Who do you think will replace Scalia?

[tailfins]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

[Black Diamond]

We are SCREWED!!!

[Bilgerat]

This is very bad, now the p[R]esident will try to load the SCOUTUS with a liberalism clown

[tailfins]

This is very bad, now the p[R]esident will try to load the SCOUTUS with a liberalism clown

You should reduce that image in your signature to 200x200. Some rude member of staff deleted my whole signature. Thankfully, Jim fixed it for me. I wonder if the wuss that did it is too much of a coward to identify themselves. What's next, modifying the content of my posts?

[Black Diamond]

This is why elections matter..

[Perianne]

Oh my gosh. I am nearly in tears. I love that man.

RIP wonderful, wonderful man.

[Black Diamond]

I apologize for not giving Scalia more respect. I was mourning the possible/likely death of the United States...

[Kathianne]

Well it looks like for awhile anyways, the court will lean left, the fragile balance in many cases is going to be broke. While Republican presidents have often had their SCOTUS appointments end up being more left than predicted, I can't think of the opposite happening.

[NightTrain]

You should reduce that image in your signature to 200x200. Some rude member of staff deleted my whole signature. Thankfully, Jim fixed it for me. I wonder if the wuss that did it is too much of a coward to identify themselves. What's next, modifying the content of my posts?


You'd better check your attitude and get your facts straight, little man.

[tailfins]

You'd better check your attitude and get your facts straight, little man.

The signature didn't disappear on it's own. Little man? I'm not someone whose company could replace with any Mexican anywhere that isn't frozen.

[NightTrain]

The signature didn't disappear on it's own. Little man? I'm not someone whose company could replace with any Mexican anywhere that isn't frozen.


Take 24 hours to reconsider your questioning of moderation.

[Perianne]

A possibility?


U.S. Constitution

Article II Section 2


He [the president] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

[NightTrain]

A possibility?


U.S. Constitution

Article II Section 2

Yep, a temporary appointment. It's happened before.

[jimnyc]

You should reduce that image in your signature to 200x200. Some rude member of staff deleted my whole signature. Thankfully, Jim fixed it for me. I wonder if the wuss that did it is too much of a coward to identify themselves. What's next, modifying the content of my posts?

Sorry buddy, that rude staff member was me. I had deleted it as it was WAY past what the rules allow for. Seemed like right after I deleted it, you had contacted me asking to resize the image for you, so I left it at that. I resized and put it in your signature for you. I even left it larger than the 200x as I didn't want to make it too small and have folks think I'm censoring signatures. It's just that if they are TOO large, and then everyone starts suddenly uploading them, reading threads would be a nightmare.

No one will be editing the content of posts, and that's much different than deleting a picture from a signature. I'm sorry this pissed you off so much.

But you should know better by now than to question moderating like this and going after a moderator. Especially incorrectly!

[jimnyc]

The fight has begun!

Obama stated he will do his constitutional duty to send a nominee to the senate. Republicans in senate want to wait until the election, to let America have a say in appointing the next nominee. The question is - CAN they do this, I mean block for 11 months legally? I hope so, or we're EFFED in the courts. :(

[NightTrain]

The fight has begun!

Obama stated he will do his constitutional duty to send a nominee to the senate. Republicans in senate want to wait until the election, to let America have a say in appointing the next nominee. The question is - CAN they do this, I mean block for 11 months legally? I hope so, or we're EFFED in the courts. :(


Yep, they can and have. Really the only question is if the GOP has the courage to do it.

My hope is that they've been emboldened by this election where boldness is a popular winning trait instead of the usual meek performances they've been giving the last few years.

They can reject the appointee outright, or refuse to vote on confirmation or just do nothing at all... leaving the appointee in limbo.

[Bilgerat]

Yep, a temporary appointment. It's happened before.


And given the first shots by both the Senate and the p[R]esident, I fully expect him to pencil whip an appointment most skosh

[Abbey Marie]

Yep, they can and have. Really the only question is if the GOP has the courage to do it.

