus test for nomination, not sure that works in his favor . Can't even imagine McConnel letting that get to the floor under current circumstances.
Which GOP strict originalists are saying this? I really do wonder if any of them have actually read the constitution. I doubt that many have since their social development seems to have stopped somewhere around the third grade (mine, mine, mine). And I'm not thinking of the good third graders.
1
There's absolutely no way that the Republicans can justify this threat. President Obama is the President of the United States for another year and it's his duty to fill vacancies in the court. Their job is to review the choice. It's that basic. If they carry through on this threat, there should be wide spread and sustained protest against the Republicans and their blatant disregard for the US Constitution.
2
This nonsense of blocking the President's decision is a continuation of the lack of respect the GOP has in the designs made by the American people. This government being held hostage by the Republicans is just more of the same.
Non-kinetic treason and sedition on the part of the Senate Republicans.
Start censure proceedings or compel them to take remedial civics.
Start censure proceedings or compel them to take remedial civics.
1
Oh great. Not only do we have to put up with the Republican presidential candidates and their endless squabbles, now we'll have to endure their nauseating pontificating on Supreme Court nominations. Save us, oh Lord.
1
Many Democrats have been disappointed over the years in the seeming inability of the average voter to appreciate how deceptive various Republican claims and arguments really are.
An issue too obvious to be missed by any voter may have fallen into the lap of the Democratic Party with the announcement made by Republicans within minutes of the death of Justice Scalia. Senator Mitch McConnell and other prominent Republicans announced that President Obama should not even bother nominating anyone to fill the Scalia seat. No action would be taken by them.
The feeble arguments by Republicans over supposed precedent for this intransigence gloss over the fact that in previous delayed consideration of presidential nominees, the vacant seat WAS NOT YET VACANT.
Each justice in the past, who had announced an intent to retire, was still on the Supreme Court and ready to sit in on any cases that would come before the court during a delay in appointing a successor. The business of the Supreme Court would not be impeded, influenced or delayed.
Every American voter should be able to understand the dishonesty of McConnell and his colleagues and to be offended by it
An issue too obvious to be missed by any voter may have fallen into the lap of the Democratic Party with the announcement made by Republicans within minutes of the death of Justice Scalia. Senator Mitch McConnell and other prominent Republicans announced that President Obama should not even bother nominating anyone to fill the Scalia seat. No action would be taken by them.
The feeble arguments by Republicans over supposed precedent for this intransigence gloss over the fact that in previous delayed consideration of presidential nominees, the vacant seat WAS NOT YET VACANT.
Each justice in the past, who had announced an intent to retire, was still on the Supreme Court and ready to sit in on any cases that would come before the court during a delay in appointing a successor. The business of the Supreme Court would not be impeded, influenced or delayed.
Every American voter should be able to understand the dishonesty of McConnell and his colleagues and to be offended by it
1
November can't come soon enough to take back our country from these right-wing zealots. I'm still gob-smacked that there is actually a Presidential candidate who once shut our government down and which cost us millions of tax-payer dollars. Now is the time for those of us who believe in democracy to go beyond posting comments and memes and work hard to throw these obstructionists out of office!
2
I'm a fifty year old grown-up with a job and kids and bills. I will set all of that aside to go to Washington to protest this act of treason on the part of the Senate. I stood by silently when the Court stole the election from Mr. Gore. I will not stand by again.
1
I have not heard from Mitch McConnell or any other Republican on their further plans:
If Republicans do not act on an Obama nominee, and a Democrat is elected president and Republicans are in control of the Senate, will the Republicans promptly act on any Supreme Court nominations by the new Democratic president?
My sense is that the answer is not "yes".
If Republicans do not act on an Obama nominee, and a Democrat is elected president and Republicans are in control of the Senate, will the Republicans promptly act on any Supreme Court nominations by the new Democratic president?
My sense is that the answer is not "yes".
Refusing to confirm a replacement appointed by the sitting President -- the President we voted for -- is tantamount to refusing to do their job. And if they refuse to do their job, the job they are paid for, then they deserve to be fired.
1
What would be nice is to ask the remaining judges to issue an opinion on this matter. Obama could provoke it, by making a recess appointment, but maybe there is a better way.
1
Ted Cruz claims to be a fanatic constitutionalist, that is until it involves Obama fulfilling his constitutional duty to fill a vacant supreme court seat.
Such cheap hypocrites!
Such cheap hypocrites!
1
And yet again the GOP is wiling to sacrifice the nation for its own self-interests. The party has a golden opportunity to get a moderate on the Court by working with Obama for a candidate they can all agree upon... a number of appointments tot he Federal bench have passed recently. Instead McConnell et al shall posture, bluster and show that the GOP Congress is both unwilling and incapable of governing according to its constitutional duty... again. How sad that the GOP's blind lust to destroy so harms its long-term interests.
That the Republicans say they will hold no confirmation hearings before a nominee is even proposed says it all. 100% political--and against the Constitution. Does anyone actually believe that if the current President were a Republican the GOP would just say, "Oh, we'll wait until after the election. There is hardly a year to go." Sour grapes. The Senate needs to do its job.
My solace in this is that whenever Republicans do something really wrong and slimy it tends to backfire on them either with the electorate, or because they find some other way to shoot themselves in the foot. Sometimes I like to think of it as divine interference on behalf of the forces of good. ;)
How thoroughly unseemly and disrespectful. A major figure in the American government -- with an extensive history of service to this nation -- has died. His family, friends, and colleagues are in mourning. And Congress had the audacity to politicize this here and now? The eyes of our citizens -- indeed, the eyes of the whole world -- are watching and we should be ashamed of ourselves
The Republicans are about to play a very dangerous game - but only dangerous for them. The denial of any nominee from Obama will play well in the primaries, but will be very dangerous for them in the general election.
If there was ever a danger of a political party being "hoist on its own petard", this is it. The world will be watching with great interest.
If there was ever a danger of a political party being "hoist on its own petard", this is it. The world will be watching with great interest.
1
Just imagine if Cruz's eligibility to run for office is challenged in the courts and goes to Supreme Court. Resolution would need to occur before November. A 4-4 tie results in lower court prevailing and perhaps Cruz not on the ballot.
To put it mildly, it appeared unseemly that the president immediately introduced the volatile subject of a replacement for Justice Scalia. He could have said the few nice things he did say about Scalia and left it that for the time being. He should have left the replacement issue for another time. Of course the republicans on the other side of the aisle are barking like dogs with a bone while the man is not yet in his grave. All of this is shameful.
Precedents? A quick look shows six previous justices had their terms end in an election year before the election; four of them were replaced the same year, even one position that was opened up in October.
