Obama: No Excuse for GOP Not to Vote on a Court Nominee

[TrueBlue]

Obama: No Excuse for GOP Not to Vote on a Court Nominee
By Darlene Superville and Kathleen Hennessey, Associated Press RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-outlines-supreme-court-nominee/story?id=37158948

"As Obama cast the dispute over filling the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/antonin-scalia.htm) as a test of whether the Senate could function, there were early signs that Republican resistance could be eroding. Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley suggested he might be open to considering Obama's yet-to-be named nominee, an indication his party may be sensitive to Democrats' escalating charges of unchecked obstructionism."


"There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done in off years. That's not in the constitutional text," he said. "I'm amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of propositions that aren't there. There's more than enough time for the Senate to consider in a thoughtful way the record of a nominee that I present and to make a decision."


"The White House has been looking for cracks in the Republicans opposition as it deliberates on a nominee. If Republicans indicate they may hold hearings, Obama would have greater reason to name a "consensus candidate," a moderate nominee who would be at least somewhat difficult for Republicans to reject. If there's virtually no chance of Republicans bending, Obama might go another route — picking a nominee who galvanizes support among the Democrats' liberal base and fires up interest groups in the election year."


========================
Thanks to ABC News for this report.

Imho and obviously, the president is obligated to fulfill his presidential Constitutional duty by nominating a successor to the SCOTUS. The U.S. Senate also has its Constitutional responsibility to act on his nominee. They can either vote his nominee up or down but they should certainly take a vote as that is also what the American people expect of them. Republicans should not play obstructive partisan politics with this important matter by already wanting to hold the president's nominee hostage for a year as they are threatening to do. That is irresponsible when so many cases are scheduled to appear for a hearing before the SCOTUS this year that could result in a 4 to 4 vote, effectively sending it back to the lower courts and of course, it is Republicans who stand to lose the most should that happen.

The president's strategy for moving forward with his nomination is one for all Republicans to seriously consider. Therefore, I expect for them to either confirm or not confirm President Obama's nominee(s) this year.



Notice: This Is A WARNING To Everyone Participating In This Thread.
In This Thread It Is Not Allowed To Conduct Any Bad Faith Postings; Baiting; Flooding the Thread With Little Or No Content; Ignoring Requests to Cease. No Criticizing An OP Thread Or Making Fun Of It. Absolutely No Troll Postings!

In Addition, Harassment *Of Any Kind* Or Abuse of Others Is Not Permitted. No Calling Members Out, Being Disruptive or Name Calling. No Threatening Of Members Or Anyone Else Or Calling Them "Liars" Or Other Hateful Names. No Bigoted Attacks Against Any Minorities or Any Person(s) Or Vulgarity, Profanity, and Nasty, Defamatory Innuendo. No Comments Are Allowed Referring To Any Criminal Acts With Regard To Those Who Have Not Been Accused of Any Wrong-Doing. Memes Used For The Purpose Of Harassment Are Also Cause For An Immediate Ban!

Be Sure To Deport Yourself In A Decent, Amicable Manner At All Times Simply Because YOU CAN, Anyone Can. Any Violations of the Aforementioned Things Will Be Cause For An Immediate Ban Without Further Warnings. So, If You Find Yourself Suddenly Banned From This Thread Without Farther Notice You Will Know Why. Be Forewarned. Thank You For Your Cooperation and Enjoy the Thread!

[nathanbforrest45]

No obligation either.

[TrueBlue]

No obligation either.
And if that's their stance they will surely live to regret it in the long run as President Obama has discussed his intentions on this as part of his strategy on Republicans. It therefore behooves them to take an up or down vote on his eventual nominee(s). That is the prudent thing to do.

[Matty]

They don't need an excuse. Democrats do though for their hypocrisy.

[nathanbforrest45]

And if that's their stance they will surely live to regret it in the long run as President Obama has discussed his intentions on this as part of his strategy on Republicans. It therefore behooves them to take an up or down vote on his eventual nominee(s). That is the prudent thing to do.



