Justice Scalia found dead.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Riverman..from a fellow sailor, thank you for your service. We will have to agree to disagree. With that said, I would be proud to have a libation with you.
 
FWIW

Ginsburg is 82 and she's had pancreatic cancer and heart surgery. If a republican is elected and she has to retire during his term, democrats may lose a seat. The seat that passed ObamaCare, for example.

If she retired today, Obama could nominate a conservative (let the republicans give him a name) and an uber liberal and they'd both pass.
 
Denny Crane said:
Your defense (argument) of Hillary is "someone else did it too."

It doesn't make her crime less of one.

The rules did change since Powell was Secy of State.
Click to expand...
Don't put ridiculous words into my views...I never said Colin Powell did anything wrong...I'm saying he had her job and in his view, she's done nothing wrong..but if you've had a top secret job description...which I have had..you know that the job entails covert activities and black ops all the time...has for centuries. Difference is...we now have emails. If Hilary did something wrong..it should be addressed...if it's a tactic to discredit her, it shouldn't. Fact is Denny, neither you nor I know....but Republican war hero Colin Powell probably does.
 
from my previous link:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/senateconfirm.html

The Senate rejected 27 (20%) of the 149 nominees to the Supreme Court made between the nation's founding and 2005.

...

In the modern era, the Senate rejection of a Supreme Court nominee that is most clearly based on concerns with the nominee's politics or judicial philosophy was the 1987 defeat of Ronald Reagan nominee Robert Bork.
 
riverman said:
Don't put ridiculous words into my views...I never said Colin Powell did anything wrong...I'm saying he had her job and in his view, she's done nothing wrong..but if you've had a top secret job description...which I have had..you know that the job entails covert activities and black ops all the time...has for centuries. Difference is...we now have emails. If Hilary did something wrong..it should be addressed...if it's a tactic to discredit her, it shouldn't. Fact is Denny, neither you nor I know....but Republican war hero Colin Powell probably does.
Click to expand...

The FBI knows.

If there were nothing to it, they'd say so.
 
riverman said:
Don't put ridiculous words into my views...I never said Colin Powell did anything wrong...I'm saying he had her job and in his view, she's done nothing wrong..but if you've had a top secret job description...which I have had..you know that the job entails covert activities and black ops all the time...has for centuries. Difference is...we now have emails. If Hilary did something wrong..it should be addressed...if it's a tactic to discredit her, it shouldn't. Fact is Denny, neither you nor I know....but Republican war hero Colin Powell probably does.
Click to expand...

total agreement here. The lack of consideration for the welfare of so many people will never be know. She did in fact compromise the lives of many people.
 
I gave Obama credit when he publicly identified a serious problem concerning an environmental issue.

Obama also identified the cause of the problem. He said there are too many government agencies managing various aspects of the problems. The overlapping management makes it impossible to correct the problems.

I agree with Obama on his identifying both the problem and the cause.

The simple answer is to combine the responsibilities of the federal agencies involved into the fewest possible number, one would be my goal. Only then can proper management begin to improve the environmental problems.

The person responsible for restructuring the agencies is…….Obama.

What has Obama done to correct a problem that he knows about and has the power to fix? NOTHING!
 
Last edited:
Denny Crane said:
The FBI knows.

If there were nothing to it, they'd say so.
Click to expand...
and guess what....they haven't said anything..they haven't proven anything...you're a victim of wishful thinking here Denny..but it seems to give you joy so have at it
 
Sedatedfork said:
Yeah, but, very rarely have appointees not been confirmed. Blocking an appointee for practically a whole year would cause a constitutional crisis. I don't even think Scalia would be in favor of that.
Click to expand...
20% of the time they're not confirmed.
 
riverman said:
and guess what....they haven't said anything..they haven't proven anything...you're a victim of wishful thinking here Denny..but it seems to give you joy so have at it
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/252863-colin-powell-i-used-two-computers-at-state

Powell wouldn’t say whether it was inappropriate for Clinton to be sending work emails -- some of which were later determined to contain classified information -- from a private account. He noted that the State inspector general and FBI are looking into the matter, and that Clinton and her top aides are testifying before Congress.

“It’s best for me to talk about what I know and not what occurred under Secretary Clinton’s jurisdiction,” Powell said.

Hmmmmm....
 
Sedatedfork said:
For a whole year?
Click to expand...

347 days, I read earlier.

20% not confirmed, period.

He can put people up for vote and the republicans will vote them down.

They may not even get out of the judicial committee.

It is quite constitutional.
 
Denny Crane said:
347 days, I read earlier.

20% not confirmed, period.

He can put people up for vote and the republicans will vote them down.

They may not even get out of the judicial committee.

It is quite constitutional.
Click to expand...
OK, great legal scholar
 
Why not just block all the appointees, the justices will die out and we will get rid of the Supreme Court! Let's not appoint anymore judges to any federal courts. Denny says it is quite constitutional to just get rid of the courts.
 
Sedatedfork said:
Why not just block all the appointees, the justices will die out and we will get rid of the Supreme Court! Let's not appoint anymore judges to any federal courts. Denny says it is quite constitutional to just get rid of the courts.
Click to expand...

Political pressures probably won't allow that scenario. It hasn't happened, tho FDR tried to add additional justices to pack the court to rule in his favor.
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...t_pick_compromise_candidate_than_to_pass.html

Legal eagle Alan Dershowitz weighs in on the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the process to replace the vacant position. Dershowitz praised Scalia as the "most innovative and transformative justice in modern history" and talked about how he admired his intellect.

"I disagreed with many of his opinions but I admired his intellect and the consistency of his views. He is probably the most influential conservative ever to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. And history will remember him very fondly," Dershowitz said of the Supreme Court Justice.

Dershowitz said it is "unlikely" President Obama will be able to get a nominee passed. However, Dershowitz said Obama may pick a compromise candidate rather than let the opportunity slip from him and let it go to the next president.

"President Obama now has the incredibly difficult task of trying to fill this with somebody who could be confirmed by the existing Senate. It's unlikely he'll be able to do it, but he might prefer to pick somebody who would be acceptable to the Senate than to pass completely and let it go to the next president. So that's being discussed in the White House right now, I assure you," Dershowitz said on MSNBC.
 
Denny Crane said:
Your list is 29.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only 12 of the 29 were actually rejected. Just telling you where I got my info. It is probably semantics. Still, it would seem very unprecedented for there to a practical year long vacancy because one party doesn't want the sitting president to appoint the justice. Or do you think that is just business as usual?
 
Sedatedfork said:
Yes, but only 12 of the 29 were actually rejected. Just telling you where I got my info. It is probably semantics. Still, it would seem very unprecedented for there to a practical year long vacancy because one party doesn't want the sitting president to appoint the justice. Or do you think that is just business as usual?
Click to expand...

I think it's business as usual.

It's rare that the judicial approval process (advice and consent) goes without a lot of controversy.

I actually like all the justices and the makeup of the court, and generally think Obama should get his justices and judges appointed. Elections have consequences. (I supported all of Obama's nominees to date).

On the other hand, anyone who's not as "right" as Scalia moves the court to the left. I'm not sure that's fine with republicans. They're in the majority. Elections have consequences.

The republican's argument for delay is that the voters get to choose who gets to nominate the replacement. Some merit to that.

I suspect Obama nominates and the senate rejects and it becomes a campaign issue. It remains to be seen which side is more fired up over it.
 
"Historically, most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees.

President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!"

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top