1
One of the two not filled was at the start of the Civil War. The other did involved the new president nominating the justice.
The Republicans, in their outrage that President Obama - twice elected by the American people - would have the audacity to actually fulfill his constitutional responsibility to nominate a qualified candidate to fill the vacant seat on the SC during the last year of his term, have earned a new descriptor: let's call them and their understanding of our system as the Opportunist party. They believe the Constitution should be interpreted only as what is convenient for them!
Outrageous! They and their would-be nominees are an embarrassment to themselves and an outrage toAmerica - it's citizens, voters, and Democracty. Shame on them yet again.
Outrageous! They and their would-be nominees are an embarrassment to themselves and an outrage toAmerica - it's citizens, voters, and Democracty. Shame on them yet again.
The Constitution provides for the avoidance of actual fierce battles in its legal process for replacing Supreme Court Justices. The President nominates a candidate to fill the vacancy, and the Senate either confirms or rejects the nominee. If the candidate is rejected, and the sitting President is still in office, try again.
There have been dozens of Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court who have failed to be confirmed, for one reason or another, since the 1790's.
The current situation offers nothing new, nothing that hasn't happened before. Eventually, there will be a new Supreme Court justice.
The rest is just commentary.
Which, in the case of the New York Times Editorial Board, often means partisan, left leaning commentary. And in this case, not a little hyperbole.
There have been dozens of Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court who have failed to be confirmed, for one reason or another, since the 1790's.
The current situation offers nothing new, nothing that hasn't happened before. Eventually, there will be a new Supreme Court justice.
The rest is just commentary.
Which, in the case of the New York Times Editorial Board, often means partisan, left leaning commentary. And in this case, not a little hyperbole.
I suppose they could simply refuse to vote on it until Obama is out of office.
The GOP's call for the President to neglect his duty to even try to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court shows how weak and desperate the party has become. They continue to live in a dream state that Obama is NOT the President and any action he takes is not legitimate.
Justice Scalia was not even in the funeral home when Mr. McConnell started yelling "block, block". Hard to call the man a Senator.
Mr. McConnell should be awared that the Senate cannot afford a recess. He should be awared that the 114th U.S. Congress ends on January 3, 2017.
And Thanks to a wealth of recent Democratic appointments on the lower courts, letting the Supreme Court go down to eight justices would favor Liberals. Conservatives wouldn’t like the regime of liberal rulings that would govern in most of the nation without Supreme Court oversight. And the
prospect of liberal dominance may actually stiffen the spine of the historically more accommodating Senate Democrats.
Mr. McConnell should be awared that the Senate cannot afford a recess. He should be awared that the 114th U.S. Congress ends on January 3, 2017.
And Thanks to a wealth of recent Democratic appointments on the lower courts, letting the Supreme Court go down to eight justices would favor Liberals. Conservatives wouldn’t like the regime of liberal rulings that would govern in most of the nation without Supreme Court oversight. And the
prospect of liberal dominance may actually stiffen the spine of the historically more accommodating Senate Democrats.
Republicans have a choice. Do the right thing and consider Obama's nominee. Or contemplate how they will handle a nominee from Clinton or Sanders. Because there is no way that one of the six men who embarrassed themselves on national TV Saturday night will have a say in the matter. It just won't happen.
1
There are no fine points in the Republicans' position on the matter of nominating and approving a successor justice to the Supreme Court. No strict constructionism, origininalism, or any other ism. The only thing that matters to them is opposing anything this President does.
Scalia has just died and isn't even buried and the republicans are already into a political fight over his seat. That is really ugly. The dead deserve much more respect than that.
These Republicans are out of their minds. Conservatives? Blocking a nomination is a continuing obstructionist effort on their part. People will take to the streets to demonstrate on this one. Hillary Clinton should be focusing her anger on how the Republicans have been disrespectful to Obama since day one of his presidency rather than on Bernie.
What we need is a term limit for these tired old senators and representatives. These folks have been there for decades and think that they can do whatever they like. How dare they tell the President what to do. President Obama has the constitutional authority to appoint a single or all 9 Justices of the Supreme Court if they all were to die. What would have happened if one of those 9/11 planes had crashed into the Supreme Court and killed them? I guess President Bush may have been "told" that he could not appoint all 9!
Would love to see a history of nominations and vacancies. Some politicians have suggested new appointees don't come in election years. Is that because few vacancies have arisen in the past right before an election or because presidents have chosen not to nominate in the lead up to an election.
How on earth does a speech by Schumer demonstrate that "Democrats had their own history of blocking Republican judicial nominations"? Besides, Schumer's condition "unless the nominees were sufficiently candid in their confirmation hearings" obviously presupposes that there would be such hearings - the very thing McConnell would deny any nominee. I'm no fan of Schumer, but to call such GOP arguments "sophistry" is to call Mussolini "bossy".
I would expect nothing less from this do-nothing Congress. The amount of resources, energy, and time spent to obstruct is phenomenal and maddening. Thanks for nothing.
Right! When it comes to the GOP majority Senate (as guided by Mitchell McConnell) its simply business ,or Monkey business, as usual. I vividly recall in fact when President Obama was first elected. Instead of pledging cooperation on behalf of his GOP buddies in the Senate for the sake of the country, McConnell said that he would "Work to obstruct any initiatives or policies put forward by this President." So its abundantly clear that the only way any substantial changes will be made in Congress (including seating a new Supreme Court Justice) will only happen when McConnell and co. are no longer in the position to obstruct or inhibit the will of the People.
1
The democratic party had well better keep a very close eye on the upcoming election. No more butterfly ballots, hanging chads, or recounts. Republicans prove time and time again that they will do anything to push their agenda and to win elections. The November election has to be fair so that the American people decide, not the Koch brothers.
2
Republicans were elected to be the opposition. Politicians always find new and improved ways to oppose. Just ask Harry Reid, an obstructionist if there ever was one.
Of course, those losing the political battle are free to whine and complain about it.
Of course, those losing the political battle are free to whine and complain about it.
So I guess that is why the Republicans are crying all the way to a defeat come November 2016. Republicans are like kids who do not get what they want. They whine and cry foul.
Evidently just saying "No!" is the limit of your creative capacities.
I'd like to see President Obama use his remaining term to really push the Republicans. Besides nominating an excellent replacement for Scalia, I'd put using his power as Commander-in-Chief to shutdown Guantanomo. To actually raze it. They may forget that they gave him immense powers under the USA Patriot Act.
The results would be amazing with wet diapers of frustration and heads exploding in racist rage!
The results would be amazing with wet diapers of frustration and heads exploding in racist rage!
