Obama planning to nominate a new Justice to US Supreme Court

[mheslep]

It's well within the constitutional powers of the president to appoint a SCOTUS Justice during their term. The constitution does not prohibit deciding a Justice on election year. This is politically motivated on the Republicans' part.

This is yet another example of how politicians are strict constitutionalists when it's in their favor, but ignore the constitution when it's not in their favor.

See, " with the Advice and Consent of the Senate " in the Constitution, which can take any form the Senate sees fit. In this case, the Senate sees fit not to accept any more nominees from a President, well into the election, who has already placed two justices. Elections have consequences.

Also see the so called Biden Rule, so named after the VP who, when a Senator in a Democratic majority, suggested the same action

 

[Derek Francis]

You do illustrate a major problem in our partisan political system. Obama enjoyed the filibuster in Congress, but didn't enjoy when his legislation was being filibustered. I'm saying, Democrat or Republican, the constitution is the constitution. If Biden said that election-year picks should be delayed, then he was just as wrong as the Republicans' are.

There are things we can debate on the constitutionality of such as health care mandates and such. But there are things that are plainly described in the constitution such as the role of the Supreme Court and how a justice is appointed.

Plain and simple, there are reasons to reject a SCOTUS justice. Inexperience, lack of qualification, corruption and so on. But to reject a SCOTUS Justice because of partisan politics is not what the founders intended.

I do understand the GOP's fears to some extent. They lost a conservative justice and the SCOTUS is groomed to be the most liberal it's been decades. They see the United States moving away from it's original fundamental principles and a liberal SCOTUS would cement it. That, however, does not excuse this level of obstructionism.

I'm a liberal independent, but I'm also able to be objective. When Roberts sided against gay marriage, even though I disagreed with him, I defended his decision in front of my liberal social circle. My overall point was that the SCOTUS is not supposed to be a second Congress or a partisan institution. The fact that we have conservative and liberal Justices demonstrates a key failing in our system.

We should reform the Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment and we should have an in depth discussion on its merits and faults, and how its role today is different than when it was created. However, it shouldn't be done in a partisan way.

 

[jim hardy]

Plain and simple, there are reasons to reject a SCOTUS justice. Inexperience, lack of qualification, corruption and so on. But to reject a SCOTUS Justice because of partisan politics is not what the founders intended.

My thoughts

They're hard nosed horse traders, posturing.

If it looks like Hillary might win
conservatives will hurriedly confirm Garland
on the premise he's at least somewhat centrist , a better offer than they're apt to get later.

 

[Derek Francis]

Yes, the proposition is basically take Obama's 60 year old moderate Justice or take Hillary's 45 year old super-liberal Justice.

 

[mheslep]

... If Biden said that election-year picks should be delayed, then he was just as wrong as the Republicans' are.

Constitutionally, Biden was not wrong. You may not have liked the Biden Rule, and the solution for that is also available: the ballot box.

Biere are things we can debate on the constitutionality of such as health care mandates and such. But there are things that are plainly described in the constitution such as the role of the Supreme Court and how a justice is appointed.

I quoted the relevant clause, which does not say hold committee hearings on TV,

But to reject a SCOTUS Justice because of partisan politics is not what the founders intended.

The power of consent is given to the Senate, a political body, an elected body. The current action is unassailably on constitutional grounds.

For examples of recent unconstitutional actions, see the dozen or so unanimous SCOTUS decisions against the Obama administration. The recess appointment decision comes to mind, where the Obama administration asserted it could determine when the Senate was in recess and not the Senate itself.

 

[Derek Francis]

You may not have liked the Biden Rule, and the solution for that is also available: the ballot box.

Voters already did decide at the ballot box in 2012 to keep Obama for a second term. I've never heard of a case in which a president (and their party) had to win two elections in order to keep all of their presidential powers for one term. One election means one full term.

I think it's always been understood that the right for Senators to deny a SCOTUS pick only in extreme cases, such as them being wholly unqualified. It's generally always been that the SCOTUS pick would be accepted so long as they're actually an experience judge and they haven't molested any children or something like that.

