Is it fair for Sen. McConnell to say that Obama should not be allowed to name a

1. 78

   Credence2posted 7 years ago

   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

   replyreport
2. 78

   emgeposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I disagree, all Presidents have considered ideological and political interests in their selection, what sets Obama apart?
      Thanks for your reply.....

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Daniel Gottlobposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What is natural justice?

      replyreport
3. 85

   M. T. Dremerposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "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!

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thats the rub, the GOP takes the chance of taking the cash now or finding out what is behind curtain no. 2

      replyreport
   3. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      KEEP PLAYING!
      
      "ZONK!"
      
      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)!

      replyreport
4. 0

   Daniel Gottlobposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Does "the lower court's ruling stand" or will that court's decision only be a temporary and not a permanent ruling?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Daniel Gottlobposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "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

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Daniel Gottlobposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   5. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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."

      replyreport
5. 52

   Norine Williamsposted 7 years ago

   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!

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Sam Montanaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      AMEN!  ALL ABOUT "WINNING" NEVER HUMANITY!

      replyreport
6. 75

   pagesvoiceposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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!

      replyreport
   2. 75

      pagesvoiceposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You make a valid point. I guess that is one of the reasons why I never went into politics.

      replyreport
   3. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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!"

      replyreport
7. 48

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "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?

      replyreport
   2. 75

      pagesvoiceposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Every president who has had the opportunity plays to their political base. After all, it was Ronnie Reagan who appointed Scalia.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   4. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      DL: TRUE! 
      CRED: Yes, "Matter of opinion!" But always "superseded by partisan politics from either side~!"

      replyreport
   5. 48

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      GOOGLE www.pleasecutthecrap.com TO SEE THE WORKS OF OBAMA! BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY?

      replyreport
   7. 78

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   8. 52

      Norine Williamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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!

      replyreport