1
If things were reversed the Republicans would nominate their person citing the constitution. The constitution is invoked when it suits their agenda. "Fierce battle, obstructionist, block Obama" is the Republican tagline for 8 years.
McConnell should have kept his mouth shut, but political obstruction and the coarsening of our institutions are among the consequences when a president has gone out of his way to be the poster child for the conceits that animate too many progressives, that they're smarter and more virtuous than the rest of us, entitled to dictate how the rest of us should live, and that anyone who doesn't share their point of view is either malevolent or an ignorant pawn of Fox News.
Republicans refer to the section of the Constitution, that only they can read, that says 'when a black president presents a nominee for the Supreme Court the senate shall delay, delay, delay'.
2
In memory of Scalia's strict adherence to the Constitution, we ought to actually follow the document and let the president fulfill his duty to replace the justice.
2
Let's respect the man's life and his family.
Then let's see if the President nominates a reasonable person with a proven record before we draw conclusions.
Have we forgotten how to act like American's? Can we act with an ounce of class?
Then let's see if the President nominates a reasonable person with a proven record before we draw conclusions.
Have we forgotten how to act like American's? Can we act with an ounce of class?
2
Disgusting. The GOP continues to refuse to do anything to actually govern. This isn't governing, this is scorched-earth politics, pure and simple. If the GOP goes through with this threat, they will have introduced an incredibly dangerous and disruptive precedent into American politics: refusing to consider legal appointments until a party gets their own puppet in the Presidency.
1
Obama said that if the Congress won't act, he will through his executive orders.
Now that the Congress is not going to act on his nominee, how about passing an executive order nominating whomever he wants. Then the matter can be litigated in the court, and we can all have fun.
Now that the Congress is not going to act on his nominee, how about passing an executive order nominating whomever he wants. Then the matter can be litigated in the court, and we can all have fun.
1
If we are honest with ourselves, there is no doubt that if the roles were reversed (a Republican lame-duck President and a Democrat controlled Senate) the Democrats would also advocate waiting until after the election this year. Politics is politics.
3
Just what a broken democracy needs: a Senate that refuses to perform a function empowered by the US constitution.
Setting aside the world's dictatorships, is there another democracy on the planet as dysfunctional as the USA?
Setting aside the world's dictatorships, is there another democracy on the planet as dysfunctional as the USA?
1
VP Joe Biden has done well in the Legislative and Executive branches. Perhaps he would be willing to serve as a Justice. Admittedly not a traditionally experienced candidate, he seems to me to be a good person whose demeanor befits the nature, and the current occupants, of the high Court.
1
What a bunch of lazy whiners. The President should nominate someone and the Senate should act on the nomination - either by the Judiciary Committee's agreeing refusing to act on the nomination or by the full Senate's voting on the nomination.
Why should Pres. Obama do the Senate's work for it?
Why should Pres. Obama do the Senate's work for it?
Let's say the situation were reversed. I suspect if we had a Republican President in his final year of office and a Democrat-controlled Senate, the Democrats would be dragging their feet as well.
I'm also disgusted that Justice Scalia was barely declared dead before the venom for "Rethuglicans" came out of the woodwork. How nice it would be if everyone would just shut up for a few days. But there is that 24-hour news cycle to fill.
I fear Scalia's death will sow the seeds for a second Civil War in this country. Where are the leaders and statespeople to prevent that from happening?
I'm also disgusted that Justice Scalia was barely declared dead before the venom for "Rethuglicans" came out of the woodwork. How nice it would be if everyone would just shut up for a few days. But there is that 24-hour news cycle to fill.
I fear Scalia's death will sow the seeds for a second Civil War in this country. Where are the leaders and statespeople to prevent that from happening?
2
Indeed. If you want civil war, let the camel of religion into the tent of law.
I have no problem with the GOP's request. I'm fine with Hillary picking the next nominee. Perhaps she could nominate Barak or Michelle Obama?
But since Scalia was an originalist (dumbest theory ever) and Rubio has been quick to jump on that train-"the constitution is not a living document" How stupid is that. These guys got law degrees? From where a matchbook?
Well if they're originalists, then using their argument, and following the Constitution, it is not only the President's right it is his sworn duty to nominate someone who will be quickly confirmed.
But since Scalia was an originalist (dumbest theory ever) and Rubio has been quick to jump on that train-"the constitution is not a living document" How stupid is that. These guys got law degrees? From where a matchbook?
Well if they're originalists, then using their argument, and following the Constitution, it is not only the President's right it is his sworn duty to nominate someone who will be quickly confirmed.
3
but the chickens are coming home to roost big time for the Democrats. After the antics the Democrats started with the nomination process -- going back to 1970 -- this is to be taken as the highest form of poetic justice. Obama may nominate any candidate he likes, and the Senate may choose to hold or vote or not.
1
Hate to break it to you but Scalia was confirmed unanimously in the 1980s
2
Senators Mike Lee and Kelly Ayotte both have less than a year of their current terms remaining. Do they recognize, that by their own reasoning, they no longer represent their voters and therefore should not attempt any leadership activities?
(unfortunately, they seem perfectly content to selectively choose the constitutional responsibilities they act on)
(unfortunately, they seem perfectly content to selectively choose the constitutional responsibilities they act on)
3
Shameful! This is the same reason that the Republican response for the last 7 years in Congress has been so negative and obstructionist.
I want President Obama to make an appointment to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Scalia, this is how the Constitution works. President Obama is the President for 4 years not 3.
I want President Obama to make an appointment to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Scalia, this is how the Constitution works. President Obama is the President for 4 years not 3.
1
This is nothing more than a another play in trying to grasp and maintain power at all costs by the Republicans. The devolution of the United States into a third world banana republic that was started under G. Bush (or maybe it was Reagan) is almost complete. God helps us if any of them make it into the White House.
Politically speaking, Republican refusal to confirm should benefit Republicans in the presidential election. Anyone in the Republican base who is paying attention will know how much more important the election will be. The base will come to the polls in force, unlike the Romney/Obama election. Just my analysis.
I wonder what the Republicans (and the Democrats for that matter) would have done if one of the more progressive justices had died during the presidency of Bush, Bush, or Reagan. Would they have been so obstructionist?
There is, perhaps, a thin line between politics and treason. Openly declaring that the Republican controlled Senate plans to obstruct a duly-elected sitting President's choice for a Supreme Court Justice, without that nominee having yet even been named, might just cross the line.
2
Remember that just last week Congressional Republicans refused to hold hearings on Mr. Obama's proposed 2017 budget. So clearly their overriding strategy is to invalidate the last year of his second term.
