Posted on 02/14/2016 6:34:31 AM PST by SMGFan
The GOP presidential candidate—and at least two of his rivals—are acting as if the meaning of the Constitution changes depending on the timing of the next election. Antonin Scalia is dead. Is it legitimate for the Republican-controlled Senate to refrain from confirming a replacement for the late Supreme Court justice until a new president is elected, as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson and others on the right have urged? Or does the Senate have an obligation to approve a qualified nominee put forth by President Obama, as many on the left argued as soon as news of the death broke?
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Shoes on the other foot; Obama could claim prosecutorial discretion on immigration
I wonder how it feels
I beleive you are probably right, I thought about all the Democrats in R jerseys who will fall over themselves to approve whoever Obama nominates.
“Reid would have the support of his party behind him. Cruz will not because he has not created good working relationships with more than a few of his Senate Republican peers. Most of them can’t stand him.”
Why do you bring up Cruz? I wasn’t discussing him. Must every post by some here bash Cruz?
There is no “right to have a Supreme Court post approved”, Obama has the right to submit his choice, the Senate has the right to not cote on it or to reject it as they see fit.
” Or does the Senate have an obligation to approve a qualified nominee put forth by President Obama,”
The way that this question is parsed is ridiculous.
Hello, the senate is under no obligation whatsoever to “approve” anyone.
Did the Democrat Senate in 1987 have an obligation to confirm the more-than-qualified Robert Bork?
Conor Friedersdorf, go f*** yourself.
IIRC, there is nothing in the Constitution or U.S. Code which numerically specifies the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Look up Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court in 1937. He had just been reelected in a landslide and the Justices, the oldest in the Court’s history, were thwarting several of his New Deal programs.
Roosevelt had his allies in Congress introduce a bill which would add one additional justice to the Supreme Court for every current member over age 70, for a total of four.
Won’t spoil the ending because it was a cliffhanger but I suggest googling the quip “A switch in time saved nine”.
Should be no reason, especially under the circumstances, to limit to whole odd numbers. If Repubs decided to leave things at a potentially indecisive 8, the 'Rats would not voluntarily give up another seat to make it odd.
8 is just fine.
You make an excellent point. Obama issues an EO whenever the courts deny him. So why wouldn’t the US Senate deny Obama his choice?
No, the Senate is under NO obligation to approve any Obama nominee to SCOTUS. They are free to decline to approve if they reject the ideology or known political positions of that nominee.
Oh, I agree, the Senate has an obligation to approve a qualified nominee. That is why their approval is required and they don't simply rubber-stamp who-ever the President nominates.
It is the Senate's duty to pass judgement on the qualifications and suitability of the nominee to sit on the court. Just because a President happens to favor them does not mean the Senate must also.
When it comes to assessing the nominee's qualifications, the Senate must reasonably consider the nominee's body of work and likelihood of serving well at upholding the Constitution and maintaining the separation of powers. A nominee likely to try to "legislate from the bench" or let politics and popular opinion sway decisions is not a viable candidate and should be considered unqualified. The SCOTUS must act as an independent check on the other two branches of government, guard and be guided by the Constitution of the United States.
They`re fanatics of ‘the messiah’, what do you expect from groveling acolytes?
How many months will we hear this same tired argument? It will be a waste of time and high bp meds for everyone. It’ll be the same story of big talk now and then the inevitable kissing of the usurper’s butt followed by the caving of the eunuchs timed within weeks of the election to slap down the few conservatives left in this country.
I’m sick of the entire disgusting lot.
We need to focus on why the SC is so important to the left. Their agenda includes things that
* Are not constitutional so they need a court that ignores the Constitution
* Are not popular so they can’t get legislation through congress
* Are popular so legislation is passed by congress but goes against their agenda
The Rs want to stop unpopular and unconstitutional growth in the power of the federal government and to have the government work according to the wishes of the people. The Ds want to enable 5 people and a made up court case to control everyone’s life regardless of the Constitution or public wishes.
Make sure every lefty pushing for Obama’s choice understands the implication of what they are asking for and that one day those 5 people will not be a group they like but will be there for life. At that point even they will see the importance of the Constitution and congress but it may be too late.
Let’s see. President Reagan once nominated a clearly qualified Appeals Court Judge, Robert Bork, to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. How did the Democrat Senate treat their duty in that case?
One could make the argument that if a prospective Justice is not an originalist, they are not qualified.
Right you are. The President can nominate whomever he wants to, for any reason. And the Senate can deny confirmation, for any reason.
The Senate is under no obligation to approve. This is not a dictatorship (yet).
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.