It is Unconstitutional for the Senate to refuse to vote on the President's SC nominee

Nothing is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.

 

I was referring to the political football, I agree the measure isn't to be taken lightly but Republicans have again backed themselves into a partisan corner by refusing any nomination. Either way this goes they look bad and the Democrats may well leverage this childish behavior.

Republicians are foolishly assuming they will have the White House and the Senate, three words should terrify them: Chief Justice Obama. If the republicans lose the WH will they just refuse appointment indefinitely? They have to regain power one day I guess...

 

Its a 100% certainty like death and taxes that Obama will pick the most leftist justice he can possibly lay his hands on. After the last 7 years of his unbelievably bad decisions, race baiting, nation dividing, etc., there is no need to wait for him to pick we already know what he wants and we know we don't want it.

 

Good writing. Thanks for taking the time.

I don't remember if it was on this thread or a different one, but yesterday I wrote that I thought the Senate should hold the hearings. I could be wrong (I've seen me do it), but I think the Senate R's will reconsider, and they will hold hearings when a nominee is put forth.

No, the election of a Republican Senate does not invalidate Obama's election in 2012, nor does his election invalidate the congressional elections of 2014. Both should show some respect for the other. If Obama puts forth a firm liberal, it's just a political stunt, and he's not being serious. I think he has to realize that, if he is serious, he should put forth a conservative or moderate and keep the Court balanced.

 

So far it appears that no one has noticed that a nominee hasn't even been announced yet and all the political sparing is just that, nothing more.

 

No it's not.

 

Often nominees have taken themselves out of the picture after a Senate interview.

 

The Repubs should simply hold hearings regarding the Obama SC nominee.......and then vote to not confirm the nominee.......just like what the Dems did with Reagan's nomination of Bork. Everybody is making this way too complicated......

 

I side with Thomas Jefferson on this issue...

 

No, its not...moving on

 

Yes, 3 years ago obama was reelected...18 months ago the public changed its mind and voted to stop/slow obama. Why should obama's win trump the more recent senate win?

 

Which opens another question...what candidate is dumb enough to accept a nomination under these circumstances. They will be pilloried by the right and lionized by the left. Their every quirk and foible will be recounted in detail. Then consider the overwhelming certainty that they will never see the court.

A vastly invasive process which calls the sanity of whoever decides to accept the nomination in question.

- - - Updated - - -

A moderate conservative judge is not what the party base demands. We demand another Scalia, only more so.

 

So you want them to waste time and money on something they are not going to do anyways? That makes a lot of sense.

 

Actually, it is leftist heads that would explode when the nominee does not get approved.

 

The rules always change when one side does it and claims its legal and fair, then cries foul when the other side uses their tactics against them. I agree if Obama nominated a centrist or moderate Republican...They would probably go through...But what do you think the chances of that happening is?

 

Oh really? Tell who this "interim appointment" was, if you please.

 

the repubs are determined to have their ratings go even lower

 

Could you show us that Article in the Constitution please that requires the Senate to put forth a budget every year?

TIA.

 

There is not "centuries of precedent" of SCOTUS nominees being denied even being a opportunity of an up or down vote.

Attempted is the operative word there. Did he filibuster? No. He did vote no when the senate afforded Alito an up or down vote.

 

Sure......that way the Repubs can't be accused of proceeding unconstitutionally.......just like the Dems did with Bork......makes a great deal of sense for the Repubs......

 

I don't think so. President Obama can nominate whomever he wishes as you stated. The senate according to its rule can either take up that nominee or not. The constitution gave each house, the house and the senate the ability to devise its own rules. If I were a Republican after the president sends up his nominee, I would schedule and hold hearings in the judiciary committee about 2 months after the senate receives the nomination. Then schedule the vote about a month or two after the conclusion of the hearings which I would draw up and then having 54 senators vote down the nomination around August or September. But I am not a Republican.

But I think you need to go back to Nixon and a Democratic controlled senate who kept a Supreme Court vacancy open for 391 days before you become all flustered. That was when the games began with SCOTUS nominees. What is going on today is no more than an extension of that.

Actually tabling a nomination without a vote is just another way of not confirming a nomination.

 

Anthony Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 and voted in February 1988 after Bush was elected and took office...Some sites call it an interim others say it just took a while. But they still waited till the next president took office.

 

Er...Bush was elected in Nov. of 1988.

 

Pretty uneducated post. Image you -- thinking Reagan nominated Kennedy the month of the presidential elections! LOL

No. No sites call it an interim appointment, because it wasn't.