SCOTUS... a good idea

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
Why should Obama appoint a conservative? To appease blatant obstructionism?

Incredible. I'm not a huge fan of an ultra-liberal court, but I hope righties really get it handed to them this November. Hillary would stack the court for many years to come.
 
Thing1 said:
Why should Obama appoint a conservative? To appease blatant obstructionism?

Incredible. I'm not a huge fan of an ultra-liberal court, but I hope righties really get it handed to them this November. Hillary would stack the court for many years to come.
Click to expand...

try reading the article
 
Superfreak said:
try reading the article
Click to expand...

And what am I missing? Either way, Obama forfeits appointing the kind of justice that he - AS PRESIDENT - sees fit.

I'm tired of this "we have to maintain the balance" thing. Will a President Cruz say the same thing, if he appoints Scalia's replacement and then finds himself in a position where he has to replace Ginsburg? Will he then choose a liberal justice to "maintain the balance?"

Of course not. It's all completely disingenuous. Obama has almost a full year left in office - he should choose a justice, and the Senate should give that candidate an honest vote. Period.
 
Thing1 said:
And what am I missing? Either way, Obama forfeits appointing the kind of justice that he - AS PRESIDENT - sees fit.

I'm tired of this "we have to maintain the balance" thing. Will a President Cruz say the same thing, if he appoints Scalia's replacement and then finds himself in a position where he has to replace Ginsburg? Will he then choose a liberal justice to "maintain the balance?"

Of course not. It's all completely disingenuous. Obama has almost a full year left in office - he should choose a justice, and the Senate should give that candidate an honest vote. Period.
Click to expand...

Try reading the article.

It states quite clearly that it would be done to try and ease the tensions and polarization. It also states clearly that he doesn't expect Obama to do it or that any Rep or Dem in his position to do so. He simply stated it would be a good idea. I agreed.

The choice of a conservative via recess appointment would mean the court keeps functioning rather than having this take center stage during an election year. It is not the same as replacing Scalia with a lifelong appointment.
 
Superfreak said:
Try reading the article.

It states quite clearly that it would be done to try and ease the tensions and polarization. It also states clearly that he doesn't expect Obama to do it or that any Rep or Dem in his position to do so. He simply stated it would be a good idea. I agreed.

The choice of a conservative via recess appointment would mean the court keeps functioning rather than having this take center stage during an election year. It is not the same as replacing Scalia with a lifelong appointment.
Click to expand...

I read it. It's a bad idea, whether he thinks Obama will do it or not.

It's not Obama's responsibility to appease obstructionist and politically craven conservatives.
 
Thing1 said:
And what am I missing? Either way, Obama forfeits appointing the kind of justice that he - AS PRESIDENT - sees fit.

I'm tired of this "we have to maintain the balance" thing. Will a President Cruz say the same thing, if he appoints Scalia's replacement and then finds himself in a position where he has to replace Ginsburg? Will he then choose a liberal justice to "maintain the balance?"

Of course not. It's all completely disingenuous. Obama has almost a full year left in office - he should choose a justice, and the Senate should give that candidate an honest vote. Period.
Click to expand...

Cool your jets. A new episode of Republican Failure Theatre is in the making. McCuntell and his feckless RINOs will cave under the pressure. But, if it makes you feel good to feign indignation, knock yourself out
 
The Dude said:
I hope h goes as far left as ever
Click to expand...
As Skidmark pointed out even appointing a moderate would make a big shift on the court.

Sure, losing an arch conservative on SCOTUS hurts the conservative movement. However, not many Presidents have the legacy of three Supreme Court justices. This is the time for a moderate appointment. If Obama nominates someone with the qualifications of Sri Srinivasan it would be difficult for the Senate to prevent a vote.

Now that would be catastrophic to the conservative movement as the balance of power on SCOTUS has been theirs. If Obama appoints a highly qualified moderate like Sri or Jane Kelly. I'm leaning he'll pick Kelly. She's qualified, highly regarded, earned a unanimous confirmation to the Federal appellate court and, of course, a moderate. That would give Obama three female appointees. I think, knowing Barry's ego, that's probably who he will submit. Sri was also earned a unanimous confirmation.

It would be difficult for the Senate to not give persons of their caliber a confirmation hearing.

Also, the shift in power, though significant, wouldn't be radical. The court would be composed of four liberals, two moderates and three conservatives.

I can live with that.
 
Frankly, I would prefer an appointment of someone who would follow the tenets of the Constitution and rule objectively, regardless of political affiliation, cultural ideology or religious belief.

You know... act with the impartiality they're supposed to.
 
Thing1 said:
LOL

I'm an "apologist" because I think a Democrat President who has almost a full year left in office shouldn't appoint a conservative to the court.

You're a complete hack. It's hilarious.
Click to expand...

No, you are an apologist because you are ignoring the merit of what he was saying and instead stomping your feet shouting 'Obama won'

We fucking know he is the President. We know he has the right to choose whomever he wants. But you have your head so buried in his ass that you can't see the benefit the author's idea has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top