Justice Scalia found dead

What is to stop them? Scalia has to be replaced and Obama holds the reins and will change him out with a liberal. That places the court at a 5-4 liberal advantage...... If Kennedy sides with the liberal justices, it will be 6-3. Obama will effectively replace Scalia before he leaves office. Ginsburg and Breyer could easily step down in the next several months with new and younger blood and then for a very long time, liberals will run the highest court in the land.

 

Funny you can say that after seeing all the hatred from the left for someone that just passed which seems to be fairly common from the left.

 

it will be a tough choice, if they motivate the left to get out and vote, they could lose many seats in Congress, but if they do not, their own party may eat them for dinner, choices, choices

 

Good Gawd...

What if Trumpf's elected and nominates Palin to the SCOTUS???????????????????

 

Sure you do.

- - - Updated - - -

The left would certainly lose their minds, wouldn't they?

 

This coming from a party that disregards President Obama's understanding of the Constitution as a Constitutional scholar. Is it too early for dead Scalia jokes?

 

There is no requirement in the Constitution for the Senate to take any action at all....I would be amazed if they do. No, this just means the new President needs to arrive in January with a nominee

- - - Updated - - -

Remember, for every unmotivated voter on the left there is one on the right...

 

Hahahahahahaha! Now that was a hoot! Obama finds only fault in the Constitution and has no love for this country as he often displays.

 

Constitutional scholars are distinguished from archie bunker types by having what is called in academia "published work". Specifically, published research in peer reviewed publications on the constitution.

wake me when you find anything he's published that isn't about himself.

 

she doesn't even understand free speech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729.html

"Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said."

.

 

I guess he could do a recess appointment without the Senate. But that appointment would expire at the end of the next Senate term. Further, 9-0 SCOTUS ruled that Senate is in session when it says it is in session. So all they would have to do is remain in session over the break. Have a Senator from a State near the Capital run down and hold a short session daily until they get back from break.

 

And what happens if the new president is Hillary? What happens then? More grandstanding?

 

I agree...the recess appointment scheme will not work this time. I figure the Senate would not dare cave to the dems on this issue. It would be political death.

 

So because there is a election this year, we need to have a lame duck president and supreme court while the Congress does nothing? Yeah, people b*tch about the government doing too much.... what will they do when all this happens?

 

I can see it all now, "Live from the Western White House in Leavenworth Kansas, President Clinton's State of the Union"...well, really no way.

 

Sen. Grassley says there is, essentially, no chance they will get a justice confirmed before the next administration.

In any event, Obama will definitely nominate someone--just to put the ball in their court.

Probably a lot of 4-4 decisions on the horizon.

 

And yet you posture on the matter. What happens if a democrat wins the White House in 2016? This whole thing of delaying the Supreme Court justice appointment will then be bull sh*t. We elected a president in 2012, he is still our president today and his constitutional responsibility, which he took an oath for, is to nominate Supreme Court justices on the court. This stuff would not have mattered in 2008 when Bush was president and the job would have been done. He was elected in 2004 and his constitutional right was to place a Supreme Court justices. Just because it is an election year does not matter. We have a sitting president and he is there to perform presidential duties and one of those duties is to conduct the business of government and do what is needed. There is a vacancy on the highest court in the land, it is his responsibility to place someone on that court. It has happened this way for over 200 years and there is no excuse to not fill the vacancy.

 

Actually he doesn't.

And even if it takes a year or so to seat another Justice, that is a process that has taken a year or so more than once. There is nothing magical about the number 9. 8 Justices, even 7 would be fine. Per Article III, Congress determines the number of seats on the High Court. The only position required by the Constitution is the Chief Justice. We had 6 total Justices until 1807, 7 until 1837, and even 10 in 1863. In 1867 we went back to 8. So there is nothing magical about 9 or an odd number.

Obama has the power to nominate Justices. He cannot confirm them. Did you snore while your commie lib professors endlessly droned on? This isn't esoteric information, nor is it difficult to find.

There is nothing pressing about replacing Scalia, who is in fact irreplaceable. These are lifetime appointments and we need to take great care to make the right selection. The voters are about to weigh-in and awaiting their direction is certain a prudent move. You though, seem to be in a big hurry. Are you concerned that the upcoming elections aren't going to go well for you folks?

 

You can see that an understanding of the Constitution is not a strong point for the progressive left.

 

I have to ask, who? Hillary will be indicted or jailed, Bernie cannot win a general and no one with a national name the party can parachute in for the convention is under geezer age...

 

Sayeth Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

 

God help America!!

 

Not really, they could delay indefinitely. If the next President is a democrat and follows Obama's footsteps then the Constitution is just another piece of toilet paper to wipe their butts with since the President's job is to apply the law of the land and Obama has obviously decided that is not something he wants to do.

 

Very true.

Bush was allowed to get a wing nut like Alito confirmed.

But, it was a different time and place (before the GOP Senate instituted the knee-jerk obstructionist agenda).

 

Well considering he has had a huge amount of success with major legal challenges, with the exception of Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Board, I think he has a pretty good record with the Constitution. What he finds fault with are the Monday morning armchair quarterback versions of amateur Constitution decisions.