The 9th Justice: Can the country get a SCOTUS nominee through the senate?

First of all, no way is Obama getting his nominee through a GOP senate. He can’t even do a recess appointment easily since they just recently tightened the rules in favor of the senate.

What people aren’t thinking about is the fact that even if a democrat wins the presidency the GOP senate still will not approve a liberal justice whom Hillary or Bernie would appoint.

Remember you need 60 votes to get the nominee through.

The GOP will NEVER give a liberal justice 60 votes during Obama’s last year; or even in the event Hillary or Bernie wins. The stakes are just too high.

Also, consider that the democrats may want payback if the GOP succeeds in stopping Obama from getting his nominee through. After the election, if a GOP guy wins, THEY CAN GET PAYBACK and stop any nomination from going through as the GOP did to Obama!

So as of now it looks like there won’t even be a 9th justice again.

My take on it is this: For now the GOP Congress will prevent any Obama nominee from being confirmed, but if the Dems win the election, that opposition will be lessened and even if the GOP still controls Congress, they'll allow a nominee through the process. The longer the GOP can hold out, the easier it will be to KEEP holding out until after the election. If Obama decides to appoint a moderate, they may even allow him the "victory" of appointment before he leaves office next January.

I guess it depends on who you ask:

The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.
--Mitch McConnell, 2005

Oh, right, that was when his party had the presidency.

You know what the problem is here?

Whoever gets appointed is expected to be biased. When ... that's the last thing you should discover ... just before the SCOTUS is impeached.

Think about it everything is at stake since the SCOTUS has been allowed to be so powerful.

We all know the GOP, the party of the Iran-Contra and Watergate scandals, cares little about the constitution…remember they actually shut down the government.

And the fact that the absolute resolution of these issues is dependent on the next Justice

Immigration
Affirmative action
The voter’s rights act
Abortion
Second Amendment
Woman’s right
Gay rights
Privacy rights

…will drive the republicans even crazier.

Don’t expect a 9th justice any time soon

Obama will have trouble unless he nominates someone considered "moderate" which he will not do. What Obama considers moderate is what most people consider fairly far left.

What we had was a reasonably balanced court with 4 left leaning, 4 conservative leaning and 1 moderate. If Obama gets one of his traditional appointees in the mold of a Kagan or Sotomayor, then the balance is skewed in favor of far left ideology.

The Republicans have every reason to fight this given that the country still shows a fairly tight 50/50 split between left and right (some say it's more like 40/60 left/right and honestly only about 20 to 30% will openly identify as liberal or progressive with about 10% more who will consistently identify as conservative, leaving a bunch who won't call either way).

When you have 60 to 70% of the populace who consistenly say the country is going in the wrong direction, is it fair to left the balance of 1/3 of the court be so openly skewed?

a reply to: ketsuko

What we had was a reasonably balanced court with 4 left leaning, 4 conservative leaning and 1 moderate. If Obama gets one of his traditional appointees in the mold of a Kagan or Sotomayor, then the balance is skewed in favor of far left ideology.

So what the rules are the rules…the tradition is the tradiiton

Do you think any GOP president would do any different that Obama is going to do by appointing an ideological judge.

Bush appointed the right wing Clarence Thomas to take the place of one of the most liberal justices in the history of the Supreme Court Thurgood Marshall.

The rules of tradition are what we have to go on.

Every president is allowed to appoint an ideological judge.

The fact that Obama was voted in as president gives him that right according to the constitution even if its on the last day of his office

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ketsuko

The fact that Obama was voted in as president gives him that right according to the constitution even if its on the last day of his office

And Congress has the right to refuse confirmation, as was the case with Bork, a well-qualified, but conservative judge who was denied an appointment by the Democrats who did not like his conservative views, and Harrold Carswell, a mediocre southern jurist with a poor record supporting segregation, also denied by Democrats. There was Clement Haynsworth, rejected by Democrats. And Herbert Hoover's John Parker nomination was also killed by the Democrats. There have been several nominees who withdrew their names when controversy erupted, but before a vote in Congress. The above were actually voted upon.

