There is no reason the SJC should have only 8 justices for the next year

[BoyNextDoor]

The President should name a justice and let the hearings begin. This is probably the least complicated constitutional event there can be.

 

[Vagina_Dentata]

Pretty soon everyone will have their own SCOTUS thread.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Recess appointment.

 

[Vagina_Dentata]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XlSMRT9qIp4/U8tQrZR3_JI/AAAAAAAAYXc/4Izy2ig6mmk/s1600/eeny2.jpg

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Whether or not the President can appoint someone to the SJC is moot. Of course the President can. In fact, the Constitution directs him to do that very thing. So Miss_Vagina_man and OjosAsshole all your current stupidity is wasted. Save it for the real stuff.

The much more interesting conversation is who will the nominee be and what will be the form that the hysterics, breast beating, talking in tongues, stigmata and weeping will take when the GOP controlled Senate starts its systematic defense of the billionaire class for this appointment? And what will its impact on the GOP race to try and claim the Presidency be?

Better yet and even more interesting (if President Obama has any balls) will be selecting a nominee that clearly would be either supported by Sanders or Clinton but not by both. That would really make Super Tuesday, SUPER.

(IMHO, he should nominate someone that clearly thinks that Citizens United should be overturned and let the chips fall where they may. Fuck Wall Street!)

 

[about_average]

(IMHO, he should nominate someone that clearly thinks that Citizens United should be overturned and let the chips fall where they may. Fuck Wall Street!)

I'll agree with that. That was the final nail in the coffin of our political system being fucked up.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I say he should nominate whoever he wants to, that the Senate should confirm whoever the filibuster-proof majority approves of (keeping in mind that they will not go into recess until Thanksgiving and Christmas) and the court can function perfectly well with eight justices...

Most any other "opinion" is just political desire and that is what is being advocated for in this thread, "I desire a more liberal, than conservative justice, be put into the seat formerly held by a strict Constitutionalist. Obama has put two Liberals into Liberal seats...



Let us see if the man has any principled consistency, or if he is purely going to play political games with his appointments with his eye frimly fixed on the outcome (i.e., turnout) of the fall elections.

Also, let us remember, there was a vow for political payback when Harry Reid used the nuclear option of ending the filibuster on other judicial appointments so that Obama could pack the lower courts with more liberal judges, and this is exactly the time to serve up a cold dish of revenge. It would increase Republican voter enthusiasm to finally see the men and women they elected into majority positions to stand up to the President and the press.

 

[Busybody]

Whether or not the President can appoint someone to the SJC is moot. Of course the President can. In fact, the Constitution directs him to do that very thing. So Miss_Vagina_man and OjosAsshole all your current stupidity is wasted. Save it for the real stuff.

The much more interesting conversation is who will the nominee be and what will be the form that the hysterics, breast beating, talking in tongues, stigmata and weeping will take when the GOP controlled Senate starts its systematic defense of the billionaire class for this appointment? And what will its impact on the GOP race to try and claim the Presidency be?

Better yet and even more interesting (if President Obama has any balls) will be selecting a nominee that clearly would be either supported by Sanders or Clinton but not by both. That would really make Super Tuesday, SUPER.

(IMHO, he should nominate someone that clearly thinks that Citizens United should be overturned and let the chips fall where they may. Fuck Wall Street!)

While we are doing the litmus test route

A Repoh should nominate one that is against baby killing. Disallow Cunt and Colored voting

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

While we are doing the litmus test route

A Repoh should nominate one that is against baby killing. Disallow Cunt and Colored voting

The truth is, is you are a Liberal, seeing the affected cases, you want a 4-4 tie because it then goes to the opinion of the lower courts, which were packed and tend to go their way, but hey, as I have said so many times, politics causes them to celebrate the luck of the glazier with the Broken Window (Bastiat) and overlook the loss of the sale of a suit by the tailor...



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ajor_court_cases_to_be_decided_this_term.html

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Recess appointment.

There's no recess till 2017.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There's no recess till 2017.

I pointed that out in post #7.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I pointed that out in post #7.

You posted Thanksgiving and Christmas, darling. And the GOP says no recess till 2017 when the new Congress starts.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Recess appointment still needs approval after-the-fact dahlink...

After the election, it will be clear to all which side has won the political right to appointment.

Don't make things harder than they really are.

 

[Busybody]

While we are on litmus test

If an R becomes Pres

He should appoint 30 NRA, pro cop, anti Knee Grrrr people to SCOTUS, and R controlled Congress should enact a law that any vacancy should be filled ONLY with similar people and only way to overturn thst law is by UNANIMOUS vote of entire Congress

See how litmus tests work?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

While we are on litmus test

If an R becomes Pres

He should appoint 30 NRA, pro cop, anti Knee Grrrr people to SCOTUS, and R controlled Congress should enact a law that any vacancy should be filled ONLY with similar people and only way to overturn thst law is by UNANIMOUS vote of entire Congress

See how litmus tests work?

*chuckle*

 

[Busybody]

Well if you want litmus tests

Do it right

 

[Busybody]

While we are doing the litmus test route

The nominees should put gimps in locked rooms

Gaze in closets

N trannies on roof tops

Litmus test for thee, but NOT FOR ME? Why?

 

[about_average]

There's no recess till 2017.

The senate is in recess right now. If he wants to make a recess appointment he has until Feb 22 to do it.

The Supreme Court, in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, unanimously declared that his picks were made unconstitutionally during a pro forma recess and were thus invalid. The majority opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, a President Clinton appointee, held that under the Constitution “the Senate is in session when it says it is.” But the Court found that deference to the Senate isn’t absolute: When the Senate is without the capacity to act (if all senators, say, effectively gave up the business of legislating), it would be in recess even if it said it was not.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...recess-appointment-will-president-obama-do-it

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It would be pyrrhic for it could be quickly put on hold and the court isn't doing all that much right now...





... some of the old cases were already voted on and they are writing their opinions, and I am not sure what the calendar is for the court, but they might not be hearing that many cases in the month or two to come.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

PS - it wold also take away the vacancy as a political issue going into the election and I believe tactically that the Democrats want to keep the issue alive and put the Republicans in a position to be blamed.

This, of course, is just opinion, I do not know what will happen.

The Republicans are known for folding...

 

[NOIRTRASH]

The senate is in recess right now. If he wants to make a recess appointment he has until Feb 22 to do it.http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...recess-appointment-will-president-obama-do-it

Whomever Obama nominates or appoints will be Hillarys running mate. Its said Obama is hot to nominate a radical nigger, it will kill Hillary.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It would be pyrrhic for it could be quickly put on hold and the court isn't doing all that much right now...





... some of the old cases were already voted on and they are writing their opinions, and I am not sure what the calendar is for the court, but they might not be hearing that many cases in the month or two to come.

Votes cast by Scalia and not published prior to his death become null and void. LINK

This is especially bad news for anti-union folks.

 

[Busybody]

A blog

 

[RobDownSouth]

A blog

Still in denial, nazi?

MSNBC

CNN

Newser

Choose yer poison, chum.

 

[Busybody]

Ha, even worse