If this was taking place in another nation, we would call it a coup.
If this was taking place in another nation, we would call it a coup.
3
So based upon the "logic" of Republican Senators McConnell, Cruz, Lee, et al., absolutely no business should be conducted in the Senate because we will be electing new Senators in November. We wouldn't want to offend any of these as yet unelected Senators by voting on bills that they might not approve of, if and when they get elected in 8.5 months. So basically, they should just get paid to do nothing until January 2017. Oh wait, how is that any different than what is already happening?
1
How outrageous, how unsurprising. In one final defiant act of ugliness toward the twice-elected Mr. Obama, who has been found guilty of Being President While Black, and with nearly a year left in his second term, the Republicans have demonstrated what they mean by American exceptionalism. Mr. McConnell, who personifies what might perhaps be described as The Audacity of Nope, will long be remembered as one of the most reviled figures in American history. The good news is that we can see to it that We the Peole give the Republican Party the overwhelming drubbing they so richly deserve in November, at every level of government, and help them understand the consequences of attempting to hijack the Constitution they claim to revere.
2
Well said, PW. Unfortunately you are right, and "what they mean by American exceptionalism" is that they will take exception to everything this President attempts to do. We see through it though, and soon we shall greet them with another two-term President, who will fill the next SCOTUS spot, after President Obama fills this one. They are slow learners.
It was, indeed, the plan all along:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/03/The-Conspiracy-to-Commit-Legis...
It was, indeed, the plan all along:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/03/The-Conspiracy-to-Commit-Legis...
1
Strict constitutionalists should honor Scalia, the dean of keeping to the original text, and not obstruct the President from doing his duty. All this talk about not selecting a successor to Scalia in an election year is nonsense. A presidents term is a full four years.
1
Republicans seem to have little regard for our country, its future, its constitution and too willing to undermine essential processes. They need to back off, reflect, act responsibly and not work to take our country down.
2
Once again political rancor and divisiveness will take center stage for now into next year confounding the world as to how the US ever keeps things together or gets things done. These are sad times as compromise and comradery take a back seat and Civil war-like preparations dig in. Oh for leaders of the past who solved problems of petty in-fighting and conflict to get things done in a timely manner .
What perfect hypocrisy, stating you want a replacement who is a "constitutional purist" like Scalia, not subject to political winds, then doingadvocating exactly that - delaying the constitutional duty to select a supreme court justice based on prior political winds that delayed nominations during an election year. And incidentally, President Obama is not a "lame duck" until after the election.
1
Republicans once again confirming beyond all doubt they are "The Party of No." Did anyone expect any other response?
One can only hope this backfires in an election year they claim as "precedent" for delaying action on any nominated Supreme Court Justice replacement.
Disgraceful. Why are elected representatives who won't do their jobs allowed to continue to collect their paychecks - from my tax dollars?
One can only hope this backfires in an election year they claim as "precedent" for delaying action on any nominated Supreme Court Justice replacement.
Disgraceful. Why are elected representatives who won't do their jobs allowed to continue to collect their paychecks - from my tax dollars?
2
To prevent such future battles for Power, the answer to this vexing problem would be term limits. But 'term limits' itself will be a very complicated issue in the court. And so, the vicious cycle continues.
If Republicans can vote to repeal Obamacare 100 times, the president should give a weekly address staring with "And it's another week where the Republicans have made it impossible for me to get the job done." Sure, it will get tedious, but it's important for citizens to know what these despicable un-American partisan warriors have been doing. Or should I say, not doing.
1
The Republican party needs to stop behaving like a little spoiled brat that is throwing a tantrum because it has not gotten it's way. They won't win the presidential election, because America is not crazy enough to elect any of their deceiving, feeble minded, wanting to impose their imaginary friend on us, candidates. It is time to vote them out of politics all together, to get rid of this republican pestilence that has done nothing but divide, incite hatred , and provide failure after failure.
The smart play is to have a potential nominee who is either center left or center right that could be acceptable to both parties. Democrats could use this issue against he GOP during the election year. The GOP are banking on the fact that they will win the White House. Their isn't any guarantee on who will win better to work with the current president who is a known quantity.
It is desperately sad and reprehensible to see this frenzied political showdown emerge from the death of a great man. Can he be mourned and celebrated in peace? Can America step away from the political self-aggrandizement and allow the Scalia family (along with friends and colleagues) to celebrate the "man" and his erudite achievements without fusing this tremendous loss with the current Presidential election Jihad of sorts? It appears not.
A terribly acerbic iteration of divisiveness continues to swell in this great nation, to the extent that everyone is focusing more on the tactical positioning of the death of Justice Scalia than they are on the man's achievements and place in American history. I see this opportunism happening way too often in your society and it is corrosive, representative of a widespread cultural erosion. Not a healthy metamorphosis!
Antonin Scalia died- he did not resign. And he died unexpectedly. It would not only be prudent but also respectful for a new assignment to be made by the new POTUS after the November elections. We thrust Scalia's passing into a statistical archive tantamount to that of a Gallup or any other political poll when we hone in solely on the impact a re-appointment will have in an election year.
Desperate times, America.......embrace Patriotism over Partisanship.....finish up the election and then have the next Leader of the Free World take on this mammoth task after the requisite time has passed.
God Bless America!
A terribly acerbic iteration of divisiveness continues to swell in this great nation, to the extent that everyone is focusing more on the tactical positioning of the death of Justice Scalia than they are on the man's achievements and place in American history. I see this opportunism happening way too often in your society and it is corrosive, representative of a widespread cultural erosion. Not a healthy metamorphosis!
Antonin Scalia died- he did not resign. And he died unexpectedly. It would not only be prudent but also respectful for a new assignment to be made by the new POTUS after the November elections. We thrust Scalia's passing into a statistical archive tantamount to that of a Gallup or any other political poll when we hone in solely on the impact a re-appointment will have in an election year.
Desperate times, America.......embrace Patriotism over Partisanship.....finish up the election and then have the next Leader of the Free World take on this mammoth task after the requisite time has passed.
God Bless America!
Clearly, hypocrisy is strong on both sides. The Democrats look foolish in light of their past behavior and comments, as do the Republicans based on their current behavior and comments. Recall;
2007 Schumer:"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances."
2007 Schumer:"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances."
I certainly agree with all the writers below who believe that Obama should make the choice, hopefully quickly. My worry is that he will once again defer to the conservatives.
Jane Taras Carlson
Jane Taras Carlson
1
Obama should make the appointment and see how the Senate reacts. If they refuse to act, abdicating their duty to advise and consent, the the President should take a page from Boehner's book and sue the Senate. McConnell, et al, need to understand that they are bound by their oaths to the Constitution to act in accordance with its dictates, not those of their party.
