BREAKING: Obama will nominate SCOTUS Justice on Monday

Baggius wrote:

Barry O knows that the republicans will not accept anyone he nominates, so he will make the smart political move and nominate a woman. When she doesn't get it, he will nominate another woman. The republicans will again not accept her and he will claim sexism. His nominations will be used to help the Democratic Party as a whole for the upcoming presidential election.

He will not have the opportunity to go through the process twice because it will be dragged out on the first try.

I think Obama will appoint a moderate, well respected individual.

The Senate will hold off making any vote until after the election.

If Hillary or Bernie wins the presidency, Obama's choice will be confirmed in November.

If a Republican wins, the nominee will be voted down and the next president will nominate someone different.

^this. The GOP is off the rails. Roberts is a liberal?!? I heard this on my local conservative talk radio station yesterday and could not believe what I was hearing. I have sympathy for many in the far right in that it must be tough when the overwhelming majority of the country disagrees with 90% of what you say. The GOP has no new ideas, they simply cling to archaic beliefs that most don't share. The don't understand this and get angry / feel persecuted all the time because of it. The only person in the GOP primary that can win the election is Trump and he is not really a social conservative which is starting to bug the RWNJs on talk radio. Those on the far right primarily because of social issues are wwwwaaaayyy out of touch and probably should fulfill their Atlas Shrugged wet dream and leave the US. We will never adopt their ridiculous policies. I suggest moving to ISIS controlled territory since they share so many similar beliefs when you break down their arguements to their core principles. The US would be a much better place if this happened.

I agree that Obama will propose a moderate candidate (preferably a woman) with the caveat that if he/she is not confirmed, and if a Democrat wins the presidency, a much more liberal candidate is on the way.

It would seem that whenever the GOP thinks they have pinned Obama in a corner he has always come out on top - to the point of being comical. No different this time around.

Obama doesn't need to appoint a liberal judge - a moderate judge is fine because there is a history of justices becoming more liberal over time once appointed. Sandra Day O'Conner, a Ronnie Raygun appointee, comes to mind. There are exceptions like the dim-bulb nut jobs Scalia and Thomas, but they are a minority.

douglas burke wrote:

I think he will pick Loretta Lynch, ad if/when the Republican majority Senate does NOT confirm her, the Democrats will say they are not confirming her because she is black.

The reason is to make more black people (95% Democrats) turn out in the Presidential elections, by having them mad at Republicans.

Just a guess and I am wrong often.

Exactly my thoughts.

I don't comment much about US politics but I have a feeling President Obama might appoint the AG.

She'said done a marvellous job with regard to FIFA corruption investigations.

If we want to go with the political angle, here's how I see it:

there are two ways to get people to win presidential elections:

1) appeal to the base

2) appeal to the independents

Looking at the electoral college map, the democrat needs to win two of the following: FL, OH, VA and PA. If the democrat wins two of those, he or she wins the presidency.

would a flaming liberal scotus pick help in those states? I don't see it. I see more help available from getting the moderate independents either to vote for your OR MORE TO THE POINT NOT VOTING FOR THE REPUBLICAN.

Many independents are disgusted by republican obstructionism. The shutdowns, liberty caucus, trump, etc...a GOP refusal to do its job could turn many independents in those moderate states away from the republicans.

So I see more gain to the Dems from a totally responsible pick than I do from a very liberal pick. The moderates are the game here, not the sandersistas.

I keep hearing that Obama should not nominate a judge in an election year.

Many judges have been nominated in election years..

Is there a case where a President deferred his decision during an election year? I can't find one, but I'm too lazy to dig in depth.

African-SCOTUSian... Excuse me!

Obama will not select a moderate because he doesn't know what a moderate is. To Obama Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and Anthony Van Jones are moderates.

He will select another hard core leftist from some politically protected group and the Republican Establishment will probably approve him/her/it because "they don't want to risk losing the Presidential election".

This will accelerate Trump's rise and ensure that he wins the general election.

Of course this will destroy the Senate Republicans who voted to approve, but then the Republican Establishment has shown they care more about maintaining the status quo in government than they do about serving their base or defending the Constitution.

NativeSon wrote:

douglas burke wrote:

I think he will pick Loretta Lynch, ad if/when the Republican majority Senate does NOT confirm her, the Democrats will say they are not confirming her because she is black.

The reason is to make more black people (95% Democrats) turn out in the Presidential elections, by having them mad at Republicans.

Just a guess and I am wrong often.

Exactly my thoughts.

I don't comment much about US politics but I have a feeling President Obama might appoint the AG.

She'said done a marvellous job with regard to FIFA corruption investigations.

You guys are fools. He's surely going to pick a judge from the Federal Courts. In fact, he will avoid picking a black person so that he can avoid looking like he picked a black person because of their blackness.

eric blair wrote:

...

Many independents are disgusted by republican obstructionism. The shutdowns, liberty caucus, trump, etc...a GOP refusal to do its job could turn many independents in those moderate states away from the republicans.

...

What have the Republicans obstructed?

What government programs have been dropped?

What government programs have seen funding reductions?