My hope is that they've been emboldened by this election where boldness is a popular winning trait instead of the usual meek performances they've been giving the last few years.

They can reject the appointee outright, or refuse to vote on confirmation or just do nothing at all... leaving the appointee in limbo.

We are on a wavelength again. :cool: I was imagining this morning how many people are plotting how they can parlay their brash personality right into the White House. I think Trump has single-handedly changed the landscape of American politics.

[Black Diamond]

I don't know. Ruth Babykiller Ginsberg was confirmed 98-2.

I'm not optimistic.

[Black Diamond]

We are on a wavelength again. :cool: I was imagining this morning how many people are thinking how they can parlay their brash personality right into the White House. I think Trump has single-handedly changed the landscape of American politics.

Trump and Obama both.

[Kathianne]

Trump and Obama both.
While I never bought into Obama's lies, he did run as a 'healer' 'post partisan' and willing to work with others. He lied, but he did pander and it worked in 2008, not so well in 2012, but good enough.

Trump is not doing anything like that. He wants divisiveness every bit as much as Obama has provided.

[Black Diamond]

While I never bought into Obama's lies, he did run as a 'healer' 'post partisan' and willing to work with others. He lied, but he did pander and it worked in 2008, not so well in 2012, but good enough.

Trump is not doing anything like that. He wants divisiveness every bit as much as Obama has provided.

He did say last night be would build consensus with Congress.. But I have never considered him a consensus guy.

[Kathianne]

He did say last night be would build consensus with Congress.. But I have never considered him a consensus guy.

Me either. He was in Chicago politics for years, he was not a 'healer.'

It did sell to those who were independents. In 2012 he garnered 'just enough' of those to squeak in.

[Bilgerat]

He did say last night be would build consensus with Congress.. But I have never considered him a consensus guy.


He's never "tried" to build consensus, he has his phone and a pen :thumb:

[Kathianne]

He did say last night be would build consensus with Congress.. But I have never considered him a consensus guy.

Have to agree, I realize I had previously answered regarding Obama, not Trump. Neither are 'consensus' guys, they are certain of their certainty that they know all.

[Abbey Marie]

Trump and Obama both.

I never saw Obama as brash. More the silver-tongued devil type, actually.

[aboutime]

Nobody can really predict a WHO. But there is one thing certain. As long as Obama makes the nomination. The results will just confirm. WE THE PEOPLE, and the Former USA are SCREWED.

[Kathianne]

I haven't a clue to who would be 'good nominees' to the court, until I have a chance to read what they've written in the past.

Most of us don't have time to go reading judicial decisions besides those that directly effect us or those coming from SCOTUS.

Looking a bit it seems Trump has brought up his sister (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru) and Diane Sykes-who has ruled against gun rights.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2011/12/seventh-circuit-holds-ban-on-firing-ranges-unconstitutional-ae-ezell-v-city-of-chicago-651-f-3d-684-7th-cir-2011/

[Bilgerat]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpl1/v/t1.0-9/10407066_713009022134746_5660843000199429734_n.jpg ?oh=01449852f053524a314a3429980d5008&oe=572657EF

[Abbey Marie]

If he doesn't get the Prez nomination, Cruz would be good.

[DLT]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

Obama will pick the nastiest, most leftist POS he can possibly find to replace Scalia as yet another "eff yew" index finger extended to freedom-loving Americans. It's a given.

[DLT]

I don't know. Ruth Babykiller Ginsberg was confirmed 98-2.

I'm not optimistic.

Neither am I. About any of what's happening in America these days. Our 'fundamental transformation' into another 3rd world $hithole commie nation is well underway and so far, a rousing success.

Mission almost accomplished, Barry!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obama will pick the nastiest, most leftist POS he can possibly find to replace Scalia as yet another "eff yew" index finger extended to freedom-loving Americans. It's a given.

