Scalia

Anthony Kennedy was appointed by a lame duck Reagan, so I just cannot wait to hear why Obama can't do so as well.
 
Reagan was a lame duck now? Good lord.
 
Carl said:
Right. So what happens next in your opinion? Does the President get his nominee through?
Click to expand...

Hard to say. There will be a major skirmish but the GOP will not lay down for a liberal candidate at that position.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Why not? It's not like the Supreme Court just shuts down in the mean time.
Click to expand...
And what happens in a tie? Doesn't it go to the circuit judges which is heavily democratic? You want to think the GOP will want to risk that for a year?
 
Deuce said:
And what happens in a tie? Doesn't it go to the circuit judges which is heavily democratic? You want to think the GOP will want to risk that for a year?
Click to expand...

What's the difference if Obama gets his liberal Justice? The result would be the same. Better to have a chance a year from now then doom until the next Supreme Court Justice passes away.

So yeah, it's a zero return game for the Republicans unless they hold off for the next President.
 
BipolarFan said:
Anthony Kennedy was appointed by a lame duck Reagan, so I just cannot wait to hear why Obama can't do so as well.
Click to expand...

Because Reagan is a much better leader and President. I'd agree that the new president should name his replacement.
 
Deuce said:
And what happens in a tie? Doesn't it go to the circuit judges which is heavily democratic? You want to think the GOP will want to risk that for a year?
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly the circuit court ruling is upheld and no precedent is set. It's not the end of the world and probably wouldn't even come up that much considering Roberts is a swinger.

I don't think a lot of republicans would have a problem with that considering the alternative.
 
Carp said:
Because Reagan is a much better leader and President. I'd agree that the new president should name his replacement.
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment: essentially waiting for the next president to nominate the new justice would indirectly give the voters a chance to have a say in the appointment.

But, I disagree with that. Voters made that choice already when they elected Obama in 2012. He was given the authority to make these types of decisions for the next 4 years, which includes 2016.

The Senate has the right to disagree with any nominations they don't like, but they shouldn't be holding the whole thing up hoping a republican will be in office a year from now.
 
Genghis Khan said:
I understand the sentiment: essentially waiting for the next president to nominate the new justice would indirectly give the voters a chance to have a say in the appointment.

But, I disagree with that. Voters made that choice already when they elected Obama in 2012. He was given the authority to make these types of decisions for the next 4 years, which includes 2016.

The Senate has the right to disagree with any nominations they don't like, but they shouldn't be holding the whole thing up hoping a republican will be in office a year from now.
Click to expand...

What it comes down to, is whether Obama can come up with a compromise candidate or will he just demand that they accept a radical activist?
 
Iamtdg said:
Reagan was a lame duck now? Good lord.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it was 87 not 88, which makes a difference. Democrats also fought the Bork appointment tooth and nail, and Reagan had to turn to Kennedy (or Roberts, I forget which).
 
Clay_Allison said:
What it comes down to, is whether Obama can come up with a compromise candidate or will he just demand that they accept a radical activist?
Click to expand...


I think that's right. A lot of people seem to be missing that point. The republicans may be posturing to try to get a more moderate appointee. Because worst case scenario is they hold up the nomination, the democrats win a majority in the Senate and the presidency, and the republicans are totally screwed with a very far left justice (especially if Sanders wins). And the next president could easily be appointing another 2 or more.

It makes a lot of sense to just comprise and find a relatively moderate justice and let him through.
 
Genghis Khan said:
I'm pretty sure it was 87 not 88, which makes a difference. Democrats also fought the Bork appointment tooth and nail, and Reagan had to turn to Kennedy (or Roberts, I forget which).
Click to expand...

I believe Roberts was a candidate of the George W. Bush administration.
 
Genghis Khan said:
I think that's right. A lot of people seem to be missing that point. The republicans may be posturing to try to get a more moderate appointee. Because worst case scenario is they hold up the nomination, the democrats win a majority in the Senate and the presidency, and the republicans are totally screwed with a very far left justice (especially if Sanders wins). And the next president could easily be appointing another 2 or more.

It makes a lot of sense to just comprise and find a relatively moderate justice and let him through.
Click to expand...
that's the best play for the republicans, and the population. There's very little chance for a good justice from either set of candidates. Obama trying to continue his legacy through his lame duck year is going to come up with a better bargain than any recently inaugurated president high on their first 100 days and a perceived mandate.
 
I think the Senate would have a hard time rationalized how they could fail to confirm a guy like Sri Srinivasan: The 48-year-old federal appeals court judge was confirmed unanimously in 2013 for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — a traditional steppingstone to the Supreme Court. He would be the court's first Indian-American justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom