BREAKING: Obama will nominate SCOTUS Justice on Monday

"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."

ublican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's ‘advise and consent' responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct

"My view then and my view now is that the President won the election, no matter what the margin, and is entitled for the most part to tilt the judiciary in the direction that he feels appropriate.” ..... the appropriate role of the Senate is largely… to judge the competence and the integrity and the fitness of a judge to be on the bench.”

Wtfunny wrote:

Or, in 2005 ...

"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."

Mitch McConnell

Or

ublican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's ‘advise and consent' responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct

Mitch McConnell

Or, 2001

"My view then and my view now is that the President won the election, no matter what the margin, and is entitled for the most part to tilt the judiciary in the direction that he feels appropriate.” ..... the appropriate role of the Senate is largely… to judge the competence and the integrity and the fitness of a judge to be on the bench.”

agip wrote:

Oh Barry wrote:http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_obama_says_no_one_should_assume_he_ll_nominate_a_moderate_to_scotus

"President Barack Obama today said no one should assume he will choose a moderate – or make any other assumptions – to replace the late ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia."

"The President told reporters he is "going to present someone who is indisputably qualified for the seat."

"We're going to find somebody who has an outstanding legal mind, cares about democracy, and the rule of law," the President promised. He added he will choose a candidate that "any fair minded person would say would serve with honor and integrity on the court."

He also said he would not have a specific litmus test issue for the potential nominee, but that he would present someone who, regardless of their past record, should be confirmed by the Senate.

Asked by a reporter if we should interpret his comments to mean he will choose a moderate, the president quickly responded.

"No. I don't know where you found that, you shouldn't assume anything," the President said, "other than they're going to be well-qualified."

I stand by my previous statement. Obama will nominate a leftist.

anyone with any sense of politics will understand that Obama was trying to make sure he wasn't painted into a corner. He denied any label.

Obama never said he wouldn't nominate a moderate - this is classic meaningless political talk you are quoting here.