Obama to proceed with court nominee despite Republican defiance

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...-defiance.html

A day after Senate Republicans ruled out taking action on any Supreme Court nominee he puts forward, President Barack Obama on Wednesday vowed to move ahead with a selection who will possess an "independent mind" and grasp how laws impact people’s lives.

An intense political fight has erupted since the Feb. 13 death of long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, as Republicans maneuver to foil Obama's ability to choose a replacement who could tilt the court to the left for the first time in decades. The Senate must confirm any high court nominee.

"The Cons ution vests in the president the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It's a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead," Obama, sounding undeterred by the Republican-led Senate's opposition, wrote in a blog post on the independent SCOTUSblog.com website.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Tuesday that the Republican-led Senate will not hold hearings or vote on any Supreme Court nominee until after the next president takes office in January.

Obama did not appear deterred in his blog post, writing: "As senators prepare to fulfill their cons utional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they'll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the court can continue to serve the American people at full strength."

Obama, who did not mention potential candidates by name, laid out a list of qualifications he would seek in a nominee who he promised would be "eminently qualified."

[RandomGuy]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politi...court-nominee/

Suggestions include a moderate Republican.

Man, wouldn't that be awkward? Republicans bashing one of their own in an election year, just because he was nominated by a Democrat.

If one wanted to paint the GOP as a bunch of raving loons, that would be a good way to do it.

[DarrinS]

[ElNono]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politi...court-nominee/

Suggestions include a moderate Republican.

Man, wouldn't that be awkward? Republicans bashing one of their own in an election year, just because he was nominated by a Democrat.

If one wanted to paint the GOP as a bunch of raving loons, that would be a good way to do it.

There won't be any bashing if the nomination doesn't get past the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is exactly what's going to happen.

[Wild Cobra]

I hate to say it, but Obama has every right to nominate someone. With almost a year before he is out, it is almost imperative that he select someone, and the senate approves someone.

[boutons_deux]

scorched-earth, smash-mouth, hate-govt Repugs worry about looking "awkward"?

[ChumpDumper]

So are you obstructionist in this case, Darrin?

Or are you again too afraid to state an actual thought of your own?

[ChumpDumper]

And spooky music aside, what does "voted to filibuster" and "tried to block" even mean, Darrin?

Explain the video you chose to post.

[spurraider21]

And spooky music aside, what does "voted to filibuster" and "tried to block" even mean, Darrin?

Explain the video you chose to post.

well, filibusters can be brought to an end with votes. so i would just assume "voted to filibuster" means he voted against cloture. i have no clue if the assertion is factually correct, though

[Chinook]

well, filibusters can be brought to an end with votes. so i would just assume "voted to filibuster" means he voted against cloture. i have no clue if the assertion is factually correct, though

I just wish they nuked that. Have filibusters ever been used for good things?

[spurraider21]

I just wish they nuked that. Have filibusters ever been used for good things?

only when democrats do it

-boutons

[Chinook]

only when democrats do it

-boutons

Indeed. But I mean, why should a minority get to hold up legislation? The whole point of electing a congress is so the will of the people yadda yadda. They have the courts to protect rights and vetos and all that stuff.

[spurraider21]

Indeed. But I mean, why should a minority get to hold up legislation? The whole point of electing a congress is so the will of the people yadda yadda. They have the courts to protect rights and vetos and all that stuff.

because its a useful means for the democrats to stop the repugs

-boutons

[DarrinS]

det unprecedented obstruction tho

[ChumpDumper]

det unprecedented obstruction tho

Darrin, when else has an entire party declared it will not consider, not even hold one hearing on any nominees for the Supreme Court with just shy of a full year left on the sitting President's term?

What is your precedent, Darrin?

[vy65]

Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan's and Bush's last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these cir stances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of cons utional philosophy, all it will get in such cir stances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest, Presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an ins ution.

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation wouldhave to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.
In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.

