Dems-passed-resolution-in-1960-to-prevent-Supreme-Court-appointment-ahead-of-election.

a reply to: TheBulk

based on the fact that the supreme court would be handicapped for close to a year???
each justice overseas a portion of the lower courts. scalia's was overseeing some of these lower courts, now, that workload will have to be taken over by the rest of the justices..
and well, since there is now an even number if justices, there is a chance of a tie vote. which if that happens one of two things might happen depending on which precedent they wish to take. they could chose to allow the lower court decisions or they could rehear the case once they get their missing justice back.

and why would the republicans want this?? oh ya, so they can use that empty seat to motivate the voters to get and and vote for them! there is no danged reason why they can't do their job, advise the president and consider his appointees and give them a vote! accept or reject but not muddle around and avoid!!!

The Supreme Court is partisan now.

Funny how interpretation of the Constitution falls down on partisan lines.

I say get rid of everyone and appoint all new members that will actually do their job correctly.

a reply to: DBCowboy

ya, and then we can go without any justices till the after the election, and depending how that turns out, hey, we might go on permanently without any, and if we do manage to get some appointed, they will be the most partisan supreme court n our history!! good plan!

ya know, I've looked through a few of those court opinions, it seems that they seem to cross those partisan lines quite often..

but, well, that's in that other reality, ya know, the ones the far right conservatives don't recognize, outside of the fox news, rush limbaugh, and the other talking heads' worldview.

The Senate approval is there for a reason. To ensure the person appointed by the POTUS is a qualified and well-balanced selection. Yes, the people elected Obama and he should appoint someone. And also yes, the people elected the Senate and they should vote on a qualified well-balanced candidate.

a reply to: dawnstar

Have a cup of tea, maybe a valium.

I said partisan.

What part of partisan did you not get?

They should adhere to the Constitution, not be right or left.

a reply to: DBCowboy

or maybe they aren't being left or right, but rather, your viewing them as left or right???
we generally only concern ourselves with the few major cases that come up, but there are many more. On those major cases, we the people are divided on which way they should go, with the left hoping they go one way, and the right hoping they go another. so how can they not be viewed as partisan, no matter which way they go?

a reply to: dawnstar

Why is it that the same justices split on the same sides on partisan issues every time?