 

[Evo]

Well Mitch McConnell says no Supreme Court Justice can be approved unless the NRA (National Rifle Association) approves them. So the NRA gets to pick our new Supreme Court Justice?

McConnell: No New Supreme Court Justice Until The NRA Approves Of The Nominee

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and appointed with the advice and consent of the National Rifle Association, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The Majority Leader’s statement is significant for several reasons.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2b741dea-644c-34d1-b7e2-e870df0a0b68/ss_mcconnell%3A-no-new-supreme.html?nhp=1

The Senate Defers to the N.R.A.

It turns out that the most important voice in the Supreme Court nomination battle is not the American people’s, as Senate Republicans have insisted from the moment Justice Antonin Scalia died last month. It is not even that of the senators. It’s the National Rifle Association’s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/opinion/the-senate-defers-to-the-nra.html?_r=0

 

[Mark44]

I think it's always been understood that the right for Senators to deny a SCOTUS pick only in extreme cases, such as them being wholly unqualified.

The "right" is as laid out in the Constitution, the "advise and consent" part. The Senate denied the choice of Robert Bork, who was eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

 

[Mark44]

Well Mitch McConnell says no Supreme Court Justice can be approved unless the NRA (National Rifle Association) approves them. So the NRA gets to pick our new Supreme Court Justice?

Sounds good to me (an NRA member, one of 5,000,000)... And to turn the tables, don't you think that Harry Reid would have been beholden to, say, NARAL or any number of other groups for earlier SCOTUS picks?

 

[Evo]

Sounds good to me (an NRA member, one of 5,000,000)...

Well, you are definitely in the minority with 242,470, 820 adults in the USA. Absolutely no way the NRA should be in any position to decide the election of a Supreme Court Judge.

As 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 242,470,820 adults living in the United States. The total population was estimated at 316,128,839 people, with 76.7 percent of those people being over 18.

 

[Mark44]

Well, you are definitely in the minority with 242,470, 820 adults in the USA.

That may be, but there are more than (edited) 5,000,000 in the country who are armed, and the NRA speaks for them as well.

 

[Evo]

That may be, but there are more than 5,000,000,000 in the country who are armed, and the NRA speaks for them as well.

What? Five billion armed Americans? The total population of the US is only 316,128,839.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sounds good to me

On principle why do you think it's a good idea? The NRA is a public office? I don't remember seeing them on a ballot.

 

[Mark44]

What? Five billion armed Americans? The total population of the US is only 316,128,839.

I got overzealous with my zeroes. There are more than 5,000,000 armed Americans...

 

[Evo]

I got overzealous with my zeroes. There are more than 5,000,000 armed Americans...

Also, they can lobby, they pay politicians to sway their votes, that's the way it's done, I'm not naive. But to state that the NRA has the final and only decision is WRONG. McConnell comes across as a nutter, even if what he says is the way it's really going to happen. If the NRA makes these kinds of decisions, if the NRA controls the Senate, it's scary and McConnell has officially let the cat out of the bag. IMO.

 

[Mark44]

On principle why do you think it's a good idea?

The NRA is one of many groups that lobbies for various policies and for or against various political appointments. I, along with virtually every other of my fellow NRA members, wants a nominee to the Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment. The Founders believed that the citizens of this nation would not be able to maintain their freedom if unarmed.

Just in case anyone doesn't know it, the Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are way too many on the Left, from Michael Bloomberg on down, who would gladly infringe upon this amendment, either wholesale, if they could, or little by little, with gun registration, lawsuits against companies manufacturing firearms and ammunition, and lots of other regulations.

The NRA is a public office? I don't remember seeing them on a ballot.

Nor have I seen NARAL or any number of other groups on the ballot, either, but so what?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I, along with virtually every other of my fellow NRA members, wants a nominee to the Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment.

I want my freedom of speech protected too. Should we require the porn industry to approve of a nominee? Seems like a lot of power to give special interest groups.

 

[russ_watters]

It is an unfortunate reality that a lot of politicians on both sides have benchmark issues that are non-negotiable to them. The only thing I see surprising here is that he's so explicit about it.

