I want to see among the hub pages community who clearly falls on one side or the other
sort by best latest
Amen! But we must also consider how Democrats have done the same as Mitch is doing in the past! It seems "ALL" sees "politics first and humanity (or what is right) second!" Politics? Dirty world!
You make a valid point. I guess that is one of the reasons why I never went into politics.
THANK GOD HE HAS CHOSEN ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL WHICH IS TOTALLY OPPOSITE! BUT I FIND IT AMUSING HOW "SMALL MINDED" & EVIL THE WORLD IS FOR "SELF GRATIFICATION!"
"INDISPUTABLY QUALIFIED?" WHAT R THEY GOING TO DO NOW? MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK WORST PREVENTING NOMINEE?
THEY'D BETTER BE CAREFUL! IF THEY KICK THE CAN, HILLARY WILL APPOINT AN EVEN MORE LIBERAL JUSTICE!
Thats the rub, the GOP takes the chance of taking the cash now or finding out what is behind curtain no. 2
GOD IS BEHIND THIS & THEY CAN'T WIN, EITHER WAY!
PAYBACK FOR TRYING TO BLOCK EVERYTHING OBAMA TRIED TO IMPLEMENT & HAVING TO "GO ALONG TO GET ALONG!"
"YOU REAP WHAT U SOW" (GAL 6:7)!
Does "the lower court's ruling stand" or will that court's decision only be a temporary and not a permanent ruling?
In the event of a tie the ruling of the state court is upheld. There is some fancy term for it but the states ruling would be held until retrialed or the laws change.
"UNTIL RETRIALED" BY SCOTUS RIGHT? SO TEMPORARY WHICH MAKES FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ONCE NEW JUSTICE APPOINTED & ALREADY BACKLOGGED!
SENSELESS CREATING ADD'L WORKLOAD ON SCOTUS!
CONT OBSTRUCTION,HILLARY WINS,"MORE LIBERAL" JUSTICE WILL BE APPOINTE
Not really. For example if Texas courts ruled that abortions were illegal & it went to the SCOTUS & there was a tie. The ruling by TX that it's illegal would stand. There is no retrial when there are 9 members. A diff. case would have to over
According to "The Blaze.com" "when there is a 4-4 split, the lower court's decision is withheld, but there is no precedent set. But there's an important caveat to the latter point: that decision ISN"T automatically considered "legal precedent."
"But putting in a politically biased person as that lifetime Jurist makes it politically tainted, and a impediment to the SC making decisions on solving the problem before the court."
Why "tainted" now? Did it "make sense" when leaning in opp dir?
Every president who has had the opportunity plays to their political base. After all, it was Ronnie Reagan who appointed Scalia.
As for the quality of Supreme Court decisions that is a matter of opinion. The Constitution of the United States gives the sitting President the perogative to fill the vacancy. That must not be superceded by partisan politics from either side.
CRED: Yes, "Matter of opinion!" But always "superseded by partisan politics from either side~!"
This is a unique time because the SC has made some political decisions during Obama, and the Congress hasn't been this gridlocked when other pres submitted SC jurists. Also, they didn't legislate via EO as much as Obama.
GOOGLE www.pleasecutthecrap.com TO SEE THE WORKS OF OBAMA! BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY?
To Bradmaster, I don't see any unique circumstances that would justify the GOP to offer obstruction to the President in Constitutional duty to appoint court justices. About EOs, incorrect. Obama has not used them any more frequently than other Prez
Sharp it's he? Nominating "Liberal Republican?"
If they oppose they will continue to make themselves look like fools!
Obama's Right! No red or blues, but justice!