Similarly, if Governor Clinton should win this fall, then my views on the need for philosophic compromise between the branches would not be softened, but rather the prospects for such compromise would be naturally enhanced. With this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.

It seems clear to me that within the Bush administration, the process of selecting Supreme Court nominees has become dominated by the right intent on using the Court to implement an ultraconservative social agenda that the Congress and the public have rejected. In this way, all the participants in the process can be clear well in advance of how I intend to approach any future nominations.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If the GOP actually obstructs someone who looks like a reasonable candidate then it is going to become an election issue.

[ChumpDumper]

Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan's and Bush's last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these cir stances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of cons utional philosophy, all it will get in such cir stances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest, Presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an ins ution.

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation wouldhave to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.
In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.

Similarly, if Governor Clinton should win this fall, then my views on the need for philosophic compromise between the branches would not be softened, but rather the prospects for such compromise would be naturally enhanced. With this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.

It seems clear to me that within the Bush administration, the process of selecting Supreme Court nominees has become dominated by the right intent on using the Court to implement an ultraconservative social agenda that the Congress and the public have rejected. In this way, all the participants in the process can be clear well in advance of how I intend to approach any future nominations.

Great, do you agree with Biden or not?

Everybody is eager to post these quotes, but loathe to actually declare themselves in favor of the current obstruction.

Are you in favor of the current obstruction?

[RandomGuy]

There won't be any bashing if the nomination doesn't get past the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is exactly what's going to happen.

It will be bashing even if there is no hearing, since a nominee with no hearing will dominate the the media cycle.

The narrative will be that the GOP in the Senate are failing in their cons utional duty, because that is the truth.

Not something that looks good to the average low-information independent.

[vy65]

Great, do you agree with Biden or not?

Everybody is eager to post these quotes, but loathe to actually declare themselves in favor of the current obstruction.

Are you in favor of the current obstruction?

Not in favor of the current obstruction. My preference would be to have a fully cons uted supreme court, albeit with a conservative justice.

But stones/glass house. Do you think democrats who republican obstructionism have credibility in light of the VP's comments?

[vy65]

Great, do you agree with Biden or not?

Everybody is eager to post these quotes, but loathe to actually declare themselves in favor of the current obstruction.

Are you in favor of the current obstruction?

Do you not think democrats suffer from a credibility problem on this issue? If not, why?

[RandomGuy]

Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan's and Bush's last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these cir stances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of cons utional philosophy, all it will get in such cir stances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest, Presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an ins ution.

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation wouldhave to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.
In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.

Similarly, if Governor Clinton should win this fall, then my views on the need for philosophic compromise between the branches would not be softened, but rather the prospects for such compromise would be naturally enhanced. With this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.

It seems clear to me that within the Bush administration, the process of selecting Supreme Court nominees has become dominated by the right intent on using the Court to implement an ultraconservative social agenda that the Congress and the public have rejected. In this way, all the participants in the process can be clear well in advance of how I intend to approach any future nominations.

You might want to attribute the quote to Biden.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._election.html

... who was wrong then too.

Worth noting that the position was to wait until after the November election. Not "after the next president assumes office".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you not think democrats suffer from a credibility problem on this issue? If not, why?

Amongst the independents that actually matter in an election year?

Our board GOP type doesn't seem to understand the actual political dynamics. Youre going to not find them credible no matter what, crayola, so your assertions are meaningless.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A Pew Research Center survey found 56 percent in favor of holding a hearing, compared to 38 percent who said the nomination should be the responsibility of the next president. And 62 percent of respondents in a Fox News poll said current leaders should “take action to fill the vacancy now,” compared to 34 percent who felt the president “shouldn’t get to nominate someone for a lifetime appointment … this late in his term.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...-court-nominee

[FuzzyLumpkins]

At the same time, however, Democrats need just four seats to take the Senate, and several vulnerable GOP senators up for re-election in battleground states – including Mark Kirk in Illinois, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania – are at risk if the party doesn’t hold serve in November.

same source.