What have the Democrats wanted that they didn't get?

Has Planned Parenthood (baby butchers) been cut?

What entitlements have been rolled back?

What regulations have been rolled back or stopped?

Has Obama's land grabs been stopped?

The Democrats used the IRS to suppress the Tea Party and the Republicans have done nothing to stop them.

The Republicans just passed a $4.1 trillion dollar spending bill which gave Democrats everything they wanted and more.

Republicans stopped something? I missed it. What did they stop? I could use the good news.

DiscoGary wrote:

eric blair wrote:

...

Many independents are disgusted by republican obstructionism. The shutdowns, liberty caucus, trump, etc...a GOP refusal to do its job could turn many independents in those moderate states away from the republicans.

...

What have the Republicans obstructed?

What government programs have been dropped?

What government programs have seen funding reductions?

What have the Democrats wanted that they didn't get?

Has Planned Parenthood (baby butchers) been cut?

What entitlements have been rolled back?

What regulations have been rolled back or stopped?

Has Obama's land grabs been stopped?

The Democrats used the IRS to suppress the Tea Party and the Republicans have done nothing to stop them.

The Republicans just passed a $4.1 trillion dollar spending bill which gave Democrats everything they wanted and more.

Republicans stopped something? I missed it. What did they stop? I could use the good news.

obstructed: they shut down the government. They passed spending bills and then refused to pay for them.

government programs dropped: many, many military programs have been crushed by the sequester

gov't programs seen reductions: IRS and military

democrats wanted and not got: jobs program

planned parenthood: not sure

entitlements rolled back: complicated, but obama has added fewer people to food stamp rolls than bush 2.

regulations rolled back: Obama issued an executive order to every federal agency to eliminate any regulations that did not make sense:

of course the GOP obstructed actual efforts to roll back regulations so obama had to do it with an executive order.

Obama land grabs: huh?

that Obama will nominate himself as the next SCOTUS Justice and will resign the presidency and leave the country in the capable hands of Joe Biden.

Isn't it funny that the only big government program that's in the Constitution, the military, is always the first to be cut.

Yeah, I heard that the IRS was bitching about cuts. I'll have to look into that to see if they are real cuts or just budget freezes.

So you are saying the Republicans refused to raise taxes (pay for spending), and hand out even more free stuff (jobs programs). We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world so we don't need higher taxes, and 3/4 of that $4.1 trillion are payments made to individuals, so we don't need any more spreading around of the wealth.

But I guess there are some bad things the Republicans stopped from happening, but not much considering they have both houses. They certainly haven't CUT anything. Just a slight slowing of the decline.

Obama is grabbing millions of acres of land out west by converting them to "national monuments". He is stealing land from the States.

Hey Gary, since Ted "Grounded in the Constitution" Cruz says Obama can't appoint a new justice in his last year, it must say that somewhere in the constitution, right?

...right?

more cuts:

The sequester slashed 57,000 children this fall from the rolls of Head Start daycare and preschool programs, available for poor families nationwide.

About two-thirds of Meals on Wheels programs had to reduce the number of meals they served, by an average of 364 meals per week, a survey found.

The lack of government funds has also led to layoffs of hundreds of science and medical research jobs, according to a survey by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and 15 other scientific societies.

The cuts have also undermined federal public defenders' ability to defend those accused of federal crimes -- a constitutional right for people who can't afford a lawyer. Furloughs have delayed many cases -- prompting U.S. District Judge Richard George Kopf in Nebraska to declare: "It is time to tell Congress to go to hell."

Discogary, the point on the shutdowns and threats to do so is that congress can't freaking PASS A BILL and then refuse to pay for it unless the president does something...that's insane. it's not governance - it's stupid and chaotic.

if they don't want money spent, don't pass the g'darn bill.

D3 guy wrote:

Hey Gary, since Ted "Grounded in the Constitution" Cruz says Obama can't appoint a new justice in his last year, it must say that somewhere in the constitution, right?

...right?

It says it right here.

Constitution - Article II, Section 2

The President,

He shall have Power, ...]with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court, a

Obama can appoint anyone he wants. The senate can refuse to confirm anyone he appoints.

Democrats can use every power granted to them to push their agenda, and they do.

Republicans can use every power granted to them to push back, and they should.

Do you have a problem with this?

eric blair wrote:

more cuts:

The sequester slashed 57,000 children this fall from the rolls of Head Start daycare and preschool programs, available for poor families nationwide.

About two-thirds of Meals on Wheels programs had to reduce the number of meals they served, by an average of 364 meals per week, a survey found.

The lack of government funds has also led to layoffs of hundreds of science and medical research jobs, according to a survey by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and 15 other scientific societies.

The cuts have also undermined federal public defenders' ability to defend those accused of federal crimes -- a constitutional right for people who can't afford a lawyer. Furloughs have delayed many cases -- prompting U.S. District Judge Richard George Kopf in Nebraska to declare: "It is time to tell Congress to go to hell."

The sequester ended with the last budget bill, courtesy of Paul Ryan and the Republicans, so you can't use that one anymore. They passed the largest budget ever.