Dems Demand Immediate Vote To Replace Scalia, Republicans Say Will Not Vote For Repla


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that the Senate should wait until a new president is elected to confirm a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, whose sudden death Saturday shook Washington and threatened to reshape the 2016 presidential race.

Democrats said that with 11 months left in Mr. Obama’s tenure, the Senate has enough time — and indeed an obligation — to confirm a replacement.

Mr. McConnell, though, said voters must be given a say in the matter, and that means picking a president who will nominate the replacement.

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.

Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers

Sure the democrats want another lefty judge in before the election.


Predictable! Obama will do one of two things. Either he’ll try and make a recess appointment of another leftie loon or he’ll do something to insure Hillary gets elected (and the Senate majority changes in November) in exchange for her promise to appoint HIM to the court next year. It’s even remotely possible that Hillary becomes his “recess appointment.” As awful as all that sounds, I wouldn’t put ANYTHING past this criminal.


obama gave up his law license and I do not know what it would take to get it back but knowing how lazy obama is-----he can not vote present or skip doing the job like when a senator


Nothing in the Constitution REQUIRES that a Supreme Court Justice must have a law license–or have the LEAST amount of education in law, for that matter.


If I were a betting man, I’d put some money down on McConnell taking a dive on the issue…


In a lot of these courts all one needs is partisanship.


If he does he will NEVER be elected again, not even to assistant dog-catcher. But maybe the old fart doesn’t care.


Still not clear on the power of incumbency are we?


Still not clear why Trump is WINNING by a LANDSLIDE are we?


A Congressional session runs for one year, January 3rd to sometime in December.

There are two sessions for each “Congress” (odd year to odd year).
Adjournment means that Congress is out of session, it is closed to business.
This is in contrast to a recess, which we might think of as “time off” or “pause.”

After Congress is adjourned, there are formal processes involved in reconvening.

The Constitution forbids either the Senate or the House to adjourn for more than three days without the permission of the other chamber.
A “recess appointment” can not be made during adjournment. There is no provision for appointment during adjournment.

In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Chuck Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush SCOTUS Noms | The Daily Caller

Now Senate Democrats want Barrack Obama to pick a Liberal Justice to remake the USSC with the death of of Justice Scailia.

Yet these hypocrites seem to forget they used the filibuster, and even racism to delay and finally deny George w. Bush’s nominee Miguel Estrada a seat on the federal bench.

Democrats and Leftist Groups labeled Mr. Estrada as “Politically Dangerous,” because if confirmed they felt that he might ascend to the USSC as the first Hispanic on the high court.

For 28 months Democrats and Leftist Groups used every racist tactic in the book to deny and delay an up or down vote.

So ruthless were these tactics that Estrada’s Wife miscarried their child and later killed herself, which promoted Estrada to withdraw his nomination to the federal bench.


What has Trump to do with McConnell and incumbency? I’ll bet if someone broke your head open, all that would come out is little “vote for Trump” posters.


That land hasn’t slid; the year is young…


Of course, we know that Obama and the Democrats - and many Republicans - have no respect for the provisions of the Constitution.


Obama should nominate for consideration an appointee to the SCOTUS. To ask/state that Obama should not nominate someone in the final year of his term is silly. If the shoe were on the other foot we would DEMAND the Republican president nominate someone.

Once receiving the name of the nominee the Senate is obliged to CONSIDER the nominee for appointment to the SCOTUS. The Senate is NOT OBLIGATED to appoint the president’s nominee as being implied by Democrats.

Anyone here remember Reagan’s nominee - Robert Bork? Democrats in the Senate fought against Bork tooth and nail and elected to reject him in a party line vote. Bork’s confirmation process alone took 108 days.

What goes around comes around - I hope.


I think the Republican responses to questions about confirming the nomination need to go a step further. They need to affirm that Obama has the right to put forth a nominee to the Supreme Court. Similarly, they have a right to not vote or vote down that nominee just as has been done in the past with Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada. President Obama can avert this, of course, by nominating an constitutional originalist in the Scalia tradition.


You are correct. All 3 branches of government comes into play here - each with a role. The judicial branch has a vacancy; the administrative has the responsibility to nominate a replacement and the legislative has the responsibility to consider the nominee and provide an up or down vote.

That said, the chances of Obama nominating a judicial/constitutional originalist is non-existent.

My view: Obama would love a bloody fight over his nominee as the backdrop to this election.

How can he maximize the blood? Nominate a woman or minority. I think he will likely do this.


Well how does that really play out? Is the potential greater for a slacker uprising of low information voters because they’re greater in supply?

I might expect that if Obama was to get a liberal appointed to replace Scalia, as the extreme case of potential outcomes, you’d see a Tea Party mobilization in November to make sure we have somebody that’s going to nominate Ginsburg and Kennedy’s replacements. I’d think you’d see that if the seat remains vacant, but along with it you’d see the libs motivated to try to tilt the Supreme Court balance towards their side.

Part of the thing is that I know I’d have a hard time distinguishing between what I hope happens and what is going to happen.

The thing is I’ve read comments from people that are certain that it’s a matter of choosing between whether Obama or Clinton nominates Scalia’s replacement. Or it’s a choice between Obama and Sanders (from a Facebook discussion under a relative’s post… I was tempted to respond with “Senators don’t make nominations for Supreme Court Justices.”)

I’m going to just say I don’t know where this will lead until Obama’s nomination is announced and the Presidential primaries have proceeded further.


Obama knows he can’t get a liberal jurist past this Senate.

What he can do is mobilize the Dem base and perhaps influence a few so-called “Independents” by nominating a minority or a woman. I don’t think there is any doubt this is what he intends to do.

Will it be a successful strategy? I don’t know.

If all else fails I don’t put it past him to make a recess appointment. (However, as I understand it, that appointment would only last through Obama’s term. I think as CJ, Roberts could postpone action on pending cases - even those that have been presented - until the 2017 SCOTUS convenes, thus short-circuiting the reason to make a recess appt - but, what would Roberts do?. Who knows? That would require the cases to be re-presented in their entirety. In the meantime, the lower court ruling being challenged would stand for now. Perhaps we have a legal scholar on board who could fact-check me on this).

Keep in mind - he does not face reelection. His goal is his legacy of turning this nation as far Left as he can. What better and more sure way of doing that than having the SCOTUS turned liberal? If many of the people are pissed, so what?

After the initial pissing contests play out I am pretty certain the next POTUS will be the one to appoint a nominee with a chance to be seated as a Justice.

As to whether or not that is a Dem or Repub remains to be seen.


Let’s see, Kagan was done in 2010 while Obama still had a Democrat majority… Sotomayor in 2009. Yeah, I guess it’s a bit harder when you are trying to nominate against an opposite majority party in theory.

I have forgotten some of my history, looking back I’m reminded in 2013 while Harry Reid still had control of the Senate he used the “nuclear option” and eliminated filibuster of Presidential nominees.


[quote=“Pappadave, post:2, topic:48274”]
Predictable! Obama will do one of two things. Either he’ll try and make a recess appointment of another leftie loon or he’ll do something to insure Hillary gets elected (and the Senate majority changes in November) in exchange for her promise to appoint HIM to the court next year. It’s even remotely possible that Hillary becomes his “recess appointment.” As awful as all that sounds, I wouldn’t put ANYTHING past this criminal.
[/quote]Truly disturbing in how possible this actually is.