So, for both the 20th and 21st century it is the Democrats, not the GOP, who have rejected SCOTUS nominees. And they had the right to do so.

a reply to: Willtell

Sure! The country can and will.....Obama won't

a reply to: schuyler

I have no argument with you.

a reply to: Willtell
The GOP Senate Pride themselves on Citizens United, you know the highly negative advertisements that make the Republican Presidential Contenders look like a bunch of losers. Smart.

a reply to: Willtell

If I'm not mistaken, President Obama has a shortlist of qualified judges who were previously approved by unanimous, or near unanimous votes in the Senate.

When he nominates one of those people for this position, it should be a pretty good show as the GOP fabricates a reason to deny the appointment now, after approving them so overwhelmingly in the past.

I fully expect them to SHOW the nation exactly why we should't allow the GOP to keep the Senate come November.

I've got extra popcorn & milk duds on the ready. If you never tried it, they go really well together.

a reply to: ugmold


We can have seven, we can have nine, we can have eleven if the feeling is right.


Why the sudden love for the Constitution all of a sudden?


AA Justice's job is to interpret the law based on the Constitution and prior case precedent. The very fact that we can argue that a "left" judge or a "right" judge should get the seat means the Supreme Court is no longer a unbiased body.


Allowing an extreme leftist (activist) judge to sit on the Court would simply be a rubber stamp for the Executive branch. We are supposed to have balances for a reason.


4-4-1 is balance


5-4 (left) is an automatic approval for the Democrats from the supposedly unbiased Judicial Branch.

It looks like when the Supreme Court is tied on a decision, the lower court ruling stands. And no new precedent is set.
Time Magazine

I don't see the US getting a new SCOTUS Associate Justice anytime soon. The gridlock in our government between the Legislative and Executive branches will see to that.

I'd really like to see a moderate on the Supreme Court. Someone who is able to rule based on logic, rather than just toeing the party line. But that ain't gonna happen.

-dex

a reply to: 200Plus

What about the conservative activist judges


The guy who did citizens united was an activist judge from the conservative side

Will the G.O.P. Response to Antonin Scalia’s Death Hand the Election to the Democrats?

In apparent contravention of precedent and the U.S. Constitution, the leader of the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell, said that President Obama shouldn’t be allowed to name a replacement for Scalia. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement posted on his Facebook page. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Indeed the GOP like a bunch of children always want to twist things when something doesn’t go their way

Others better qualified than me can discuss the constitutional implications of such statements. But, in political terms, the party appears to be intent on hurtling into a deep pit. It is well known, and accepted on both sides, that the Democrats’ hopes of holding on to the White House hinge on getting a high voter turnout on November 8th. If you were a Democratic strategist trying to maximize turnout, what would you most like to see? One possibility, surely, is the prospect of the election being transformed into a referendum on the President versus the do-nothing Republican Congress.

Indeed this may help considerably the democratic turn out. And massively backfire against the GOP

Then again all they have to do is as Trump said stall

Others better qualified than me can discuss the constitutional implications of such statements. But, in political terms, the party appears to be intent on hurtling into a deep pit. It is well known, and accepted on both sides, that the Democrats’ hopes of holding on to the White House hinge on getting a high voter turnout on November 8th. If you were a Democratic strategist trying to maximize turnout, what would you most like to see? One possibility, surely, is the prospect of the election being transformed into a referendum on the President versus the do-nothing Republican Congress.

The stakes are now very high. Bernie might be such a risk that he might want to unify the party and join Hillary. The stakes may be too to risk Bernie running against the GOP...

a reply to: Willtell


The Court is a mockery of "justice" was my point.


Sorry if I ramble (slight damage )


4 activist that can be counted on to vote left and 4 activists that can be counted on to vote right with a moderate in the middle to balance things out.


It's still better than 5 activists that will vote left on every issue which is simply a rubber stamp to the Democrats and a liberal agenda.

a reply to: 200Plus

That's the way the marbles roll bro or sis

That's the will of God or the devil or the aliens; whatever you're prospective

a reply to: Willtell


True enough I suppose.


America. Fun while it lasted! LoL

a reply to: 200Plus

Fun for some and not so fun for others

nevertheless keep the hope