Exactly!!! Which is why I despise deeply(so deep you could not imagine) every-EVERY- every SOB that ever defended that fffing treasonous bastard!
I hope they all rot in Hell with him, ignorance is no damn excuse IMHO.--Tyr

[Russ]

Here's Obama's top three choices to nominate for the Supreme Court:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8403&stc=1

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8404&stc=1

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8405&stc=1

[Elessar]

Yep, they can and have. Really the only question is if the GOP has the courage to do it.

My hope is that they've been emboldened by this election where boldness is a popular winning trait instead of the usual meek performances they've been giving the last few years.

They can reject the appointee outright, or refuse to vote on confirmation or just do nothing at all... leaving the appointee in limbo.

Plain Fact!

The pResident can submit a nominee; the Senate has to approve.
There is no Executive Order that will allow otherwise.
Long ago, a Chief Justice (I cannot remember which...) stated that the SC's
function was NOT to legislate from the Bench.

Obama wants legislating from the Bench!

[aboutime]

Obama only needs This....http://icansayit.com/images/holderholder.jpg

[Kathianne]

He may be able to make a 'recess appointment' in the next 10 days.

[jimnyc]

I read another sickening article earlier that said perhaps Holder and Lynch might be on his short list. :(

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I read another sickening article earlier that said perhaps Holder and Lynch might be on his short list. :(

Looks like with Scalia's death(I mean murder) all the little duckies are being lined up in a row.
Gaffer and I talked about high probability of the obama bumping off two SCOTUS JUDGES during hids 8 years in office, those judges we name way back then Scalia and Roberts. Obvious after the obamacare fiasco that Roberts sold out--obvious to me now that Scalia did not--hence his death....
You see the little duckies are lining up right nicely for those seeking the demise of this nation.
What a lucky coincidence, right???? :rolleyes:
The obama suddenly get a SCOTUS pick before his eleven months are up....

I'D BET MY LIFE AGAINST A C-NOTE THAT SUDDEN PICK WAS AN ARRANGED DEAL.--Tyr

[Kathianne]

He may be able to make a 'recess appointment' in the next 10 days.

Some good news on this front?

http://reformclub.blogspot.ie/2016/02/a-quick-thought-on-presidential-recess.html

[gabosaurus]

When a Supreme Court justice dies or otherwise leaves office, the POTUS is compelled by law to choose a successor. He is in no way compelled to wait almost an entire year for a successor to do so.
If the GOP wanted to pick the next justice, they should have won the last election. And if they block a nominee just out of spite, it will (again) prove to the American people that they are the party of spite and bullshit.

Like I have said before, the Supreme Court has at least three justices who will likely retire or die over the next four years or so. Scalia was one of them. If the White House remains in Democratic control in November, you are going to get a liberal majority Supreme Court.
It's going to be a whole lot of fun. :salute:

[Abbey Marie]

Sorry, Gabby, but I hope they block the nominee 'til the cows come home. It's crucial.

[jimnyc]

When a Supreme Court justice dies or otherwise leaves office, the POTUS is compelled by law to choose a successor. He is in no way compelled to wait almost an entire year for a successor to do so.
If the GOP wanted to pick the next justice, they should have won the last election. And if they block a nominee just out of spite, it will (again) prove to the American people that they are the party of spite and bullshit.

Like I have said before, the Supreme Court has at least three justices who will likely retire or die over the next four years or so. Scalia was one of them. If the White House remains in Democratic control in November, you are going to get a liberal majority Supreme Court.
It's going to be a whole lot of fun. :salute:

First off, I'll bet you a million dollars that this next appointment WILL wait till the next president, so this "law" that it must abide by simply won't be happening, and just as the dems like to do, a filibuster blocking this appointment is within their right, and WILL be happening. Now, IF the Dems win the election, then they EARNED that right to appoint the justice. Look over history and how many times a SC justice has been placed in an election year. Once? Twice? Not happening.

