Supreme Court Appointment

Post Reply New Topic

Simple question. I personally did not like Scalia or his decisions. The sitting president normally nominates a new SC justice and has the senate confirm or deny the decision within a few months. In the handful of cases that the senate denies the president's pick, the president simply nominates a different justice and tries again.

The senate has never blocked or stalled a nomination with the intent of waiting for a new president to take office. And the notion that waiting for a new POTUS election is more democratic than allowing our currently serving POTUS to make the nomination doesn't is just a lie. The only thing such a measure would do is create a possibility that a republican POTUS will make the nomination, this is a power play, nothing more.

According to Article II, section I, of the United States Constitution, the President is elected for four years.

Thus, shalt thou count to four. No more. No less. Four shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be Four. Five shalt thou not count, nor either count thou three, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Six is right out.

According to Article II, section II, the President - by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate - shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, 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.

As such, the President is obligated by the Constitution to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice to fill the vacancy after Antonin Scalia. There is no provision in the US constitution - none whatsoever - which absolves the President of this obligation simply because it is his last year in office.

So Obama will nominate a successor to Scalia (probably shortly after February 22, when the Senate is back from recess), and then it's up to McConnell to justify blocking a nominee and undermining the constitutional duty of the President for more than 300 days... thus more than doubling the previous record of 125 days between nomination and confirmation.

Donald Trump should do it and replace everyone but Clarence Thomas and Alito!! ! Electing the most since Roosevelt!! !

The only reason for the GOP not to block anyone Obama nominates is appearances, and they haven't seemed particularly concerned with those recently.

The GOP is wrong when they say that Obama might as well not nominate anyone, but this seems symptomatic of the increasing polarization in American politics. In the past, the ideology of Supreme Court justices didn't matter as much when it came to appointment, but instead the competence of the nominee as a jurist. Now they must pass ideological tests. I remember reading a Canadian, of all people, notice this increasing strength of ideology in the U.S. becoming a problem back in 2010:

http://www.jjmccullough.com/index.php/2 ... overnment/

EDIT: Here's a choice quote:

The Atlantic also warns of where these increasingly intense ideological battles may lead us, if the GOP follow through on their threat:

i don't know why this is an issue. he's the president, he elects the next justice.. i just hear a bunch of republicans trying to have their way and control the white house. typical bipartisan nonsense..

The president isn't owed that his nominees get approved to the court, the GOP has the majority in both houses and has a very good chance of taking back the White House so it is totally with in their right to oppose any and all Obama appointments. Checks and balances, our president is not a dictator and there simply is nothing Obama or Democrats can do to convince the GOP the approve his nominees if they oppose them. There are dozens of lower court vacancies right now and other appointments, Obama is a lame duck at this point and there is no long any reason to cooperate with him especially in light of his use of executive orders. The election is in November, the people will vote for how they want the make up of the court and it is as simple as that. If Hillary or Bernie were to win in November then they could start negotiating then during the lame duck session, otherwise the nominee to the court will be a lot different and more in mold of another Alito. Lame ducks don't get to make lifetime appointments right before an election, sorry nothing you can do but cry.

Obama is never going to get 60 votes in the senate in an election year, sorry it's not Christmas for all the gun grabbers and abortion enthusiasts. The only reason Obama didn't get more opposition on his SCOTUS appointments is because he was replacing liberal justices with a Democratic majority in the Senate. I saw the Sotomayor vote in person, Obama had a supermajority in both Houses at the time.

Nowhere in the constitution does it even mention lame ducks, once again, this is your subjective opinion. The senate has to provide a reason for denying a nomination, not liking Obama isn't a valid reason. My guess is that he will nominate someone moderate and qualified, not another extremist like Scalia.

Voters are part of those checks and balances, this is election year for the senate too.

Until then, Obama will nominate a reasonable replacement, and the Senate will have to provide reasons for denying those appointments. If their plan works and they can block everything for 11 months, this will be a brand new precedent. History would show that out of all of the previous presidents, Obama was the only one who couldn't select a new SC justice because the Senate didn't like him.