Under the constitution the POTUS has the right and the duty to appoint justices to the SCOTUS. Nowhere in the constitution it says that this right ceases to exist in the last year of the presidency or when potential future candidates have started their race to become candidates in the next election. And it's not last week of December, Obama's term goes for almost another year, that's 25% of the term he has been elected for. Does it say in the constitution that certain rights or duties go only for 75% of the term? Do we want Obama to pull a Hendricks? Should Senators whose seat will be up for grabs come November not vote on Obama's nominee then?
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.” “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2007/...ew-bush-high-court-picks-005146#ixzz40L4nLkZx the op is wrong, the president nominates, the senate confirms
As an independent who tries to be reasonable, I'll say that both the GOP and the DNC are cafeteria-style Constitutionalists.
Where does it say his political opponents must approve his nomination no matter how long he has left in his term? You know the same thing the democrats said they would do to Bush. I would say much depends on who he nominates and the statement he tries to make.
Republicans hate everything except the second amendment. And they especially hate Obama. For reasons.
Politically, how is this any different than the Democrats who want to do away with the electoral college?
Well the electoral college allows for the candidate with less popular votes to win, which is contrary to democracy. The Senate is the place where the status of the states is protected.
It doesn't, but the notion that they will simply refuse to appoint anyone is clearly a problem if you believe in the checks and balances as laid out in the Constitution. As I pointed out to you earlier, there's a difference between saying that a particular candidate is not a good one and saying that you simply don't accept the president's right to fulfill his Constitutional obligations. Not really. One Democrat said that he felt fooled by Bush's nominations and that they should be especially careful going forward. The party as a whole didn't outright say that they wouldn't even give a hearing to anyone nominated by the president because there was some arbitrary amount of time left in his term. And anyway, you're not arguing against the idea that that this is improper; you're just inaccurately asserting that others have done the same thing. That's only a legitimate argument if you support what you falsely think that Democrats did. Of course it should depend on who he nominates. No one is saying that any choice should automatically be accepted. People just believe that the process should be carried out as the Constitution calls for.
Ofc they can vote his nominee down. But if it is because he should not nominate anybody in the first place it would speak of a disregard for the constitution. If it is beause he chooses an extremist it is justified. If they say they will block whoever, that's against the constitution imo.
I think the most stinging question to ask the right is this: What would Scalia have wanted? The answer is obvious.
If he nominated a conservative they would vote that person in. But they know the chances of that are none. He still may nominate someone that can get enough support to be confirmed.
Unfortunately Dems do not show up to vote in off year elections and when we have a Rep controlled house this is what we get.
You are right but electoral college has nothing to do with civil rights or a republic. It's a (slight) diminishment of democracy with no added bonus to civil rights, rule of law or any other principle relating to our freedom.
