The Glade 4.0

RIP. I wonder if it was preventable by exercising more and eating healthy.

Trying to imagine what mental illnesses the RNC legislature members are suffering from that they think this president shouldn't nominate a replacement.

Probably the same one that will crop up amongst the DNC if the Senate does not confirm that person's nomination.

The President has a Constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor and he should do so in a timely fashion.

In no way is the Senate obligated to confirm that successor.

The ideal outcome here is another Kennedy.



The man was 79. Possibly he could have lived longer but he by no means died at an unusually early age.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There goes our last hope.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

If you were pinning your hopes on the aging conservative justices, you were doomed anyhow.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Judicial philibusters and refusal to confirm well qualified appointees is utterly irresponsible. While both sides are guilty of this, the Republican Party is far and away the worst offender.

But maybe beneath those robes they have lightsabers and can use the force to save the Republic.

Tbe Republican party is not the worst offender because this is not an offense nor irresponsible. The Senate determines if an appointee is well qualified and they have no Constitutional mandate to approve any nominee.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As the Democrats were so fond of saying not so long ago, elections have consequences...

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The only thing that makes sense, and is reasonable, is a moderate judge. Democrat nominates, Republicans confirm. There's 11 months, so the whole delay delay delay thing is retarded. Just work together, find a tolerable, well qualified individual, and move on.

I'm sorry. The RNC doesn't control the White House. Your guy lost the last election. Stop trying to justify reasons why the POTUS shouldn't excercises his constitutional duties just because you're afraid you might not like the politics of the guy he might name.

The RNC's foolish demands notwithstanding, the Democrats lost the last election overall - not the Republicans, seeing as the last election was 2014. Those Republicans were put there precisely to put a stop to Obama's tactc of refusing to deal or negotiate then claiming Republicans are being irresponsible for not just going along with whatever he wants.

The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the President. Rejection of qualified nominees is normal and expected. If Obama wants a more liberal justice that can pass the Senate he needs to lok for another Hugo Black, not for more Kagans or Sotomayors.

The RNC can **** off. 20 years of ineptitude and donor politics on their part is partly to blame for Trump leading the field right now.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

A timely confirmation hearing with an up or down vote would be nice in all cases for SC nominees, whether the nominee gets confirmed or not.

Delaying just to delay is bullshit.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

It'll be interesting to see how Obama handles this. Congress is in recess so he could make a far left recess appointment, get left wing decisions for the important 2016 cases, and then stall until the election hoping the Democrats win. Or he could take the high road and submit a nomination normally, hoping Hilary gains some points from 9 months of inevitable Republican obstructionism.

What I'm really hoping for is that we don't get another retread of, "You need 60 votes to pass something in the Senate, except when you don't"

You won't see that because the majority party in the Senate is the opposite party from the Senate. Whether it's 2/3 majority or simple majority it has to be someone agreeable to the Republicans. It's not like the Democrats are going to filibuster a nominee from their own party.

If Obama is smart, he will wait for the Senate to be in session. The Republicans wasted no time in making fools of themselves by demanding that Obama not fulfill his Constitutional duty for transparently partisan motives - he's not even a lame duck for 9 months and not out of office for around a year. If Obama wants to look good legacy-wise and more importantly not hurt the Democrats by making an equally partisan move of his own with a recess appointment he'll wait for the Senate.

He CAN make recess appointments, but people tend to view it as sort of "cheating" - it isn't, but that's still sort of how people think of it, much like they won't be too pleased if party officials pick a nominee in contradiction to a vote.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So is appointing unqualified justices to the Supreme Court, which Obama has done twice. SCOTUS appointments are not the place for identity politics, which drove both of the last two nominations. And when it comes to following Antonin Scalia, it's absolutely not appropriate to make another affirmative action appointment. Obama has a responsibility to choose the best judge available, not judges who will pander to him and his politics. The same goes for any president.

_________________

Scalia himself lobbied for Kagan to get a seat, so there's that.

Out of curiosity, what (aside from bald-faced partisanship) is the Republican argument that President Obama shouldn't name a successor? That's literally in the Constitution. I mean, it's nakedly partisan, but usually people try to couch things like this in at least a see-through cloak of legitimacy. Obama is still president for an entire year, after all.

Ginsburg was one of Scalia's best friends, Farsky. Scalia felt the court should be balanced between liberals and conservatives, particularly legal scholars of an analytical bent. That said, Kagan and Sotomayor are not quality appointments. I'm fine with a 4/4 split and Kennedy in the middle. That's pretty much how it should be. I just don't trust Obama to actually appoint anyone remotely balanced to the court or a good successor to Scalia, who was arguably the best decision writer of the bunch.

_________________

You might wish to examine the historical precident and Constitutional intent for this beginning with The Federalist #51, spanning all the way through Sen. Schumer on the floor of the Senate durring the final year of the Bush Administeration. There are dozens of examples of Senatorial road blocks of vacant SCOTUS seats.

That that's a feature, not a flaw.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Scalia was known for his fondness of the give-and-take of the court, his view that there should be a variety of opinions, and for his ability to not let differences of opinion hurt his relationships with other justices. He got along well with all of them, and it's entirely possible he backed Kagan because she was fairly young for a justice and he thought she'd be fun to debate with. Scalia, I think, was well aware of the problems of groupthink and probably would have been terrified of a court where he won everything 9-0. I have seen writing claiming Scalia was at his best when dissenting rather than winning.



I think you may be asking the wrong people because I think the only answer any of us will give is yes - it's naked partisanship, and it's not even tactically smart naked partisanship. It's one of those moves that makes people like me facepalm and weep for the idiocy of people who make their living being party officials. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why they would make a move that so obviously smacks of desperation and panic. It's like a bunch of 14 year olds are running the place or something.

The ONLY thing I can figure is that maybe they hope Cruz and/or Trump will take up the same call and tarnish themself? People are more likely to remember what a candidate said than "the RNC". If so, it's a remarkable long shot, and frankly, I don't even put any stock in this theory, it's just all I can come up with. Really, I got nothin'.

If they want to stop an Obama appointee they're on much stronger ground getting the Senate to do it, since the Senate is well within its own rights.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Exactly. That's what the Senate is there for. If it's a crappy nominee, then they can vote not to confirm. It's not that hard.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?