OK, so if the Republican Senate says we don't want to put a far left wing justice in place they will live to regret that? Liberals really live in a fantasy world don't they.

[TrueBlue]

OK, so if the Republican Senate says we don't want to put a far left wing justice in place they will live to regret that? Liberals really live in a fantasy world don't they.
Pay attention, Nate. That's not what I said. I said the Senate should either take an up or down vote on his nominee.

[exotix]

This looks like we have a voice in the matter.



http://i64.tinypic.com/fviav9.jpg

[MisterVeritis]

This looks like we have a voice in the matter.

Now you do. Vote wisely.

[exotix]

Now you do. Vote wisely.http://i65.tinypic.com/6gvkgx.jpg

[Tahuyaman]

How many threads need to be created about this same subject? The issue doesn't change because one creates another thread.

[texan]

The republican president will submit a nominee using the exact same criteria in 2017, so just wait and we will vote on that person. It is all good, exactly t he same criteria nothing to worry about.

[MisterVeritis]

http://i65.tinypic.com/6gvkgx.jpg
Good point. You are unable to vote wisely. You are who you are.

[texan]

BTW if it were a Republican president in there right now you wouldn't be so high on voting, can you at least admit that?

[Cigar]

White House Vetting GOP Centrist Gov. Brian Sandoval for SCOTUSThe White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.

Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.

While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.

However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.

The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.


http://linkis.com/www.nbcnews.com/news/S7C7j
(http://linkis.com/www.nbcnews.com/news/S7C7j)


I Love it ... Obama just keeps letting them step in their own sh!t :roflmao:

[Ransom]

What part of the word NO do you not get, Libs?

It isn't going to happen. Whine, cry, kavetch, whimper, toss and turn.......we couldn't care less.

Barack Obama won't be nominating the next Justice. End of story. Was there anything else?

[MisterVeritis]

White House Vetting GOP Centrist Gov. Brian Sandoval for SCOTUS
. . .
I Love it ... Obama just keeps letting them step in their own sh!t :roflmao:
GOP centrist is just another name for liberal. I hope McConnell will remain firm.

[Peter1469]

If the Senate finds him acceptable, they have stepped in no shit.



White House Vetting GOP Centrist Gov. Brian Sandoval for SCOTUS

The White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.

Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.

While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.

However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.

The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.


http://linkis.com/www.nbcnews.com/news/S7C7j
(http://linkis.com/www.nbcnews.com/news/S7C7j)


I Love it ... Obama just keeps letting them step in their own sh!t :roflmao:

[Crepitus]

If the Senate finds him acceptable, they have stepped in no shit.
Sure they have, they've already drawn a line in the sand. They are gonna look even stupider than usual if they back up now.

[nathanbforrest45]

I personally hope this Senate does not back down on this. It is well past time to tell this president (small p) that he is not going to get his way just because he wants it.

Let him try an end run with the "recess appointment" and then you have grounds for impeachment.

[Cigar]

This perfectly describes the Obama Presidency from day one, January 20th 2009

No and Obstruct :laugh:

[TrueBlue]

I personally hope this Senate does not back down on this. It is well past time to tell this president (small p) that he is not going to get his way just because he wants it.

Let him try an end run with the "recess appointment" and then you have grounds for impeachment.
Absolutely not it wouldn't be an impeachable offense, far from it, for your information. It would actually be President Obama's right to do that and he may well do it if Republicans continue to be as obstructive as they are. The only caveat is with the Senate (small "s") being out less than three days in recess. If that happens then it may be harder for him to prevail.

[Peter1469]

Sure they have, they've already drawn a line in the sand. They are gonna look even stupider than usual if they back up now.

I don't think so. They can always say they never expected the little king to nominate anyone close to acceptable.

[Ransom]

Absolutely not it wouldn't be an impeachable offense, far from it, for your information. It would actually be President Obama's right to do that and he may well do it if Republicans continue to be as obstructive as they are. The only caveat is with the Senate (small "s") being out less than three days in recess. If that happens then it may be harder for him to prevail.


