Posted on 02/14/2016 6:33:59 AM PST by Citizen Zed
President Obama declared Saturday that he intends to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a move aimed at deepening his imprint on the nation's highest court.
"I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time," Obama said, adding that there's "plenty of time" for the Senate "to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They're bigger than any one party -- they're about a democracy."
But the president faces a fierce and protracted battle with Republicans who have already signaled that they have no intention of allowing Obama to choose a nominee to succeed Scalia.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that Scalia should not be replaced until the next president has taken office. "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
DENIED
If the ‘Pubs cave on this, and such as Stedman or Lynch end up on the SCOTUS, this country is sunk (if we aren’t already).
Nominate till the cows come home. That’s his constitutional right. The Senate has rights too and I hope they exercise them.
So will the nominee be a Marxist or Trotskyite? He could surprise us all and go with a Maoist.
Sen. Mitch McConnell better call the Senate back in session NOW!!!
It must be impossible for Obama to take a photograph that doesn’t expose his homosexuality.
“But the president faces a fierce and protracted battle with Republicans who have already signaled that they have no intention of allowing Obama to choose a nominee to succeed Scalia.”
“fierce and protracted battle with Republicans”!!?
Giggle (snurk) guffaw you gotta be kidding me (soda coming out my nose) can’t breathe I’m laughing so hard!
Led by Mitch “Lion of the Senate” McConnell?? Oh, Prunella!
You can take it to the bank that the kenyan will nominate a black woman.
Some past vacancies haven’t been filled for over a year on the SCOTUS. The nation managed to survive.
As for politics being involved, can you say”Bork”? There was even a Democrat ad on TV starring the actor Gregory Peck campaigning against Bork’s nomination. Peck’s qualification was that he had the starring role in the movie, “To Kill a Mockingbird.” I kid you not.
Fine. Nomination denied.
This Senate had best show some b@ll$ and say, "Lalalalala can't hear you."
I imagine he’ll wait until he gets over the hangover from the America-haters’ big celebration last night.
If Obama comes up with a stealth Communist and he’s labeled a “consensus nominee,” Sen. Yertle and his RINO herd will fold up like a $2 suitcase.
Gay Muslim.
From Wikipedia:
As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful on at least the first try. Of those 29:
12 were fully considered and formally rejected by the Senate.
7 (including a nomination of an Associate Justice for Chief Justice) were withdrawn by the President before a formal consideration could be taken by the Senate.
One of these nominations was withdrawn because of the Ineligibility Clause, but was confirmed after its applicability was no longer an issue.
5 had no action taken on them.
One of these was because of a change in the Presidency, but the nomination was resubmitted by the incoming President and confirmed.
3 had formal votes on the nominations that were postponed.
One of these nominations was reconsidered after a change in Senate composition and confirmed.
2 had nominations nullified by other circumstances without being formally considered.
From Wikipedia:
As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful on at least the first try. Of those 29:
12 were fully considered and formally rejected by the Senate.
7 (including a nomination of an Associate Justice for Chief Justice) were withdrawn by the President before a formal consideration could be taken by the Senate.
One of these nominations was withdrawn because of the Ineligibility Clause, but was confirmed after its applicability was no longer an issue.
5 had no action taken on them.
One of these was because of a change in the Presidency, but the nomination was resubmitted by the incoming President and confirmed.
3 had formal votes on the nominations that were postponed.
One of these nominations was reconsidered after a change in Senate composition and confirmed.
2 had nominations nullified by other circumstances without being formally considered.
From Wikipedia:
As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful on at least the first try. Of those 29:
12 were fully considered and formally rejected by the Senate.
7 (including a nomination of an Associate Justice for Chief Justice) were withdrawn by the President before a formal consideration could be taken by the Senate.
One of these nominations was withdrawn because of the Ineligibility Clause, but was confirmed after its applicability was no longer an issue.
5 had no action taken on them.
One of these was because of a change in the Presidency, but the nomination was resubmitted by the incoming President and confirmed.
3 had formal votes on the nominations that were postponed.
One of these nominations was reconsidered after a change in Senate composition and confirmed.
2 had nominations nullified by other circumstances without being formally considered.
Redundant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.