Note, however, that he's being misquoted/misinterpreted here. What he actually said is this:

"...can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses."

He didn't say they have veto/approval power, only that he couldn't imagine a nominee that both organizations (not one or the other) opposed of. A much weaker statement than their interpretation of it. This is a nothingburger that they are trying to hype beyond what it is. But the source is ThinkProgress, so...

 

[Evo]

Just in case anyone doesn't know it, the Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To me the key here is "militia", we are no longer in need of a local militia, so there is no longer a need for people to keep and bear arms to form a militia. I think the 2nd Amendment became obsolete a long time ago and needs to be removed. We're not going to start another gun thread, I'm not against people owning guns, this is about the insane (IMO) revelation that the NRA is being allowed by our Senate to decide on the next Supreme Court Justice.

Edit: Didn't see Russ's post, but I still feel that the NRA has too much influence. I do feel that if the NRA says no, the nominee has no chance. Russ, what do you think, would the Senate go against the NRA?

 

[Derek Francis]

I'm not trying to vilify responsible gun owners, but I personally don't see the point of collecting scores of guns and needing assault rifles.
Mod note: Deleted trolling comment

 

[Mark44]

To me the key here is "militia", we are no longer in need of a local militia, so there is no longer a need for people to keep and bear arms to form a militia.

The recent rulings of the Supreme Court follow the original intent of the writers of the constitution, that it doesn't refer to an "official militia," but rather to the plain old folks who picked up their rifles and stood against the Redcoats. See the Heller decision.

I think the 2nd Amendment became obsolete a long time ago and needs to be removed.

Your sentifment is exactly why I am a member of the NRA -- there are too many people who believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

 

[Evo]

The recent rulings of the Supreme Court follow the original intent of the writers of the constitution, that it doesn't refer to an "official militia," but rather to the plain old folks who picked up their rifles and stood against the Redcoats. See the Heller decision.

Your sentifment is exactly why I am a member of the NRA -- there are too many people who believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

Many things no longer have any use or meaning. Times have changed drastically over the past 200 years, things that the people that wrote the constitution couldn't ever dream of, if they were here today, I'm sure they would re-write it. We have police, we have sheriffs and state troopers, a National Guard, we have the military, none of these things existed when the constitution was written. It's obvious that parts of the Constitution are grossly obsolete, it's old, things have changed.

 

[Mark44]

I'm not trying to vilify responsible gun owners, but I personally don't see the point of collecting scores of guns and needing assault rifles.

Virtually no one in the US has an "assault rifle," which by definition has a selector switch so that it can be fired in full-auto mode. The guns that an ordinary citizen can purchase are semi-auto only.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This has been interesting, but let's make sure we don't turn this into a gun rights debate

 

[Mark44]

Times have changed drastically over the past 200 years, things that the people that wrote the constitution couldn't ever dream of, if they were here today, I'm sure they would re-write it. It's obvious that parts of the Constitution are grossly obsolete, it's old, things have changed.

Times have changed, yes, but people haven't. What parts are grossly obsolete? Apart from the 3/5 of a person for slaves, I can't think of anything that is "grossly obsolete." The Framers were wise enough to leave room for changes to the Constitution, which they deemed to be too important to be left only to majority rule.

 

[Evo]

Times have changed, yes, but people haven't. What parts are grossly obsolete? Apart from the 3/5 of a person for slaves, I can't think of anything that is "grossly obsolete." The Framers were wise enough to leave room for changes to the Constitution, which they deemed to be too important to be left only to majority rule.

The fact that some people are clinging to the 2nd amendment and skewing it to make it mean what they want it to mean instead of what it says - for the need of a local militia. just becasue special interest groups have fought tooth and nail to keep the 2nd amendment doesn't mean it's right or relevant. It means there is a strong lobby for guns.

But let's return to the NRA's control of the Senate.

 

[Mark44]

I want my freedom of speech protected too. Should we require the porn industry to approve of a nominee? Seems like a lot of power to give special interest groups.

