|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Is it fair for Sen. McConnell to say that Obama should not be allowed to name a Scalia successor?
I want to see among the hub pages community who clearly falls on one side or the other
I think this is a very fair demand. Lets not forget that Obama at a number of times has shown that he is dictated by partisan interests, to show the world god knows what. I think in the best interest of the USA the appointment should be left to the new president who ever he shall be. It will be following the principle of natural justice so important in American jurisprudence.
McConnell is only stalling in the hopes that a conservative president will win the election and choose a conservative successor. Obama still has most of 2016 left as the president. There is no reason why he shouldn't select a successor. Presidents have done it for ages.
"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)!
Both sides of the aisle could have at least waited until Scalia was buried to start politicizing who will take his place.
The longest vacancy until now has been 363 days. If they were to wait for a new President to be sworn in that is 341 days plus the time it takes for a review. I think fair is hard to judge, a Senate sitting on a nomination is however not new but this duration could potentially be the longest depending on who is elected president.
I don't think it was a wise move by McConnell to state that out front. I think waiting to hear who the appointment was going to be would have been much more tactful.
That being said it is a big year in general for the Supreme Court with cases on Abortion, Unions, Affordable Care Act and etc. Plus as there are only 8 justices, that means that if there is a tie, the lower court's ruling stands.
Plus this makes this a huge issue for the next President as both Scalia and likely Ginsburg's seat will be filled next administration.
Obama should be able to make a nomination, but the Senate does not have to approve it. I think the big issue for me is the un-eloquent timing and the immediate stance taken.
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."
If it were the Democrats, they'd do the same things (as they have in the past)! It's called "Politics!"
It's sad! Especially since it reflects so poorly on the SOCTUS! Doesn't show that it has very much power only that "the majority" rules be "it" right or wrong!
I see the SOCTUS as "Justice" for ALL, but what happened? What happened to the scale that depicts "balance" (Justice)? It seems Justice is now "Just US" which is "the majority!"
It should NEVER be about "falling on one side or the other," rather standing for what is RIGHT according to the WORD of GOD!
America is in trouble in that it continues to appease "what man wants" rather than considering what GOD has said! But it's OK! GOD will ALWAYS "work it out!"
Whether the US knows it or not, SATAN has ALREADY been defeated whether it appears so or not!
The new appointee (if Democrat) will certainly bring about changes this SCOTUS has NEVER known!
The Supreme Court has become as partisan as the congress, amazing anything gets done in this country with the extreme partisanship and not one bit of compromise.
AMEN! ALL ABOUT "WINNING" NEVER HUMANITY!
Let's not forget, this is the same Mitch McConnell who was holding meetings behind closed doors in November, prior to Obama's first inauguration, attempting to make him a one-term president. Well, that strategy didn't work and President Obama was elected a second time. Consequently, it comes as no big surprise that Mitch is up to his usual tricks. McConnell was already rallying his troops to block Obama's nomination before Scalia's body was even cold. I guess in Mitch's world it is politics first and humanity second.
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!"
This comes at a very delicate time for the US. The final throws of the presidential campaign have already been wrapped around the emotional and political busy box. The presidential campaign unfortunately is following its traditional Red Herring distraction to avoid real issues, and fixed political positions of its candidates.
With less than nine months left in this race, there has been little forward movement for the voters to make intelligent points. Too date most of the time has been spent on name calling and conjecture. So there are no real data points to make anything other than a loyal party decision on the candidates.
Add to this political seesaw, the distraction caused by a president who has already disenfranchised the legislative branch of the US government, who now can do the same for the Judiciary Branch because of his political leanings.
The SC was meant to be outside of the political pressure, and that is why the appointment to the SC is for a lifetime. 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.
This is especially difficult for the court to do because of the simple majority of the court to make its decision. Does it really make sense for one voice to dictate the decision for the entire country?
Remember, these dynamics last for several decades. We have had some many bad decisions from the SC, that we can't afford to have several decades more of them because a president wants to play politics with our governmental checks and balances.
"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!
by My Esoteric14 months ago
My thought is No, they should go ahead and filibuster Judge Gorsuch now and not wait. The fear of filibustering now is that the Rs might use the "Nuclear Option" - using a simple majority to change...
by Ralph Schwartz3 weeks ago
Rumor has it that the AZ governor will appoint Cindy McCain to succeed John “songbird McCain to the US Senate - haven’t we had enough of dynastic politics in America? Thoughts?
by Glenn S.8 years ago
What in the world is Roberts getting involve in polical grand standing. Arn't Justices suppose to be impartial. Another Bush appointee shows his true colors. -In a controversy stretching back to January’s State of the...
by Dr Billy Kidd6 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on...
by girly_girl098 years ago
Back in the 60's:"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -President John F. KennedyToday:"What is the President trying to tell...
by Emer Kelly5 years ago
Do you think people should have to display an understanding of politics before being allowed to voteI don't mean an in-depth understanding, just a basic one of how government works and what each party/candidate stands...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.