Hillary and getting charged by the government is beginning to look more and more likely. The primaries have started already and the dems have 2 candidates still 'thinking' about entering.

So yes, the next year WILL be a lot of fun!

[jimnyc]

Sorry, Gabby, but I hope they block the nominee 'til the cows come home. It's crucial.

Truth of the matter is this - with a 5-4 lead in the SC leaning towards the right - things have been fair. The justices have even ruled in favor of 'right' issues - gay marriage, obamacare... They have been FAIR. Can you imagine if that balance swings the other way? Does anyone think the 4 who seemingly ALWAYS vote left will be fair?

[jimnyc]

So the president and him appointing a SC justice:


[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I would LOVE to have a constitutional scholar dissect this for us. Obviously the president has the authority to nominate a justice, this we all know, and is his/her job to do so. The questions remain - about timeliness, election year & how much power Congress has to stop an appointment. What is "advice and consent"?


Advice and consent is an English phrase frequently used in enacting formulae of bills and in other legal or constitutional contexts. It may describe two situations, either where a weak executive branch of a government enacts something previously approved of by the legislative branch or where the legislative branch concurs and approves something previously enacted by a strong executive branch.

And in the USA:


In the United States, "advice and consent" is a power of the United States Senate to be consulted on and approve treaties signed and appointments made by the President of the United States to public positions, including Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, United States Attorneys, and ambassadors. This power is also held by several state Senates, which are consulted on and approve various appointments made by the state's chief executive, such as some statewide officials, state departmental heads in the Governor's cabinet, and state judges (in some states).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent

[jimnyc]

Also, without looking this up...

Are there senate seats up for grabs in November? Would it be enough to get them 60 votes? And if so, could they then vote prior to Obama leaving office?

[Kathianne]

Also, without looking this up...

Are there senate seats up for grabs in November? Would it be enough to get them 60 votes? And if so, could they then vote prior to Obama leaving office?

There's 1/3, as there is every 2 years. ;) Here's the 2016 list:

http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/

[jimnyc]

There's 1/3, as there is every 2 years. ;) Here's the 2016 list:

http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/

So couldn't they just wait until november/december if they win the seats, vote then and then we are screwed? Of course that assumes they have 60 seats, which I don't see happening. I'm just trying to think of all scenarios right now.

[Kathianne]

So couldn't they just wait until november/december if they win the seats, vote then and then we are screwed? Of course that assumes they have 60 seats, which I don't see happening. I'm just trying to think of all scenarios right now.

According to NYT 125 days is the high water mark on time for Senate to confirm or deny. However, also noted is the difficulty in over 80 years regarding lame duck nominations. That last point is why I think the next few days-until Senate comes out of recess, are important:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So the president and him appointing a SC justice:



I would LOVE to have a constitutional scholar dissect this for us. Obviously the president has the authority to nominate a justice, this we all know, and is his/her job to do so. The questions remain - about timeliness, election year & how much power Congress has to stop an appointment. What is "advice and consent"?



And in the USA:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent


After the word-- "advice" --- comes the FAR MORE IMPORTANT WORD -- "CONSENT".
They already know that the bastard heeds not any of their advice--so
withholding --"CONSENT"- is perfectly in line with the Constitution IMHO.
And its easily seen and known to be in the best interests of the American citizens.
Thats a solid gold fact..-Tyr

[aboutime]

While the Democrats and Obama begin their WHINE programs, complaining about the Republicans. They never remember to be Honest, and Mention how the DEMS (Harry Reid), in the Senate played the same games when it came to nominee's for SCOTUS.

Hypocrisy is their game, and Hypocrisy...based on keeping Americans DUMB, and Dependent on FREE STUFF, is how they operate.

Only the Americans who are Informed, and who Follow the actions of Hypocrites in Congress know....DEMOCRATS, and OBAMA are bound, and determined to DESTROY AMERICA FROM WITHIN.