The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on February 16, 2016, 08:23:34 AM
-
No- not really. He put in three rounds of golf yesterday.
Little Tich (3,794 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141349891
Obama has started work to pick Supreme Court justice: White House
Source: Yahoo! News / Reuters
RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif./WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Monday said President Barack Obama had started preliminary discussions with his team about naming a Supreme Court justice nominee and accused Republicans of "bluster" for saying they would not confirm his pick.
White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters that administration officials had been in touch with Senate offices about the process, which is shaping up to be an epic fight between Republicans and Democrats in a presidential election year.
Republicans, who control the Senate, say Obama should put off naming a replacement for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died over the weekend, and leave it to the next president to decide. Democrats say it is the president's responsibility and right to make the choice.
Americans choose a new president in November elections. Obama leaves office in January 2017.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-started-pick-supreme-court-justice-white-house-214747936.html
ladjf (15,971 posts)
2. I predict that he will select a so-called "consensus candidate". But, he is the President and has the right to pick whoever he wishes.
He'll pick a gay latino black woman/man with a bench record of uber left rulings.
William Seger (6,790 posts)
3. I predict that he will nominate Lynch (n/t)
... like I said above...
lastlib (7,092 posts)
6. "Dear" Senator Turtle: In November 2012, Barack H. Obama was re-elected to another FOUR-year term as President of the United States--NOT (as you seem to believe) a THREE-year term. His FOUR-year term as President of the United States expires on Jan. 20, 2017--NOT on Feb. 12, 2016. Therefore he has the RIGHT and the DUTY to nominate a candidate to fill a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court.
So get off yerASS and confirm his choice, or come up with a damned good reason to reject it. (HINT: "We don't like the black guy being in the White House" is NOT a good reason!)
"Dear" lastlib: Go **** yourself, hippy. Congress has the right not to confirm a single pick Barry may make.
Major Hogwash (16,682 posts)
8. I would like to see President Obama appoint a very liberal Democrat to the Court. Someone like . . .
. . . Congressman Keith Ellison.
An honorable man who has spoken out to support people of all races and religions, a man who has a tremendous amount of integrity, and a man who is extremely thoughtful of the words he uses to express his viewpoints.
Sure- we are at war with radical islam... we should appoint a leftist muslim to the USSC. :thatsright:
SmittynMo (2,892 posts)
10. Rubio, McConnell, Cruz, others,,,,,,
So let me get this straight. These 3 assholes, and others, have pre determined that President Obama is not allowed to select a Supreme Court justice in the event of a death? Yes, they'll probably succeed in delays, but to boldly come out and shut it down? Doesn't this fall under the category of treason? And if so, isn't it time to prosecute them? And people wonder why Trump and Bernie are doing so well? People are fed up with it. Period!!! It's time for a political revolution and remove these pricks right out of office. It's time for the next generation to stand up and take a stance.
I sooooo look forward to this election year. It's out with the old SOS. I, and many others are ready for a change in policies, procedures, and scenery.
Just like a leftist to claim anyone who disagrees with them is a traitor and should be locked up.
roomtomove (83 posts)
11. I was impressed...with Obama's calm muted intelligent response to the whiny wimpering Republicans, who couldn't even wait until the body was cold.
:o
-
My guess is that O****youAmerica will do all he can to stick a thumb in the countries eye with his pick.
-
ladjf (15,971 posts)
2. I predict that he will select a so-called "consensus candidate". But, he is the President and has the right to pick whoever he wishes.
And if the Senate can find it's balls...whomever O picks will never make it out of Committee.
He can pick who he wants...but it doesn't matter a hill of beans if the Senate doesn't confirm said pick.
-
And if the Senate can find it's balls...whomever O picks will never make it out of Committee.
He can pick who he wants...but it doesn't matter a hill of beans if the Senate doesn't confirm said pick.
There was an instance in the 1840s where a SCOTUS seat was vacant for 27 months!
So, this is nothing compared to that.
-
There was an instance in the 1840s where a SCOTUS seat was vacant for 27 months!
So, this is nothing compared to that.
No there's not. Remember Schumer and company wanted to block W from appointing any justices for the last 19 months of his administration.
Interesting factoid. There have been 160 justices nominated by the President for the Supreme Court in our nation's history...124 have been approved. Of the 36 that didn't make it, 25 never received an up or down vote.
-
This is one of those many instances when it is OK if dems do it but illegal if republicans do it (ie. 2007)
-
The court is not required to have nine.
IIRC, nine is the maximum number.
-
The court is not required to have nine.
IIRC, nine is the maximum number.
I heard that there is speculation that Ruth Bader Ginsberg might retire at the end of the current term. So, as of July 1st, we may have two vacancies. Or, alternately, the right balance.
-
The court is not required to have nine.
IIRC, nine is the maximum number.
Congress sets the number.
It originally started out with six. 5 Associate Justices and 1 Chief Justice.
-
They're just pissed that the race/gender card is off the table when it comes to individual nominees.
Really pissed in fact, since its their primary means of pressure.
CMD
-
Ended up listening to the head primitive on npr coming home from work. He was going on about how the Republicans would say no to even a nominee they would normally agree with. A reporter asked him since he said that, would he be putting up a moderate? His answer: ummm...no and was offended by the insinuation
-
Doesn't this fall under the category of treason? And if so, isn't it time to prosecute them?
Remember how "Bork" became a verb?