1
Republican contempt for that actual constitution is finally in full daylight.
Scalia would ridicule and demolish their position with clear constitutional law precedents.
Scalia would ridicule and demolish their position with clear constitutional law precedents.
1
President Obama should make a recess appointment as soon as possible. Advice and consent of Senate not required. Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.
3
Who the heck do these Republicans think they are. I was once a very strong Republican supporter. I worked hard on their behalf, saddled on my faith and belief in their designs. I am sick and tired of their dictatorship. Sick of their Iron Fisted Hold our lives. They stymied the President with his first step into the White House. I say the President should make his decision during their absence. President Obama has a time honored Constitutional right to do so.
1
Republican’s finally have something to take attention off Trump and Cruz or as I refer to them Howard Beale from the movie Network and Dr. Strangelove, from the movie of the same name. With the death of Justice Sacalia, Republican’s see an opportunity to pivot to make the election about a vacant Supreme Court seat and the President, who they still deny legitimately, won two elections, so much for the people speaking. This goes beyond obstructionist tactics; this puts the country in a position where the court could be deadlocked and unable to function, specifically what the Republicans want another version of a Government shutdown where the American people suffer.
That's right. Constitutional adherents are digging in to protect the America that our founding fathers left to us. The Constitution is the law of the land, and any attempt by Obama to usurp the Constitution with another far left nominee to the Supreme Court will be contested with every means possible.
The truth is that the GOP presidential candidates need immediate mental help.
They would certainly push our country into the endless foreign conflicts over their personal bias.
None of them sees anything wrong with the facts that we waged the war in Vietnam for a full decade to stop the spread of the communism all over the world due to infamous domino effect theory only to export today our manufacturing industries and newest technology to China under the free trade mantra. No principles in this approach, jus their personal feelings...
They are blaming president Obama for unfreezing the Iranian assets after the UN Resolution lifted those economic sanctions. They have no idea that was the Iranian money in the first place. Nobody gave Tehran $100 billion. Do the GOP presidential candidates understand the concept of private property at all?
Now again, because they don’t like president Obama, they are trying to deprive the White House of the constitutional right to nominate somebody to SCOTUS.
Can the GOP make distinction between the law and their feelings any longer?
The feelings are not the law and the law is not a set of personal feelings to be changed in accordance to their mood...
They would certainly push our country into the endless foreign conflicts over their personal bias.
None of them sees anything wrong with the facts that we waged the war in Vietnam for a full decade to stop the spread of the communism all over the world due to infamous domino effect theory only to export today our manufacturing industries and newest technology to China under the free trade mantra. No principles in this approach, jus their personal feelings...
They are blaming president Obama for unfreezing the Iranian assets after the UN Resolution lifted those economic sanctions. They have no idea that was the Iranian money in the first place. Nobody gave Tehran $100 billion. Do the GOP presidential candidates understand the concept of private property at all?
Now again, because they don’t like president Obama, they are trying to deprive the White House of the constitutional right to nominate somebody to SCOTUS.
Can the GOP make distinction between the law and their feelings any longer?
The feelings are not the law and the law is not a set of personal feelings to be changed in accordance to their mood...
This is a slap in the face to the majority of Americans who elected President Obama, twice. We "weighed in", duly elected our choice for president, who has another year in office, with the right and the duty to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and the Republicans are saying, "too bad, so sad, chopped liver. We're going to ignore you and hope Americans elect someone we like better."
Please, fellow citizens, let's slap back hard, the only way we can, and remove these politicians who are violating the clear words of the Constitution and the lawful will of the people.
Please, fellow citizens, let's slap back hard, the only way we can, and remove these politicians who are violating the clear words of the Constitution and the lawful will of the people.
1
Ah, the obstructionist Congress enters, as usual. They take their pay, they take their enormous benefits package, they take, they take. But they don't actually do anything, not a thing.
I have to believe that Justice Scalia would wish any President to carry out their Constitutional duty and nominate a replacement, in order to best serve the needs of the country.
While President Obama will likely go down as one of our better presidents, this Congress will undoubtedly go down in history as one of our worst. For shame.
I have to believe that Justice Scalia would wish any President to carry out their Constitutional duty and nominate a replacement, in order to best serve the needs of the country.
While President Obama will likely go down as one of our better presidents, this Congress will undoubtedly go down in history as one of our worst. For shame.
1
The fight has begun, all daggers drawn. It will be interesting to see who will win. A lame duck president harassed and harangued by an unrelenting opposition throughout his presidency on the one side and an unforgiving opposition hell bent on thwarting every move of the president on the other.
Obama should go ahead with his appointment and that too the sooner the better. The first thing the GOP ( especially if their candidate becomes the prez ) will do after Obama's exit will be be to undo all his achievements. The prez will need an accomplice to guard over his accomplishments and there is no better watch dog than a liberal supreme court judge.
Obama should go ahead with his appointment and that too the sooner the better. The first thing the GOP ( especially if their candidate becomes the prez ) will do after Obama's exit will be be to undo all his achievements. The prez will need an accomplice to guard over his accomplishments and there is no better watch dog than a liberal supreme court judge.
1
This is perfect. Hopefully, the voters will not only make them pay from a presidential perspective, but for congressional members up for re-election. Since they refuse to do their jobs, unless it benefits them, then it's time for them, and McConnell to go.
President Obama is facing a 'Complicated Calculus'? Why is it complicated ? Seems pretty straightforward to me - A President in the White House to nominate a successor to a Supreme Court Justice who has voluntarily retired or passed away. It is the current President's Constitutional Duty and Right. Any issue or circumstance gets complicated only when it lands in a court. Therefore, is this the case where President Obama is dragged into the Republican Court every time, all the time?
Is there no end to the divisiveness, meanness and small mindedness of the Republicans. They have apparently gone blind to their responsibilities to the nation.
If they do in fact attempt to hold up a nomination and it costs them the coming presidential election justice will be well served
If they do in fact attempt to hold up a nomination and it costs them the coming presidential election justice will be well served
A party that has been co-opted by extremists will now obstructa sitting President's priveldge of appointing a new justice. Why don't they just burn down the Reichstag and get it over with. They are determined not to compromise and won't be satisfied until they can rule by diktat.
1
It looks like Kennedy is a moderate swing vote and he was confirmed in an election year.
Perhaps Obama will be under some pressure to produce a candidate who is 'moderate' and capable of being a swing vote, because it is an election year. This could be a good thing. I haven't read all the comments; perhaps this point was made by others.
