This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Like Onama did when he was in the Senate? Obama's action 8 years ago will give the GOP political cover.
I heard the same argument made with regard to the debt ceiling, and just like then I think it's pretty weak. There is a vast difference between a protest vote when you know something is going to pass anyhow and a vote that actually makes a difference.
It may be weak, but to the electorate it is an arguement which will reasonate. Trying to blow it off as a protest vote is an even weaker arguement.
This is politics. In fact it is the arguement Hillary has been using a lot lately in multiple areas.
In all seriousness this is my fear with the way this appears to be going since last night.
i don't think so, if they just refuse to do anything it will be another example of the senate not doing anything which the public is sick of.
What if President Obama nominates "The Situation"?
Abortions for everyone. He's a good fear mongering.
This was discussed earlier, but if Obama nominates Sri Srinivasan, its going to look bad for the Repubs if they block him. He was just confirmed 97-0 for the DC Ct. of Appeals.
leg work done here 
i don't think there is any mystery on the type of Justice anyone will nominate outside of maybe Trump.
I missed your point. No question he was painted as an extremist, nor that a large percentage of the population bought that presentation. Myself, I had reservations that his espoused judicial philosophy would not bend to his political beliefs. Ultimately he sort of did take the bench with the subsequent appointments of Scalia and/Rehnquist.
Their job has come down to being re-elected and cause gridlock.
I more or less understood this to be so. I guess I am wondering in a bit greater depth. Decisions are now being authored, drafts circulated, some drafts or positions are based upon responding to, or even countering drafts of others, like the now gone Scalia. I presume there will be much scrambling.
The Dems can and do do this. If the GOP nominated a conservative or even a moderate to replace a liberal Justice, especially one that would flip the balance of the court as this one would, there is no limits to what the Dems would do to stop it. Any Dem claiming they would do their duty and allow a vote is either extremely naive or lying. This is the fight over the holy grail of politics. No tool is off the table.
That is what I did not remember clearly. Thanks for the info.
Basically... Upcoming cases like Obama's immigration Executive order will still be heard.. If the vote is 4-4, then the decision reverts to the lower courts and his executive order is gone.. for now..
Cases that were already heard are handled differently..
If the vote is 5-4, and his vote was the on the "5" side, then the case is removed and needs to be reheard.. Otherwise the decisions go through.
In 1988 there were 54 Democrats in the US Senate and the Senate voted 97-0 to confirm the Justice Kennedy.
My lord we have a disappointing slate of candidates on both sides of the aisle this go round. Not a one for whom I could vote. If forced right now to vote for one of the main stream contenders I would have to vote for Bernie, a man with whom I disagree on most matters of importance to me, but one who does not mistake passionate partisanship as actual principle. At least I can respect Bernie.
Although on this particular issue, politicizing the Supreme Court nomination-and-confirmation process, I don't think Bernie is so great. He's the one with litmus tests on specific issues. For example, he's said that he wouldn't nominate anyone who wouldn't vote to overturn Citizens United. I personally don't think that's how constitutional jurisprudence is supposed to work.
Any politician that says otherwise is a phony.
It's not. Anyone that pledged to overturn Citizens United in order to be considered for the post by Bernie would have to recuse themselves from decisions related to that.
This is true. It seemed kind of nice when politicians at least pretended to have integrity and lied to us. It is a very recent trend to embrace litmus test. Obama still would claim no litmus test, but Hillary and Bernie seem to be frontrunners in throwing that completely out the window.
Not pledged, but Presidents usually have a good idea how potential Justices are going to vote.
4-4 will mostly be an improvement for liberals, as Scalia would have broken the ties the 'wrong' way for them. Now left-leaning rulings from othe lower courts will stand. So it is mostly a plus in reality.
But Bernie says he won't nominate anyone that won't overturn it. If you have that level of certainty, they should recuse themselves. Their minds are already made up.
