I support the Constitution.
But I don't believe the Constitution supports allowing a candidate that is under FBI investigation for not only her unethical practices as Secretary of State, but also for the unethical practices of her "non-profit" foundation. Ironic that this is the same person who has a reputation of unethical practices stretching all the way back to Watergate.

Yep, that's just who we need to nominate the next Superior Court Judge. Might as well put a fox in charge of the hen house.

um, what about the sitting Prez picking the next judge? If you are against that norm, and against some of the potential new presidents, wouldn't it be a weird precedent to allow you to decide who picks?

I'm for the constitution which clearly says if the current or next prez isn't the one I voted for they have no say in this. It may be 5 years or more before we replace him but so be it. It's the only thing that makes sense.

👍



TW for Supreme Court Justice..!! 🤣

Nothing would surprise me.

---

This is very bad news.

The squish Republicans in the Senate will give Obama any candidate he wants, most likely, not put up a fight, because they will say he gets his pick.

The senate needs to be hard on these S.C. nominees and make sure they adhere to the Constitution. Hell look what the Dems did to Bork and tried to do to C .Thomas. I am not suggesting that, but Sotomayor and Kagan were just shuttled through so easily, when they both had so many questions about pushing their agendas from the bench.

But It will now be a 5-4 liberal majority and we will continually lose more of our liberties.

Article V, and the convention of the states is needed and needed badly now.

Man this blows.

Sad that we even have to think about the SC being pro constitutional. They should all be. If they are allowed to legislate then this country is headed in the wrong direction. Believe in God or in man, but if we go too far down the wrong path we will fall. Just look at where we are compared to just 50 years ago and in another 50 we will not exist

I think Scalia did his country a great service - by kicking off. This guy was ultra right wing conservative that wanted to take us all back 200 years.

Hopefully with a more balanced SCOTUS we will have less conservative tyranny and less erosion of our rights.

This is great news!

No! The strict reading of the Constitution I always clamor for clearly permits it. The founding fathers intended it.

Interesting how the strict interpretation of the constitution changes when the republicans don't like the circumstances.




61

not sure I'm clear on your point, Robert.

Same here Frank.

Tongue in cheek

Did she like it ?



61

I was hoping!

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html 

Why does anyone need to weep? How did the house vote on this?

So Ike did it three times in a row and the senate passed a non binding outrage statement and no one has done it since.

I'm literally weeping.

I think only republican presidents should be able to appoint scotus. I also think the line item veto should be implemented only when republicans are president.

I love the constitution and want it interpreted strictly which can only be done by republicans which is why we need to bend it a bit when the Dems are in office.

It's the only thing that makes sense.

curious what was meant by "recess" appointment, as opposed to some term that obviously means lame duck appointment.
From what I could surmise from this all too brief write up, it did not pass the GOP controlled Senate, but I'm guessing the SCOTUS would have ruled it unconstitutional in any event.

Two wrongs make a right, evidently.