They won't recess completely, they'll leave someone in there in a tent and sleeping bag. This President won't select the next Justice, TB. Book that, Dano.

[TrueBlue]

How many threads need to be created about this same subject? The issue doesn't change because one creates another thread.
If it is somehow that difficult for you to handle you are most welcome to do us all a favor and leave now.

[MisterVeritis]

Absolutely not it wouldn't be an impeachable offense, far from it, for your information. It would actually be President Obama's right to do that and he may well do it if Republicans continue to be as obstructive as they are. The only caveat is with the Senate (small "s") being out less than three days in recess. If that happens then it may be harder for him to prevail.

He should have been impeached the first time he did it.

This time, the articles of impeachment need to be drafted now so they are ready for immediate use. If the son of a bitch tries an illegal recess appointment by claiming the Senate is in recess they need to haul his ass before the House. I really want to see him removed from office.

[TrueBlue]

The republican president will submit a nominee using the exact same criteria in 2017, so just wait and we will vote on that person. It is all good, exactly t he same criteria nothing to worry about.
When you wake up from your dream you will find that we have a Democratic President Clinton seated at the White House for you to have to bargain with.

[TrueBlue]

BTW if it were a Republican president in there right now you wouldn't be so high on voting, can you at least admit that?
I would at least want for them to do an up or down vote on the nominee that I would hope would at least be a moderate. I am not opposed to them doing that you know. After all, that's what the Senate is charged with doing.

[Ransom]

I would at least want for them to do an up or down vote on the nominee that I would hope would at least be a moderate. I am not opposed to them doing that you know. After all, that's what the Senate is charged with doing.


We're not even ging to meet to discuss your choice, it's the replacement for Scalia. Had it been RBG.......maybe...maybe not.

[hanger4]

There will be no recess appointment, the Senate is in session and will stay that way. Pro forma sessions if needed.

[TrueBlue]

What part of the word NO do you not get, Libs?

It isn't going to happen. Whine, cry, kavetch, whimper, toss and turn.......we couldn't care less.

Barack Obama won't be nominating the next Justice. End of story. Was there anything else?
Oh but he WILL, Ranny! Just wait and see. He has already stated that he would and he means it. And when he does, the ball will be in the Senate's court and then the fun begins if they try to block someone who is considered a great candidate. http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/5.gif

[Peter1469]

He should have been impeached the first time he did it.

This time, the articles of impeachment need to be drafted now so they are ready for immediate use. If the son of a bitch tries an illegal recess appointment by claiming the Senate is in recess they need to haul his ass before the House. I really want to see him removed from office.


Notice: Thread banned at the request of the thread owner.

[Tahuyaman]

If it is somehow that difficult for you to handle you are most welcome to do us all a favor and leave now.

Iknow that you live to hear your own views echoed back to you, but.....

[Crepitus]

I don't think so. They can always say they never expected the little king to nominate anyone close to acceptable.

Not so sure that would be as well accepted as you think it will.

[leekohler2]

Not so sure that would be as well accepted as you think it will.

It's not being accepted well at all:


In the high-stakes battle over replacing Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, a majority of Americans (56%) say the Senate should hold hearings and vote on President Obama’s choice to fill the vacancy. About four-in-ten (38%) say the Senate should not hold hearings until the next president selects a court nominee.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/02/22/majority-of-public-wants-senate-to-act-on-obamas-court-nominee/

[Peter1469]

Not so sure that would be as well accepted as you think it will.

I don't think most Americans would think it is a big deal. For the professional nanny types, (a) who cares and (b) they will gross no matter what.

[Ransom]

Oh but he WILL, Ranny! Just wait and see. He has already stated that he would and he means it. And when he does, the ball will be in the Senate's court and then the fun begins if they try to block someone who is considered a great candidate. http://smiley.nowdararpour.ir/ahswen/5.gif


"try" to block someone? Why my dearest TB, we'll not even entertain hearings. Added to the fact that 'considered a great candidate' is subjective, many people for example think mere race, ethnicity, or gender are primary considerations.