Supreme Court Justice Scalia Dies

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

A vacancy on the court during the remainder of Obama's presidency could leave two full Supreme Court sessions deadlocked 4-4.

This is the part that should have people putting their politics to the side.
The SCOTUS serves a purpose, and if congress just wants to say no because it is Obama then they are willingly impeding that purpose and that will have lasting effects.

It is not the fault of the country or the president that this comes during his 'lame duck' status, how about we just ask congress to do their job?

Do their job? What is a Senator's job? First and foremost, it is to act in the best interests of the people of his or her state. If a senator believes that voting against confirming a justice is in the best interests of the state they represent, then he or she is doing their job. A senator from Arizona owes no allegiance to the people of any other state...PERIOD!

Let’s discuss this.

Should Obama nominate a known moderate….In order to satisfy the GOP?


Or go ahead and do what most presidents have done, nominate a doctrinaire person who believes in what the president believes.

a reply to: Willtell

We need a far right leaning Justice, a moderate will not do. For balance within the Supreme Court, we need someone more right than middle.

a reply to: Willtell

Or go ahead and do what most presidents have done, nominate a doctrinaire person who believes in what the president believes.

That is what he has been doing.

See Kegan and Sotomayor.

Don't expect anything different.

originally posted by: Willtell
Let’s discuss this.

Should Obama nominate a known moderate….In order to satisfy the GOP?


Or go ahead and do what most presidents have done, nominate a doctrinaire person who believes in what the president believes.

He should nominate whoever he sees fit to replace Scalia, and at the same time expose the Republicans for the obstructionists they are.

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Willtell

We need a far right leaning Justice, a moderate will not do. For balance within the Supreme Court, we need someone more right than middle.

Right!

I don't think anyone would argue Scalia wasn't a 'conservative'.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Your probably right. Its just. Well. I am sure you probably understand.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

You are right, but with the calls of all out 'no' until obama is gone is not doing that.

When the SCOTUS can't decide something, due to being deadlocked, that is an issue for EVERY STATE.
There is a reason for having an odd number of justices.

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Willtell
Let’s discuss this.

Should Obama nominate a known moderate….In order to satisfy the GOP?


Or go ahead and do what most presidents have done, nominate a doctrinaire person who believes in what the president believes.

He should nominate whoever he sees fit to replace Scalia, and at the same time expose the Republicans for the obstructionists they are.

What you call 'obstructionist' others call DEMOCRACY.

Can't have it both ways there.

a reply to: Kitana

This is the part that gets me.
All this lambasting of the appointments of obama being to far left, but yall want to do the same thing but just to the right?
Not really a way to instill balance at all.

I will ask again, what was the balance before this. Or even better, what was the balance before obama's two appointments?

a reply to: neo96

Saying no for the sake of saying no is not democracy.

It is being childish.

originally posted by: Willtell
Let’s discuss this.

Should Obama nominate a known moderate….In order to satisfy the GOP?


Or go ahead and do what most presidents have done, nominate a doctrinaire person who believes in what the president believes.

Barry will nominate someone agreeable to the Globalist puppet-masters....someone like Holder who was subservient to Obama's 'tear-up-the-system' strategy

it will be interesting to see IF this is a hasty decision or one carefully planned as the Justices' death came as no big surprise


~ does the word/idea 'Orchestrated' seem too sensitive or accusitory ?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Arizonaguy

You are right, but with the calls of all out 'no' until obama is gone is not doing that.

When the SCOTUS can't decide something, due to being deadlocked, that is an issue for EVERY STATE.
There is a reason for having an odd number of justices.

Deadlock works out for STATE RIGHTS.

They would get to make their own calls.

Which there is nothing wrong with.

See the 10th amendment.

a reply to: Willtell

The Supreme Court has knocked down Obama on a number of issues.

Obama will nominate an extremist and then blame congress for obstruction.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Saying NO because in 2014 that is exactly why they were elected.

And the childish people go around calling them 'obstructionist', and the 'party of no'.

Either a person believes in democracy or they don't.

And they sure as snip don't deserve childish insults like the above.

he should nominate a moderate conservative. just so we can watch some in congress shoot the person down for being too "liberal".

a reply to: Sremmos80

As the supreme court leans farther and farther left, we loose a voice of balance without enough right leaning justices. Scalia was very right, and his voice lent balance. I love reading his rulings, Scalia was amazing.

We lost so much this day. Now, there wont be enough balance. All left or middle who concede to the left. No more constitution, means nothing now if we replace him with another from the left.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I agree, and now the ball is in Obama's court, so to speak. If he nominates a person who is more in line with Justice Kennedy, someone who is more moderate on social issues, but has consistently shown that he is not above reining in the power of the federal government when it oversteps its authority, then the Republicans have a problem. If he nominates a liberal that believes in increasing the power of the Federal government, then the next president will be picking somebody.

a reply to: neo96

No insults, I just said saying no for the sake of saying is being childish.
If you took offense to that, that is on you.

So the people knew in 2014 that a justice was going to die and voted the people in to make sure that when that happens we would go thru two sessions with deadlock?

Their job is to appoint, not to block just for the sake of blocking and pandering.
Not saying that the first person Obama puts up needs to get the seat, far from it.
Just that no one should be advocating the idea of not even trying for over a year.

a reply to: Kitana

So did you have issue with it when it leaned right?


Sounds like what a lot of people are getting at is that it is only 'balanced' when it is 5 for the right.