-
It bothers me that people would think the president shouldn't do his/her job right up until the last minute. The implication seems to be that every 3 years we take a year off of having a president/ getting things done. One reason why I wish we'd move to a 6 year single term for presidents.
-
@2littlepumpkins: A lame duck president typically refers to a president whose successor has already been elected, which is not the case here. So while it may be true that a lame duck president hasn't nominated in 80 years, Obama also isn't a lame duck at this point...
-
@2littlepumpkins: let's also keep in mind though SCJs appointments are for life, some President's never even get the chance to nominate a judge.
-
Back when George W. Bush still had nearly 1.5 years left on his term, the democrats argued he should not appoint a supreme court justice. So, surprisingly or not, this argument as so who should appoint and when isn't actually new.
-
@agold: true.
And honestly, if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would do the same. exact. thing. no doubt in my mind. I think given the huge implications this will have, it does make sense to wait for a new president. If the American people elect a Democrat, then that's the direction the people want this country to go in and if they elect a Republican, same goes there.
-
@JCCovi: I think a 6 year single term is an interesting concept. I always wonder how much work an incumbent president is able to accomplish when out on the campaign trail.
-
@agold: I didn't know that but as a liberal, I find that infuriating too!
-
@agold: @Applesandbananas: I agree with both of you. Whatever side you are on, you are probably trying to justify which interpretation would benefit your party more, but in this case (and in the case of George W. Bush as agold pointed out) the constitutionally correct thing to do is for a president to submit a nominee, regardless of how much time is left in his term. It's up to congress to confirm.
But I disagree with Applesandbananas that Obama should wait. He was elected for a full term and that was the direction the country wanted to go when he was elected. There is a bit more to your argument if this happened after the presidential election in Nov. and if a republican is elected, but I don't think your argument stands at this time. When would be the arbitrary cut off of when it is acceptable?
Not sure how I would feel if I was a republican. Would I want Obama to wait, confident that a republican will get elected in November? Or would I want to hedge my bet and have Obama nominate someone that would likely be a bit more moderate that whoever Clinton or Sanders nominates if they get elected.
-
@agold: ha! I just Googled what you mentioned. The Republicans had the same counter argument the Democrats are employing now- read the Constitution & nominate a judge. The big difference is when Schumer suggested W wait there wasn't a vacancy or pending vacancy.
@TemperanceBrennan: good point, we don't vote for a new president until another 9 months. That's a long time for a current president to sit on their hands.
-
@agold: @Applesandbananas: There wasn't an actual vacancy when Schumer said these things. He was expressing frustrations about what was going on with the Court at the time and about the two Bush-nominated justices who had been approved by the Senate. He also said "except in extraordinary circumstances," which I assume would include the sudden death of one of the justices. Regardless, I don't agree with his comments just as I don't agree with those now saying that Obama should hold off. Here's an article that came out back in 2007 when Schumer made those remarks: http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146
@TemperanceBrennan: Totally agree with you.
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: yeah CNN noted that there are few who would have had a chance to anyway!
@agold: agreed! It's not a big bad republican thing- the democrats would probably do the same. Nonetheless I think the right thing to do is proceed with the nomination.
-
@TemperanceBrennan: eh, the democrats would try to hold up the appointment too. I've been reading up on obamas possible selections and I'm not that concerned. I just hate that the liberal media vilifies the republicans when the democrats are juuuust as bad.
-
POTUS is not attending Scalia's funeral. I find this outright rude!
-
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: I agree. I am generally a big Obama fan, but I think he should absolutely attend the funeral.
-
@lawbee11: That was a great article, thanks for sharing!
-
@mrbee: Here's another one from yesterday: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/continued-thoughts-on-the-next-nominee-and-impressions-of-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson/
-
@lawbee11: I gotta start reading scotusblog regularly again. What a great site!
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
57 comments