SCOTUS justice Scalia dead.

[kidrock]

no we are upset wth Obama period , he need to be impeached and thrown in jail

Lite-inn, you guys always bring up impeachment but, the reality is you don't have nothing to impeach him on they would have already done so.

[ss12]

no we are upset wth Obama period , he need to be impeached and thrown in jail

Your "we" is a very small group and is getting smaller every year.

[old fan]

no we are upset wth Obama period , he need to be impeached and thrown in jail

[ss12]

Obama should be able to nominate a supreme court justice. I think the Senate and house will approve and if they don't it will hurt just them in November. The majority of citizens are upset with the republican party always going against Obama and their with their shut down the government tactics. The republicans have been loosing voters because of this. So go ahead and try to block it. Make Hillary's job of getting elected easier.

[kidrock]

This country does not need another liberal crap judge. Dems in Washington are liars, two faced and hypocrites. Pure and simple. Reps are not great, but far better than these lefties. Schumer's stance in 2007 is the same one being adopted now. As for going back to Regan, he nominated a "moderate" Judge who the Dem lead Congress Approved. "Approved" being the key word. Obama will push another one of his lefties who will act moderate, but will be lying as usual, and once they get the nomination will help take down what is left of the bill of rights, constitution.

Bs the repubs are no better just a bunch of hypocrites pure and simple. They prove it over and over again. Cruz was born in another country but yet he's legal to run forpresident. Then you guys say Obama was born in Kenya yet he is not legal hypocrites
It doesn't matter who the President nominates it's his right you know his constitutional right.
So what your saying is the Dems did the right thing when they confirmed Reagans nominee but, yet the repubs are saying they won't confirm Obamas so, really the Dems are worse then the repubs.

[TS FAN]

This country does not need another liberal crap judge. Dems in Washington are liars, two faced and hypocrites. Pure and simple. Reps are not great, but far better than these lefties. Schumer's stance in 2007 is the same one being adopted now. As for going back to Regan, he nominated a "moderate" Judge who the Dem lead Congress Approved. "Approved" being the key word. Obama will push another one of his lefties who will act moderate, but will be lying as usual, and once they get the nomination will help take down what is left of the bill of rights, constitution.

[kidrock]

The key word is NOMINATE. I am fine with him nominating one. Constitutionally it is the Senate's job to confirm his nomination. Sorry, there is nothing unconstitutional about the Senate waiting it out.



Article Two of the United States Constitution places the power of appointing Justices with the President of the United States, stating:

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..."

Yep your right no where does it say they can't wait and no where does it says they can.

[kidrock]

So I take it that to the conservatives the Constitution where it says The President "SHALL" nominate judges no longer matters when it is ignored to benefit the GOP and conservatives. Seems that you hold it in high standards when you can claim a Democrat is not going by the letter of the Constitution yet oh so willing to use it to wipe your collective backsides when it gets in the way of what you believe. ........... And you claim the Democrats are Hypocrites ? Hypocrite: someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere

Yeah what he said. Good post headhunter.

[kidrock]

The key word is NOMINATE. I am fine with him nominating one. Constitutionally it is the Senate's job to confirm his nomination. Sorry, there is nothing unconstitutional about the Senate waiting it out. It's been done before, hence, the precedent.

Precedent also been set when they confirmed President Reagan nominee during his last year but, that was different insert eye roll.

[skids]

So I take it that to the conservatives the Constitution where it says The President "SHALL" nominate judges no longer matters when it is ignored to benefit the GOP and conservatives. Seems that you hold it in high standards when you can claim a Democrat is not going by the letter of the Constitution yet oh so willing to use it to wipe your collective backsides when it gets in the way of what you believe. ........... And you claim the Democrats are Hypocrites ? Hypocrite: someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere

The key word is NOMINATE. I am fine with him nominating one. Constitutionally it is the Senate's job to confirm his nomination. Sorry, there is nothing unconstitutional about the Senate waiting it out.



Article Two of the United States Constitution places the power of appointing Justices with the President of the United States, stating:

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..."

[skids]

So I take it that to the conservatives the Constitution where it says The President "SHALL" nominate judges no longer matters when it is ignored to benefit the GOP and conservatives. Seems that you hold it in high standards when you can claim a Democrat is not going by the letter of the Constitution yet oh so willing to use it to wipe your collective backsides when it gets in the way of what you believe. ........... And you claim the Democrats are Hypocrites ? Hypocrite: someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere

The key word is NOMINATE. I am fine with him nominating one. Constitutionally it is the Senate's job to confirm his nomination. Sorry, there is nothing unconstitutional about the Senate waiting it out. It's been done before, hence, the precedent.

[Headhunter]

So I take it that to the conservatives the Constitution where it says The President "SHALL" nominate judges no longer matters when it is ignored to benefit the GOP and conservatives. Seems that you hold it in high standards when you can claim a Democrat is not going by the letter of the Constitution yet oh so willing to use it to wipe your collective backsides when it gets in the way of what you believe. ........... And you claim the Democrats are Hypocrites ? Hypocrite: someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere

[TS FAN]

Yes the Dems are a bunch of hypocrapies, and they are as we all know. LIARS
YouTube of Chuck Shummieee saying in 2007 which was GW third year on second term.
"He should not be naming any judges to the Supreme Court. He should wait until the next election.
On YOUTUBE. OBAMA needs to be SHUT DOWN!!!! I am tired of these lies by liberals. Two faced.

[kidrock]

Funny how Mitch said he's not going to be voting in a new judge in Obamas last year in office but,had no problem voting for judge Kennedy in Reagans last year in office. Again nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

[skids]

First of all...RIP Antonio Scalia.

This will get nasty, and could have election consequences. There is precedent for not confirming a new nominee when the President puts someone up, which he surely will. If the Senate blocks his nominee, 4-4 decisions will happen. I'm not concerned if this happens. It just means a "no decision" either way. Of course obama will make this as politically damaging to Republicans as he can. My hope is that the Senate blocks ANYONE he puts up until after the election.

I believe in a 4 - 4 tie the lower court's decision stands. So, it could be good and it could be bad depending on what the lower court ruled on a particular item.

As you said, there is precedent for not taking action on a "lame duck" President's nominee until the new President has taken office but you can bet the liberals won't be pointing that out.