Perhaps Obama will be under some pressure to produce a candidate who is 'moderate' and capable of being a swing vote, because it is an election year. This could be a good thing. I haven't read all the comments; perhaps this point was made by others.
2
The insult is not that Republicans want to manipulate the process to maintain power. That they think we're too ignorant to see through their naked power grab, is far more offensive. They do not respect the system or the people. They only seek power.
The Republicans are simply using Justice Scalia's death to create an issue for the presidential campaign. They are already saying the survival of the American family is at stake. This is not a constitutional issue, or one of right and wrong. It's just politics.
The real issue is whether one can use "religion" as an excuse to demean or discriminate against others in public places.
So the Senate Conservative Republican idiots once again want to bake their own poisonous cake and it it too. That for sure would one way to commit suicide. The nation as is, is extremely ideologically divided, polarized and on the fast track of self destruction from within. What else the nit wit conjure up to screw up the country.
Justice Scalia was the ultimate proponent in modern times of "constitutional originalism," that laws should be interpreted using the original Constitution's meaning, as fixed as of the time of enactment. It's terribly ironic that the GOP now seeks to bypass the original meaning of the Constitution to replace Justice Scalia.
2
If Scalia were actually a linguistic "originalist", he would understand that an "establishment of religion" is a "faith-based belief" in modern English usage.
This could be the last nail in the coffin for the GOP
They have resisted this President in all his 2 terms
The current crop of GOP candidates have no shot of winning the next presidency with their insults of minorities, women and cluelessness on foreign policy
Who is going to be the next justice that a democratic President is going to nominate?
They have resisted this President in all his 2 terms
The current crop of GOP candidates have no shot of winning the next presidency with their insults of minorities, women and cluelessness on foreign policy
Who is going to be the next justice that a democratic President is going to nominate?
Obama should nominate a candidate and the Senate should approve or reject that is the easy part. The harder part will require more rational thought from the rabid, blind partisans represented by the commenters. Obama and his Justice Department have established the policy of denial of trial and execution of citizens without any oversight. Obama has already appointed two justices that support this policy. Do we really need another Justice that supports such a policy of flagrant Constitutional destruction? And if ones reply is yes, how will you feel about these newly created and highly dangerous powers if and when a Republican is elected president? Or do whe value our civil liberties only when we need them personally?
I feel like I missed the part of the Constitution - please enlighten me, strict Constitutionalist, Ted Cruz- where it says the President's Constitutional responsibilities diminishes to nothing after 3 years.
1
Wonder what happens if the Repubs lose the general election, are we in for four years of obstruction and not allowing a President to fullfill his or her constitutional duty? This constant badgering of the President that accomplishes nothing is insane.
Isn't it the ultimate irony that the Supreme Court, which set in motion the rolling calamity of America's entry to the new millennium with their 2000 Bush v Gore decision, should be reconstructed at the end of this reign of terror? Comeuppance at last. The hyper-partisan GOP has painted itself into a corner from which it will dare the country to sweep it into the dust bin of history. There is no way out for these reactionaries unless it is for the US to become the laughing stock of the civilized world with a Trump/Cruz presidency. Absurd.
The constitution says that is the President's responsibility to nominate a candidate and the Senate's responsibility to consider and vote on the candidate. The Republicans are only saying what they want. They have no argument.
Chief Justice Roberts could and should recuse himself from Supreme Court decisions until the court can be resorted to its full nine member number.
The so-called statistics on when justices have been nominated and approved should be limited to only those involving death while n office, because many leave the court to retire, and stay on court until replaced, and they often retire early during a new Prsident's term.
Mitch McConnell is not the Supreme Cort.
The so-called statistics on when justices have been nominated and approved should be limited to only those involving death while n office, because many leave the court to retire, and stay on court until replaced, and they often retire early during a new Prsident's term.
Mitch McConnell is not the Supreme Cort.
If I were Obama, I would arrest the entire Republican leadership in congress for treason. And what do you think the democrats are going to if a republican wins the presidency and nominates a supreme court justice? We are looking at a four year filibuster unless one party gains 60% control of the senate. We are looking at the end of the supreme court as more justices die off. We are looking at civil war.
I put a significant amount of the blame for the fierce battle on Mitch McConnell. He declared war before rigor mortis had set in. Did he offer any condolences? What a jerk!!! He will regret his quick decision since it will hurt the Republican party and its candidates. It also gives the President the power to make the Republicans look obstructionist and petty. I'm sure Obama's appointment will be someone who will give the Democrats, probably Hillary and the Democratic Senate candidates, further ammunition when the nomination is blocked. If Rubio appears to be gaining strength, how about the Cuban judge from Florida who has already been confirmed by a wide margin?
The GOP is not just threatening to "obstruct" the process. The GOP is brazenly planning to suspend the Constitution. People should pay very close attention to this. If Republican party is willing in such great numbers to suspend the Constitution over a very clear Presidential obligation to act, think what else they will be willing to do.
If Obama nominates a moderate the Republicans would be wise to recall the fight over and rejection of the Regan nomination of Robert Bork. Should the GOP majority in the Senate be overturned in Nov and Clinton elected a more liberal associate justice could be appointed then as opposed to confirming a moderate now. See an interesting column on the Bork nomination at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opinion/nocera-the-ugliness-all-starte...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opinion/nocera-the-ugliness-all-starte...
Republicans need to recognize that if they follow through with their current "plan" of blocking any Obama nominee, it will be at least 10 years after they win a presidential election before any Supreme Court Justice who meets their litmus tests can be confirmed.
What goes around, comes around in politics. Their decision to make this one political will make a lot of ones in the future political.
What goes around, comes around in politics. Their decision to make this one political will make a lot of ones in the future political.
I believe that a refusal to confirm a nominee who is not forthcoming with answers at confirmation hearing presupposes that there actually is a confirmation hearing.
There are way too many comments to see if mine is a duplicate, but looking back on almost eight years of conflict between Congress and the President, it's hard to say race is not an issue in some Congressmen's minds. I think you have to go back to the Presidency of Andrew Johnson to find anything so intense and deep-rooted. The total unwillingness to even try and work with President Obama says that prejudice and racism is alive and well in Congress as well as the rest of the country.
American dyslexia is so pervasive it gives me a headache.
Do not look in the Constitution for the powers retained by the people. The document enumerates only the powers the people delegated to government to be exercised in the public interest, and the Bill of Rights stipulates further specific restrictions and mandates on the powers of Congress.
You will not have liberty until you understand the law of contracts.
