Justice Scalia leaves opening

[RW]

Justice Antonin Scalia died this morning leaving a hole on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States.



Obama says he will fill the roll, critics are saying he should wait.



What do you think and who do you think will fill the hole on the bench?

[Anonymous]

Justice Antonin Scalia died this morning leaving a hole on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States.



Obama says he will fill the roll, critics are saying he should wait.



What do you think and who do you think will fill the hole on the bench?

I see the vacancy filled being filled by the next president.

[Anonymous]

Justice Antonin Scalia died this morning leaving a hole on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States.



Obama says he will fill the roll, critics are saying he should wait.



What do you think and who do you think will fill the hole on the bench?

I talked about this in another thread. Obama will nominate someone and the Republican controlled senate will block it. It's Reagan and Robert Bork all over again.

[Bricktop]

I posted this in another thread...



"It defies belief that the highest court in your land is actually a political instrument.



Have you not heard of the separation of the court from the State? Court judges are legal, not political, appointees. No wonder your country is in a godawful mess when your highest judiciary is POLITICALLY structured.



Any court is to be free of any political prejudice, and is to act in the interest of community justice, not political expediency. That you have a court that is comprised of political animals is a farce. If a member of the High Court of Australia, or Canada, or England made clear his or her prejudice against gays, politically opposite viewpoints or political preference in general they would be arseholed in a heartbeat.



World's greatest democracy?



Since when?"

[cc]

"It defies belief that the highest court in your land is actually a political instrument

In my country and I'm bettin yours, the Supremes are all political appointees and function based upon their own political philosophy as much as is possible



While the process of selection is different, in function I really don't see any actual difference  between us & them

[Anonymous]

"It defies belief that the highest court in your land is actually a political instrument

In my country and I'm bettin yours, the Supremes are all political appointees and function based upon their political philosophy as much as is possible



In function I really don't see what the actual difference is between us & them

Are you sure?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/po3x8M8J4M4/maxresdefault.jpg">

[Bricktop]

"It defies belief that the highest court in your land is actually a political instrument

In my country and I'm bettin yours, the Supremes are all political appointees and function based upon their own political philosophy as much as is possible



While the process of selection is different, in function I really don't see any actual difference  between us & them

Judges are appointed, and can only be removed by Parliament.



However, they are not appointed by virtue of their political leanings. They are appointed as a result of their judicial acumen. If the people of Australia caught whiff of political bias in the judges, there would be a uproar.



All judgments are scrutinised according to LEGAL principles.

[Romero]

http://images.dailykos.com/images/210116/story_image/scotus-scandal800.png?1455582471">

[RW]

I find the debate around this ridiculous.

[cc]

Well, of course the left want him to pick a left bot and try to spin past events despite the fact that it's been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year... and none have been

They place spin material on websites like media matters for their minions / robots  to use to spin things for other minions who are not uneducated on issues ... not to mention any specific minion / robot of course.



And of course the right want to  use that as precedent and hold things off till after election ... even making it a huge election issue ... which it will be



Predictable is predictable

[Romero]

it's been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year... and none have been

It hasn't been "standard practice". That's like saying it's "standard practice" for Supreme Court Justices to not die during a presidential election year.



There's nothing that says a president shouldn't perform his duties during an election year. Obama's still president and he's going to do his job. He will make a nomination as per actual standard practice and the Republicans can hissy fit as usual all they want.

Hours after Scalia's death was announced, Ben Carson joined with fellow Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in calling on Congress to block the Supreme Court vacancy from being filled.



"It is imperative that the Senate not allow President Obama to diminish his legacy by trying to nominate an individual who would carry on his wishes to subvert the will of the People," Carson wrote in a statement, before even expressing his condolences for Scalia's family.



Asked if Carson and his cohorts were perhaps being hypocritical their opposition to Obama naming Scalia's replacement, Carson was remarkably honest about what animates the Republicans' rush to fight. "Do you think the same six people on stage would say the same thing if there were a Republican president in the White House right now — for them to wait until the next president is selected?" a South Carolina radio host asked Carson on Tuesday.



Without skipping a beat, Carson replied openly: "No, they wouldn't."



http://www.salon.com/2016/02/16/ben_carson_admits_the_truth_about_gops_scalia_hypocrisy_republicans_would_not_wait_to_pick_their_own_scotus_replacement/">//http://www.salon.com/2016/02/16/ben_carson_admits_the_truth_about_gops_scalia_hypocrisy_republicans_would_not_wait_to_pick_their_own_scotus_replacement/

[cc]

More lefty type Saloon  spin (copy paste) ... always hilarious, but as usual .... meaningless carry on / babble / spin



Bottom line ...  "Fact" ... over the last nearly 80 years Supreme Court nominees have NEVER been nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year ... NEVER

[RW]

Why is there a belief or concern that a Supreme Court Justice does governmental bidding?  Not only that, what the Republicans are saying is they want to pick the shill instead.



WTF?

[RW]

More lefty type Saloon  spin (copy paste) ... always hilarious, but as usual .... meaningless carry on / babble / spin



Bottom line ...  "Fact" ... over the last nearly 80 years Supreme Court nominees have NEVER been nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year ... NEVER

This is spin cc.  There have been nominations during election years in US history.  It's not an unheard of practise.



Why shouldn't the current President of the United States fulfill his duties and nominate/confirm a SCOTUS Justice?  Provide a reason.

[Romero]

More lefty type Saloon  spin (copy paste) ... always hilarious, but as usual .... meaningless carry on / babble / spin



Bottom line ...  "Fact" ... over the last nearly 80 years Supreme Court nominees have NEVER been nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year ... NEVER

That's just timing. Would it have made a difference if Scalia died in December? Of course not. You and the Repubs would still be inventing excuses.



"But but but it's the year before an election year!"



There's nothing that says the President has to stop doing his job. If a Republican was President right now, it wouldn't be an issue and you know it.