Justice Scalia leaves opening

[Renee]

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?

No Republicans are saying they a nominee that will uphold the constitution and interpret it as it is written. You can't trust Odumbo to do that. They don't want another Ginsburg who thinks the constitution is a rag that can be used to clean the wheels of her walker.



The bottom line is, despite all the whining, fussing and finger pointing by that ignorant turd, Romero and his leftard ilk, it's a fact that in the past 50 years dems have tried to obstruct more SCOTUS nominees than republicans have. All one has to do is look at the Robert Bork hearings and the failed attempt by the left to smear Clarence Thomas. when it comes to squashing something it doesn't agree with, no single party in the history of the US is more vicious and under handed than the Democrats.



This morning I saw that TV camera chasing, piece of shit, Chuck Schumer raving about how it can't be tolerated that the GOP controlled senator should be able to block one of Odumbo's nominees. Then archrival footage of dumb ass Chucky was broadcast calling for Dems to unite and block Clarence Thomas as a nominee. Open mouth, insert foot.



It only goes to show that in order to be a libertard all you need is a big mouth and a selective memory.

[RW]

I'm sorry but this shit is fucking ridiculous.  Just answer me this please...



Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year?



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so?



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees?



WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing?  I mean aside from you disliking Obama.

[Bricktop]

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?

Do you realise the self defeating answer to the second question?

[RW]

I have to say it's passed me by.

[Bricktop]

Corruption is corruption.



Appointing a judge because he leans to your side of political ideology is corruption.

[RW]

A justice should be above political leanings IMHO.  I know that's not how it is IRL, but it is how it damn well should be.



A fight to be the one to pick the shill is just disgusting.

[Anonymous]

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?

As I said, Reagan nominated Robert Bork who was shot down by Democrat controlled senate. This will be the same.

[cc]

Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year? - yes



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so? - yes



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees? - yes



WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing? I mean aside from you disliking Obama. .. Everything ...  It's not dislike btw, its philosophy / agenda. To your words that you could just as easily substitute substitute Bush, or Clinton or Reagan or ..... etc.

[RW]

Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year? - yes



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so? - yes



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees? - yes



WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing? I mean aside from you disliking Obama. .. Everything ...  It's not dislike btw, its philosophy / agenda. To your words that you could just as easily substitute substitute Bush, or Clinton or Reagan or ..... etc.

You haven't explained it beyond saying "everything".  I don't give a shit who the president is.  You have affirmed above that he has a constitutional duty to nominate.  That should be the end of it but nooooooooo.  The waters have to be muddied by a bunch of bullshit politicking.  It's gross.

[Bricktop]

It is also corruption of the judiciary.

[Anonymous]

Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year? - yes



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so? - yes



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees? - yes



WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing? I mean aside from you disliking Obama. .. Everything ...  It's not dislike btw, its philosophy / agenda. To your words that you could just as easily substitute substitute Bush, or Clinton or Reagan or ..... etc.

You haven't explained it beyond saying "everything".  I don't give a shit who the president is.  You have affirmed above that he has a constitutional duty to nominate.  That should be the end of it but nooooooooo.  The waters have to be muddied by a bunch of bullshit politicking.  It's gross.

It's funny how the Democrats change their tune with a Republican senate and final year Democrat president. It's funny watching the Democrats finally grow a conscience.

[Renee]

I'm sorry but this shit is fucking ridiculous.  Just answer me this please...



Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year?



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so?



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees?

Yes

WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing?  I mean aside from you disliking Obama.

An appointment by a lame duck president is seen as a way to circumvent congress by using the courts as a way to legislate. In this case confirming an Obama nominee would tip the balance of power in his favor thus throwing the whole "checks and balances" concept out the window.



"The fact of the matter is that it's been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year. Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice"



Senator Chuck Grassley, Head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Bricktop]

And if the next President is Hilary?



What agenda will she push?



The highest court of the land is there to ADJUDICATE, not FACILITATE. It is there to decide the legality not the probity of matters before it.

[cc]

Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year? - yes



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so? - yes



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees? - yes



WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing? I mean aside from you disliking Obama. .. Everything ...  It's not dislike btw, its philosophy / agenda. To your words that you could just as easily substitute substitute Bush, or Clinton or Reagan or ..... etc.

You have affirmed above that he has a constitutional duty to nominate.  That should be the end of it but nooooooooo.  The waters have to be muddied by a bunch of bullshit politicking.  It's gross.

The waters are muddied when a leader anywhere picks someone of his philosophy / agenda .. which is ALWAYS the case everywhere

ou have affirmed above that he has a constitutional duty to nominate.  That should be the end of it but nooooooooo.

nooooooooo ... that is just one persons duty and merely "starts" the process. The Senate then has the duty of "advice and consent" over anything he nominates



I'm surprised that you are surprised that political philosophy is primo ... It is in EVERYTHING and in EVERYWHERE .. . including here in Canada. The difference here is that with a majority there is no "advice and consent" and another  hack gets a free ride to a funny dress to then play  his or her cards as per his or her political philosophy

[Bricktop]

This is NOT appropriate judicial conduct...



"Justice Scalia, however, was more than just another court vote.

He was also one of the chamber's most outspoken advocates for conservative jurisprudence. He was a towering voice for the doctrine of originalism - that the text of the Constitution is immutable and not open to "modern" interpretations.

He was the author of District of Columbia v Heller, which struck down restrictions on handgun possession and held that the Second Amendment enshrined firearm ownership in the US as a constitutional right.

His fiery dissents, such as in recent cases on gay marriage and the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform, served as rallying cries for conservatives across the US."



This man was conducting his role as an independent adjudicator as a representative of the right wing of American politics.



If this is the case with all of them, this would explain with the US is such a mess.