Do not look in the Constitution for the powers retained by the people. The document enumerates only the powers the people delegated to government to be exercised in the public interest, and the Bill of Rights stipulates further specific restrictions and mandates on the powers of Congress.
You will not have liberty until you understand the law of contracts.
There are many qualified black women that should be on the list, including the current Attorney General.
The hypocrisy of McConnell and other repubs (Grassley, et al) suggesting the nomination should wait until next year is absurd and outrageous. They would have no government rather than that which the citizens of this country voted for.
The more this goes on, the more it seems simply racist, especially from McConnell, who has lectured against those that would prevent a president for making judicial appointments in an election year. He's disgusting.
The hypocrisy of McConnell and other repubs (Grassley, et al) suggesting the nomination should wait until next year is absurd and outrageous. They would have no government rather than that which the citizens of this country voted for.
The more this goes on, the more it seems simply racist, especially from McConnell, who has lectured against those that would prevent a president for making judicial appointments in an election year. He's disgusting.
1
Again and again the Republicans show that, despite posing as champions of the constitution and democracy, they only follow those principles when it will advance their interests. I suspect very few people reading this will disagree. I can't, however, understand so many others fail to see this.
2
President Obama should consider making a recess appointment if the Senate is not going to act on any nomination that he sends to them. With almost a year to go on Obama's term, there is no reason he should not be allowed to fulfill his duty to appoint Supreme Court justices.
I continue to be appalled as the crass behavior of ultra-conservative
Republicans. Let Justice Scalia rest in peace for at least of week
before wrangling. And, let's face it, Mr. Obama is still the president
and will be the president for another eleven months. It is his
privilege and prerogative to nominate a successor only after
Mr. Scalia is decently mourned and laid to rest. Whatever
happened to decency?
Republicans. Let Justice Scalia rest in peace for at least of week
before wrangling. And, let's face it, Mr. Obama is still the president
and will be the president for another eleven months. It is his
privilege and prerogative to nominate a successor only after
Mr. Scalia is decently mourned and laid to rest. Whatever
happened to decency?
I studied political science at Gothenburg University here in Sweden. We were taught that the divided government and separation of power were one of the founding principals of the US democracy. A principal of Mr Tocqueville that would stop the "tyranny of the majority". Well it seems that that tyranny of Congress is seriously threatening the division of power in the US now. If Congress really is to decide in these matters - why have a US constitution? Isn't that rather a big thing? What would the founding fathers have said?
2
Congress not planning to act on their Constitutional duties to advise and consent; this is news? How is this different than other duties the Congress hasn't carried out? E.g., enacting (or even acting on) reasonable gun control legislation; working together to create a reasonable federal budget; acting/enacting rational immigration policies; etc.
Here's hoping true Congressional leaders will rise to the forefront next election cycle, and that we find progress towards meeting the citizen's needs in the near future in Congress.....
Here's hoping true Congressional leaders will rise to the forefront next election cycle, and that we find progress towards meeting the citizen's needs in the near future in Congress.....
The GOP does not have the Constitutional right to obstruct President Obama's nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice. It puts the country in jeopardy, by making it impotent should an National emergency arise. It deprives the court of any checks and balances, by taking away the possibilty of a casting vote.
Go for it, Mr. Obama. The true colors of the Republican will be even more evident and people in November 2016 will flock to the polls to elect majorities of Democrats in both Houses and the Presidency. People are sick and tired of ignorant individuals elected to do nothing when they get to DC. The clowns are not only in the car, they own the circus.
1
This attempt to delegitimize and deny the prerogatives of an elected president is entirely disingenuous, and would be unbelievable were it not for the fact that eight years of appallingly stupid antics by the opposition have prepared us for this.
"Turn-out Turn-out Turn-out" should be the mantra of every Democrat and Independent in this country. Only a real whupping at the ballot box is likely to act as a brake on GOP over-reaching now. We can't do much yet about our gerrymandered house, but the Senate is within reach.
"Turn-out Turn-out Turn-out" should be the mantra of every Democrat and Independent in this country. Only a real whupping at the ballot box is likely to act as a brake on GOP over-reaching now. We can't do much yet about our gerrymandered house, but the Senate is within reach.
Are people really surprised that the Republicans are digging in their heels here?
Hasn't Ruth Bader Ginsburg often predicted that the Republicans would do exactly the same thing if she were to resign now? I've long thought her prediction on that was sensible. If so, why would anyone expect it to be different when a conservative Justice dies or resigns?
The Democrats would do exactly the same thing if the tables were turned.
Hasn't Ruth Bader Ginsburg often predicted that the Republicans would do exactly the same thing if she were to resign now? I've long thought her prediction on that was sensible. If so, why would anyone expect it to be different when a conservative Justice dies or resigns?
The Democrats would do exactly the same thing if the tables were turned.
1
One thing we can be sure of is that corporate-funded outside groups will pull out all the stops to ensure another lackey for business interests ends up filling the seat. The Republican communications machine (Fox News, talk radio, and conservative websites) will provide the PR services to support this agenda.
Republican senators already know better than to dare stand up for what's right and give Obama's nominee an up or down vote. The business front groups will pump money into primary challenges, and work to unseat them. To the senators' discredit, they are more concerned with holding onto power than fulfilling their Constitutional duty.
Republican senators already know better than to dare stand up for what's right and give Obama's nominee an up or down vote. The business front groups will pump money into primary challenges, and work to unseat them. To the senators' discredit, they are more concerned with holding onto power than fulfilling their Constitutional duty.
1
If Obama has any sense, he will nominate someone acceptable to much of the Republican party. If the Republicans have any sense, they will approve a nominee who is a first-rate jurist without political agenda.
It's time for both parties to depoliticize the Supreme Court, and to compromise in the national interest.
It's time for both parties to depoliticize the Supreme Court, and to compromise in the national interest.
1
A country was a place where there were no singing of wishes. Republicans ideal of politics is based upon a view that Barack Obama is the most stupid president. How come a college of student can stand and oppose a president constitutional right and tell the people they wish to govern America. All of these are Nothing but the European marchand children who ought to destroy America and regain the white confidence.
The solution here is obvious. Obama should nominate Ted Cruz to fill Scalia's spot. Cruz is out the Presidential race. He's ego is satisfied through a lifetime appointment to the bench rather than, at most 8 years, in the White House and the potential for a disastrous presidency. A hard core conservative is replaced by a hard core conservative so nothing lost nothing gained in SCOTUS. Obama gets to prove that he is not so ideologically rigid that he wouldn't nominate a conservative to the highest court and we get to watch Mitch McConnell and his Senatrons squirm as they try and get out of voting on Cruz's nomination
1
Not going to happen, but it would be hilarious if it did happen. Maybe SNL could do a skit based on this scenario.
that's
It's entirely possible that six months from now, Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee and Republicans will be in serious danger of losing the Senate. If that happens, Republicans will wish they had cleared the compromise candidate they could have forced on Obama now, rather than watching President Clinton and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer nominate a liberal they can't stand to tip the balance of the Court.
