What Would Scalia Say?: No reason Obama shouldn't appoint

The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press ^ | February 14, 2016 | Daniel Clark

[rockrr]

I think Daniel Clark is just a post-bot.

[pilgrim]

I agree, I honestly don’t know either.

It was said, that he asked for Kagan. I wasn’t there and sure do not trust the ‘saidee’, Axe(to grind)lrod. Think he may have an agenda.

Wish they all would be more Constitutionally inclined.

Take care.........pilgrim

[napscoordinator]

You too. And I agree I wish they were all Constitutionally inclined. If that were the case, we would not have to wait until the election to have another justice on the court. If Obama was reasonable and understand a conservative died so a conservative should be the replacement. I know that Presidents have done that before.

[nuconvert]

Your opinion piece should have been posted in Blogs, not News.

btw - I disagree

[outofsalt]

It’s all spelled out in the, “penumbras and emanations” clause of the constitution. Right there after the, “phone and pen” section.

[so_real]

Bork the appointee.

Exactly -- The shoe is on the other foot if our "representatives" have the spine to use the advantage.

[GOPJ]

S.RES. 334. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PRES. SHOULD NOT MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT TO PREVENT OR END A BREAKDOWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT’S BUSINESS. KEATING MOTION TO RECOMMIT TO JUDICARY COMM.

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in 1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business. Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html

S.RES. 334. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PRES. SHOULD NOT MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT TO PREVENT OR END A BREAKDOWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT’S BUSINESS. KEATING MOTION TO RECOMMIT TO JUDICARY COMM.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Obama can nominate anyone he wants. There is no reason that the GOP has to roll over and confirm him/her.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It sure is fun putting words into the mouth of a dead man!

[pilgrim]

Hope your are right RW71!!!

If the pResident does appoint someone, do not think the Senate has enough or really any backbone to object, if past behavior is any indicator they will throw a ‘hissy fit’ for the voters then acquiesce to him!

Pray you have it pegged correctly!!

[pilgrim]

AMEN!!!

Now days the oath taken means nothing.

Thanks!

Take care.........pilgrim

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Scalia's entire focus was on what the Constitution said, and the powers and limitations it bestowed upon each branch. Whether the other branches exercisd the powers they were given wisely or well, is not the business of the Court. You could probably find plenty of quotations from Scalia to that effect as easily as I could.

The Constitution gave to the Senate the power of advise and consent. It does not specify in any manner how that power should be exercised. I suspect as a matter of policy, he might have opined that the Senate refusing to confirm judicial nominees is a perfectly valid -- and completely Constitutional -- means of opposition to executive overreach, including the failure of the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

[paltz]

In 2012 Scalia said he didn't want to be replaced by a liberal judge and would not retire while Obama was president, because it would "undo" all the work he's done for the last 26 years.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1760716797001/supreme-court-justice-scalia-sits-down-with-chris-wallace-on-fox-news-sunday/?#sp=show-clips

[pilgrim]

Stand corrected!!!

One does not “throw ad hissy fit” one “pitches a hissy fit!!!”

Sorry!! :)

[DoughtyOne]

I think that is important enough that I bookmarked it earlier.

Come on boys, show some backbone.

If this guy wasn’t an out and out traitor, I’d say take our lumps.

We’ve given this scumbag every break in the book. Enough already.

We don’t need to sacrifice the nation on the alter of the almighty _resident Obama.

[Tupelo]

SHALL appoint in the Constitution trumps any and all Senate “Resolutions”. Which ain’t really worth the paper they are printed on.

The Senate can and sometimes (very rarely) reject a nominee. I am sure back in the distant past a Republican Senate rejected a Democrat president’s Supreme Court nominee, but for the life of me, I cannot remember even one.

However I do agree with the article, the late Justice Scalia would want ALL of them, the Court, President and Senate to follow the Constitution. TO THE LETTER.
We may not like it, but it is there. As the writer says, we should follow the what the Constitution says, not what we want it to say.

[Crucial]

The Senate doesn’t have to consent until Obama comes up with a decent judge. We’ll end up with a Sandra Day O’Connor only if we’re extremely lucky.

[Texas Fossil]

ComDem can pound sand.

If the GOPe gets weak in the knees, we’ll deal with them.

[pilgrim]

Questions to Mr. Daniel Clark.

Are you prohibited in any way on replying to posts, replied to your post?

Or do you just sit back and watch to see, what the response is to your article?

Are paid by hits on your posts at the websites you contribute to?

Or do you get ideas from replies to your post and use them in future articles?

Just wondered.

[Faith Presses On]

It was totally unsurprising that President Obama said that he would nominate a new justice.

It’s his and the Democrats political choice to do so, and also the Republicans’ political choice to say he shouldn’t and to work against any nominee.

Look how the Dems opposed Robert Bork.

Given the circumstances, Republicans have every right and duty to fight against any new justice that Obama would like to put on the Court.

And right off the bat, Republicans have a very good argument against anyone being nominated: that it is too much for the nation to tackle at the same time, giving that both the justice battle and the Presidential battle will be occurring at the same time.

Republicans also have a mandate to fight any Supreme Court nominee because this isn’t Obama merely replacing another liberal justice, but would involve the balance of the court possibly changing.

The left would fight this tooth and nail, along the lines of a battle cry of, “we have to do whatever it takes to stop the fascists from taking control of the Supreme Court!”