Supreme Court Justice Scalia

[bullets13]

On February 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM, gohornets23 said:

probably a gay woman muslim, dope smoker, left handed, FOREIGN truck AND hairy armpits 

Hey, I'm left handed, drive a Toyota Tundra, and have hairy armpits.  I'm halfway there.  Do I get the job?

[TxHoops]

On February 18, 2016 at 11:38 AM, REBgp said:

I wonder if the Liberal Media will even acknowledge this.  

Lets reverse the situation somewhat.  For instance, a white Republican President is going to skip the funeral of Assoc Justice Ginsburgh to meet with a white supremacist group who just disrupted and destroyed several blocks of Baltimore under the guise of "white lives matter".  What would be the reaction of the Liberal Media?   

I wondered this week if he would have skipped Clarence Thomas' funeral.  Like him or not, Scalia will go down as one of the great justices in our history.  Regardless of ideology, some people are committed and just excellent at their jobs.  I could name a Republican and a Democrat of the past 50 years that I would consider great Presidents (although most of you would probably disagree with the Dem).  

I bring up Thomas because I would guess President Obama would not have missed his funeral.  And this is a man who, last I checked, has not asked a single question from the bench since 2006.  (Waste of space, IMO).  To miss Scalia's funeral is an inexcusable snub.  I disagreed with Scalia as often as I agreed with him but he was objectively one of the finest jurists of this generation.  

[nappyroots]

I wonder if the republicans held the presidency right now, would they be nominating a supreme court justice?

answer-yes they certainly would!

[tvc184]

11 hours ago, nappyroots said:

I wonder if the republicans held the presidency right now, would they be nominating a supreme court justice?

answer-yes they certainly would!

Sure they would.... and a Democratic congress would not pass the nominee.

Obama can nominate anyone that he wants. The Constitution (which apparently the Democrats only want to enforce they parts they like) says that the president has the sole authority to nominate a justice. The Senate has the sole authority to accept that nominee or reject him/her. 

All the Republicans have said was that if Obama nominated someone, they would likely kill the candidate.... just exactly like the Constitution gives them the authority. 

But.... that is just going by the law. 

[westend1]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Sure they would.... and a Democratic congress would not pass the nominee.

Obama can nominate anyone that he wants. The Constitution (which apparently the Democrats only want to enforce they parts they like) says that the president has the sole authority to nominate a justice. The Senate has the sole authority to accept that nominee or reject him/her. 

All the Republicans have said was that if Obama nominated someone, they would likely kill the candidate.... just exactly like the Constitution gives them the authority. 

But.... that is just going by the law. 

Problem is, they didn't say they would "likely kill" the candidate.  They said they wouldn't consider or approve anybody that was nominated.   The constitution doesn't provide for that.

[RETIREDFAN1]

1 hour ago, westend1 said:

Problem is, they didn't say they would "likely kill" the candidate.  They said they wouldn't consider or approve anybody that was nominated.   The constitution doesn't provide for that.

Yes it does......they do not give their consent......simple as that.......

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, westend1 said:

Problem is, they didn't say they would "likely kill" the candidate.  They said they wouldn't consider or approve anybody that was nominated.   The constitution doesn't provide for that.

They could treat the nomination just like Harry Reid treats a yearly budget...and just ignore it. Constitution doesn't provide for that but it didn't stop ol' Harry.

[Hagar]

6 hours ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

Yes it does......they do not give their consent......simple as that.......

Amen!  Typical example of what TVC said, "democrats only want to enforce the parts they like".

[tvc184]

16 hours ago, westend1 said:

Problem is, they didn't say they would "likely kill" the candidate.  They said they wouldn't consider or approve anybody that was nominated.   The constitution doesn't provide for that.

Good catch. The Constitution doesn't allow for the assassination of a candidate. It does allow the killing of the candidacy of the person by simply rejecting the nomination.  Hopefully Chief Justice Roberts won't read my comment and think that he has the option of murdering the nominee.