Justice Scalia found dead

Yes. Blocking Supreme Court appointments by Lame-duck President's isn't uncommon. Waiting to see what direction the voters provide is always a good move.

This is a very good time for the Parties to put forward what type of nominee they would favor and then let the voters weigh in. You don't seem particularly confident that the voters are behind you this year, shouldn't that urge you to re-evaluate your positions?

 

Obama has been shut down many times by SCOTUS and BTW, never argued anything in front of SCOTUS.

 

Obama could make a recess appointment, that would stick, as long as he waits until after January 3rd.

 

Oh, don't worry, I am hugely confident of the voters. When weighing the issues that matter to Americans the most, I am extremely confident how Americans feel and the direction their vote will trend. Remember Fox News on Election night in 2012? Yeah, 2016 may be a repeat of that. The numbers are the numbers and conservatives have a ton of ground to make up.

- - - Updated - - -

What is more interesting is that he could be a Supreme Court justice, even though people here would howl at the moon over it.

 

Seems they use noun "hatred" in their view of others.

 

Evidently, Scalia did not understand Constitutional history in that he felt our Founders did not recognize abortion rights.

As I have written on this forum before: I am a pro lifer who has a law degree and know Constitutional history. Contrary to Scalia's delusionalism, abortion was legal at the time of our Founding Fathers. I have previously supplied sufficient proof of that so I will not repeat it.

 

The demographic makeup of the swing states still favors the Democrats in the Electoral College.

Those wing nuts on Fox, like Dick Morris, who had some of these righty loons convinced that Romney was going to win, provided the true clueless hilarity of election night.

 

Considering he was the president of the Harvard Law Review, I would his juris chops are reasonably extensive. He used his training to pursue a political career, not a legal one. That is what distinguishes him from the Constitutional hacks that fling Constitutional challenges at everything that rubs them the wrong way. Some write about the law, Obama carries out the law.

 

Then you are to be pitied for your ignorance.

 

The recess appointment were for the days when the Senate was in recess for 6 to 9 months. Now days the Senate does not have to recess and to block any recess appointment they can stay in session all year. The Obama administration tried to abuse this and was struck down recently.

 

not if the senate doesn't go into recess no law says they have to and if I remember correctly Obama tried that trick once saying they was in recess when they wasn't and made appointments
do you remember what happened?

 

Still nothing lawyerly and pertaining to the constitution with his name on it?

You'd think that this constitutional scholar who was president of the Harvard Law Review would have at least one published article under his name that you could point to and say "there it is right there! neener neener neener!!!!"

 

Contrary to what the right wingers on this forum want to believe, President Obama can make an appointment to the USSC tomorrow. Nothing is stopping him.

 

He was President of the Harvard Law Review when it was very popular to nominate a black President. It was between him and another black student. Nomination does not make him a constitutional scholar and in fact his guest lectures were about how the constitution was flawed, not how it was the most important document ever created for individual justice.

- - - Updated - - -

Still the ignorance of the Constitution. All he can do is nominate a Judge, he cannot appoint one.

 

Every President that does his job effectively is shut down by the SCOTUS at some time or other. He has prevailed when it counted most. He doesn't have to argue in front of the SCOTUS. He has Verilli to do that. And again. He pursued a political career, not a legal one.

 

I would howl about anyone appointed that had no respect for the Constitution, like Obama.

 

But after January 3rd, the Senate will be technically adjourned until the new Senate is sworn in. And Obama's term doesn't end until January 20.

They were just talking about it on cable news. It sounded reasonable. Can you absolutely prove the assertion wrong?

I understand the whole thing about keeping it in session pro forma. But, apparently after January 3rd that dynamic changes.

 

Exactly, he is political and as a liberal, has no affection for the Constitution that stops him from implementing progressive tyranny.

 

no mentioning in the constitution that the senate is required to adjourn for any reason

 

Oh. And that makes him unqualified? You're really reaching here. Is he a Constitutional scholar? Yes he is.

 

Wow. A lot of unsubstantiated vitriol in that one.

 

For the left, fact is vitriol. It is a penchant of the left to redefine well understood English. For instance, redefining skepticism, the lifeblood of science, as 'denial'.

 

Never, he's burned so many bridges in Congress(and among Americans who would be of age to run for the House/Senate) that he could never be a Supreme Court Justice.

No one has shown as much disregard for law as Obama has. It'd be like tabbing GWB.

 

and the planet earth....just which dems have a national name recognition aside from a very few old codgers?

- - - Updated - - -

I do not believe BoBo ever argued in front of any court..ever

- - - Updated - - -

Not if the Senate stays in session....no recess, no appointment

 

semantics, semantics