As Russ said, McConnell was misquoted in this thread.

I want my Freedom of Speech protected, as well, and it is under attack in a number of our nation's colleges. Speakers (such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christina Hoff Sommers) who are invited to speak at college commencement exercises, but aren't allowed to, for fear of hurting the feelings of oversensitive college students. There's a sizable fraction of students in colleges who will deny people the right to speak if they don't agree with the speakers' opinions.

 

[Mark44]

The fact that some people are clinging to the 2nd amendment and skewing it to make it mean what they want it to mean instead of what it says - for the need of a local militia.

Like I said, the Supremes have interpreted "militia" as not meaning an official body such as the National Guard. It was very clearly the intent of the Founders that the citizens of this country should be armed, and that arms should not be limited to just official groups. "An armed society is a polite society." If you like, I'm sure I can dig up the reasoning from the Federalist Papers.

To my way of thinking I personally am in the militia, as are most of the people on my street.

 

[Evo]

Like I said, the Supremes have interpreted "militia" as not meaning an official body such as the National Guard. It was very clearly the intent of the Founders that the citizens of this country should be armed, and that arms should not be limited to just official groups. "An armed society is a polite society." If you like, I'm sure I can dig up the reasoning from the Federalist Papers.

To my way of thinking I personally am in the militia, as are most of the people on my street.

And I think that is so wrong in today's world. I think it is scary, IMO. This isn't 200 years ago, we don't have a need to form a militia.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

And I think that is so wrong in today's world. I think it is scary, IMO.

Agree to disagree and let's get back on topic

 

[mheslep]

Voters already did decide at the ballot box in 2012 to keep Obama for a second term. I've never heard of a case in which a president (and their party) had to win two elections in order to keep all of their presidential powers for one term. One election means one full term.

I think it's always been understood that the right for Senators to deny a SCOTUS pick only in extreme cases, such as them being wholly unqualified. It's generally always been that the SCOTUS pick would be accepted so long as they're actually an experience judge and they haven't molested any children or something like that.

Maybe take another look at the US Constitution. The President *has* his power ... to appoint. He can appoint one, two, fifty nominees. Roosevelt in fact threatened to appoint as many judges as necessary (i.e. stack the court) to get legal sanction for his legislative proposals. But the President confirms none. That power belongs to the Senate, which also was fairly elected.

Also, for what's been "generally" been the case, automatic approval of well qualified judges went out the window with the failure to confirm Judge Robert Bork to the SCOTUS in the 1980s if not before.

 

[mheslep]

Well Mitch McConnell says no Supreme Court Justice can be approved unless the NRA (National Rifle Association) approves them. So the NRA gets to pick our new Supreme Court Justice?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/2b741dea-644c-34d1-b7e2-e870df0a0b68/ss_mcconnell%3A-no-new-supreme.html?nhp=1



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/opinion/the-senate-defers-to-the-nra.html?_r=0

That's a misleading take on what McConnell actually said, as are most things coming out the TP

 

[Evo]

That's a misleading take on what McConnell actually said, as are most things coming out the TP

He said he can't imagine the senate approving a nominee that wasn't approved by the NRA. Listen to what he says.

I can't imagine that a republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm in a lame duck session a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association the National Federation of Independent Businesses that represents small businesses that have never taken a position on a supreme court appointment before they're opposed to this guy I can't imagine that a Republican majority senate, even if it were assumed to be a minority would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left, that's not going to happen.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is a conservative lobbying organization with its headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee and offices in Washington, D.C. and in all 50 state capitals. NFIB's lobbying efforts are focused on the impact of current and proposed legislation on businesses (primarily small businesses) and professional practices at all levels of government but primarily at the federal and state levels. Its political action committee is called https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Save_America%27s_Free_Enterprise&action=edit&redlink=1 Trust. The federation claims to be nonpartisan but historically has contributed more to business-friendly Republican candidates for office. NFIB claims a membership base of about 350,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business

 

[jim hardy]

We don't all think that's bad.

 

[Evo]

This is getting way off topic though. Let's get back to the supreme court justice issue.