1
Amy Chozick of the NY Times today wrote, in a separate article about the effect of Scalia's death on the presidential race, "(DNC and RNC) Officials said they hoped the vacancy would prompt a sobering moment, causing voters to reconsider their romances with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Mr. Trump. " Reconsider the romances? More like reinforce them! Many, many people are seeking real change, and this fiasco of proposed obstructionism on the part of the Republican controlled Senate is just more proof in the pudding that we cannot trust our legislators to act reasonably to listen to arguments for and against a Supreme Court nominee and to confirm an apointment in a timely manner. Republicans have a clear choice: allow fair nomination hearings and facilitate the appointment of a new Justice or lose not only the election in November to Bernie Sanders, but many of the November contests for Senate and House seats which they now take for granted.
The problem with this country is not allowing a sitting President to exercise his constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. It is not even electing a President. It is the grid lock of the Conservatives in the Congress and now the Senate that prevent any real work to get done.
I believe a great disservice is done by the media when the remaining court is described as being composed of four from Democratic Party presidents, and four from Repulican Party candidates. The Supreme Court is non-partisan, and we should not encourage the small-minded to see it in partisan terms.
Of course, stirring up a dogfight is good for the media business so I doubt we'll see any responsible journalism from the media business.
It makes my stomach turn.
Of course, stirring up a dogfight is good for the media business so I doubt we'll see any responsible journalism from the media business.
It makes my stomach turn.
There were plenty of reasons in 2008 to suggest George W. Bush should not be allowed to propose a candidate for the court if per chance either Breyer or Ginsburg had died. The GOP at that time would be insistent that he should and not forego the opportunity to add a more moderate, if not a right-leaning, member to sway the balance in their direction. Besides the 'saintly' but faltering Reagan was not prevented from appointing Anthony Kennedy late in his final term.
Any senator who preemptively declares they will attempt to deny the President his Constitutionally guaranteed rights of office should be arrested, removed from the Senate floor, and tried for dereliction of duty, lying under oath, and treason.
3
Would this include Chuck Schumer, who in 2007 made the same threat against Bush? Well no, of course not, because Schumer's a liberal and liberals don't have to follow the rules they make for others.
The Republicans are behaving like a petulant child. If the Democrats ever pulled this type of nonsense, they would be sent home packing. The fact of the matter is that this seems to be more about race than politics, specifically, President Obama's race. He continues to be treated in a highly disrespectful manner by his White colleagues, and I say this as a White woman. President Obama is no liberal. In fact, not more than 35 years ago, I suspect he would have run as a Republican. Today, Ronald Reagan, who most Republicans have canonized, would not have been conservative enough. Should the Republicans follow through on their promises of obstruction, I hope that they pay dearly in the presidential election. After all, you can disenfranchise voters, but you cannot disenfranchise 150 million of them.
The Democrats will indeed pull this type of nonsense if a Republican is elected President. Sooner or later, a nominee with be approved but only after an embarrassing protracted partisan battle, in which both sides will spare nothing for politics sake. Die hard Republicans will argue that the other party is obstructionist. Die hard Democrats will argue that th other party is obstructionist. Sadly, they will both be right.
If this were about race, then how do you explain that many of the same people who oppose President Obama are also supportive of Dr. Ben Carson. Why do they support Dr. Carson ? Because they agree with his policies and race is irrelevant. Even though Dr. Carson will probably not be nominated, he has received considerable support and respect from conservative Republicans.
Liberals don't like Dr. Carson. Should we then infer that their dislike is racially motivated ? Of course not ! Maybe, just maybe we need to acknowledge that supporters and detractors alike of either Dr. Carson or President Obama are motivated by sincerely held policy beliefs.
Liberals don't like Dr. Carson. Should we then infer that their dislike is racially motivated ? Of course not ! Maybe, just maybe we need to acknowledge that supporters and detractors alike of either Dr. Carson or President Obama are motivated by sincerely held policy beliefs.
The republicans excel in hate and continue in their abject hatred for anything our President does. And now they'll fall all over themselves to viciously fight whomever Obama nominates, as we all know. Never in the history of our country has a president been treated in such a reprehensible manner. President Obama has every right to nominate whom he wants. While the right-wing-nuts have the right to express their opinions they do not have the right to "delay, delay, delay."
False equivalencies abound, as usual, and this first phase of US history begun in 1776, that of a constitutional republic and quasi-democracy, appears to be nearing an end.
Schumer's "refuse to confirm any nominee to the court by President George W. Bush ... unless the nominees were sufficiently candid in their confirmation hearings" is not the same as refusing to even consider any nominee by Obama, regardless.
Schumer's "refuse to confirm any nominee to the court by President George W. Bush ... unless the nominees were sufficiently candid in their confirmation hearings" is not the same as refusing to even consider any nominee by Obama, regardless.
I hope they (Republicans) or whatever they are... continue to refuse to participate. We'll have a sure win for Hillary Clinton this November. I wonder how insulated one must become to not see how really crazy their obstinance is. Simply reject facts, create a made up world that appeases an uneducated constituency who has been conditioned in fear, lies, and paranoia. Fascinating how they managed to dupe their own party into blocking anything our elected President puts forth, even when it's to their own benefit. I'd not want any part of any group this deranged, not as neighbors, not as co-workers, not at all.
How many more internal political coups and illegal maneuvers can We, the People swallow and ingest? 'Electing' Bush, corporate 'personhood', et al.
We're walking a fine line here and the imbalance of power by the wrong people is becoming glaringly blatant and corrupt. Our democracy is rotting from the inside out. And it stinks.
It will be only a matter of time before a revolution. What exactly triggers it will always surprise those who hold the reins of power. If this sort of political disregard and malice continues unabated be prepared for an American Spring or Summer or Fall.... whenever.
2016 is most certainly turning into an interesting time to be alive in this country.
We're walking a fine line here and the imbalance of power by the wrong people is becoming glaringly blatant and corrupt. Our democracy is rotting from the inside out. And it stinks.
It will be only a matter of time before a revolution. What exactly triggers it will always surprise those who hold the reins of power. If this sort of political disregard and malice continues unabated be prepared for an American Spring or Summer or Fall.... whenever.
2016 is most certainly turning into an interesting time to be alive in this country.