Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Lame-Duck SCOTUS Appointments

The United States Supreme Court Building

Barack Hussein Obama (dated February 13, 2016):
I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time.
As Obama declares that he will nominate a justice to the United States Supreme Court upon the passing the Justice Antonin Scalia, note that in August 1960, during a year of a National Election in which the President was not an incumbent, the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, passed Senate Resolution 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.
You see, by August 1960, President Eisenhower had already appointed five justices to the SCOTUS, and even though there was no vacancy on the bench, the Democrats were determined that President Eisenhower not appoint another justice.

Also recall this from the not-so-distant past: in 2007, Chuck Schumer called for blocking George W. Bush's SCOTUS appointments (hat tip to Bunkerville).

Forget about the past if you like, and now consider this, from a Washington Post article entitled "If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway":
...The court is not yet halfway through the 80 or 90 cases it deals with each term, but many of the most contentious have already been heard. Normally, justices meet the week a case is argued, and vote on the outcome. So they have most likely already voted on pending cases on apportionment and affirmative action, for example. But weeks or months can go by while the justice assigned the opinion circulates drafts. Any justice can change his or her vote at any point during that process, and often does. It’s all very hush-hush, so there is no way to tell how far along the cases Scalia heard are in the pipeline.

There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies. If the vote in a case that hasn’t yet been handed down was 5 to 4, as one might expect with these controversial rulings, can Scalia cast the deciding vote from beyond the grave to change the way America chooses every legislature in the land or integrates its public universities?...
Of particular interest to Conservatives:
Even if the GOP blocks [Obama's] nominee, the policy outcomes would be very similar to what they’d be if the court had a liberal majority....
Read the entire Washington Post article HERE.

Controversial issues before the SCOTUS, now comprised of eight members, relate to abortion, immigration, and unions.

With the death of United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the 2016 National Election's stakes have soared — not only for the reasons above but also because the battle over a vacancy on the SCOTUS may spill over into the 2016 Senate races.

81 comments:

  1. Just when I think we have scraped the bottom of the barrel of GOP problems - what more can go wrong- we get this. We were suppose to have a strong field of GOP candidates and one by one they crash and burn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The effect of forming a Circular Firing Squad while vying for the nomination. The GOP is not called "The Stupid Party" for no reason.

      Delete
    2. FT,
      Yes, the GOP is engaging in a circular firing squad.

      The Dems are too, but the squad isn't all that big, so the salvos are fewer.

      Delete
  2. "Also recall this from the not-so-distant past: in 2007, Chuck Schumer called for blocking George W. Bush's SCOTUS appointments."
    --------
    It should be pointed out that the GOOPs are stating that Obama should not even make a nomination.

    Somehow they think his presidency does not represent the will of the people, only the far right does.
    That they'll block the nomination as best they can goes without saying but it is entirely different to say that Obama has no legitimate basis for making the nomination.

    They'll probably claim that be exercising his constitutional obligation that he is dividing the nation. That's how they roll.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duck,
      The point, of course, is that the Dems' present outrage about replacing Scalia is hypocritical. The Dems themselves voiced their own obstructionist desires in 1960 and 2007 in a pre-emptive strike when there was no vacancy on the SCOTUS. Therefore, the Dems cannot now claim the moral high road although they are trying to do so.

      Delete
    2. As for dividing the nation, politics has always done so.

      Delete
    3. Duck, in case you have forgotten, the GOP won two midterm elections in landslide victories for Senate candidates. Those Senators represent the will of the people who sent them there to STOP OBAMA. He can nominate whoever he wants but the Senate is under no obligation to approve or even hear his nominee. The precedent for this was set by Democrats during the Bush years. You have only yourselves to blame!

      Delete
    4. If 0bama nominates anyone, it will be a far left wing extremist liberal hiding in sheep's clothing. Perhaps one of the liberals appointed by Clinton will be the next one to croak while 0bama is still President, leveling the field.

      Delete
  3. Que sera sera! Whatever will be will be
    I no longer care what happens to me.
    I'm old and childless, God will soon set me free.
    I've strutted and fretted upon life's stage
    With much energy and considerable rage.
    It all came to naught, now I've reached old age
    And get no credit for being a sage.

    Que sera sera! Whatever will be will be
    I no longer care what happens to me.
    I wish all of you well, as I ready to leave.
    And pray that your lives give you no cause to grieve
    Que sera sera. What will be will be.
    don't care now what happens to me.
    In Heav'n or Oblivion I'll do very well,>
    For neither's as sad as this earthly hell.
    .

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FT,
      Maybe it all does come down to "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity" (Ecclesiastes).

      Delete
  4. Roberts and Kennedy are anything but reliable conservatives. No matter what happens with this latest tragedy, we are still in grave danger of losing the republic our founders created for us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It may never be proven, but I am morally certain Justice Scalia was ASSASSINATED.

    His body was embalmed immediately, and NO AUTOPSY was PERFORMED, despite the requirement that an autopsy be made by Texas Law.

    It has been reported that he was found with a PILLOW over his face.

    He had NOT been ill, and unless evidence appears to the contrary from a credible source, he was NOT suffering from any chronic, potentially fatal diseases.

    The TIMING of this tragic event DOES NOT PASS the SMELL TEST.

    Anyone who blandly accepts "official reports" at face value is hopelessly naive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would they use a pillow? You'd think they'd learned something from the botched Vince Foster assassination and would have used the heart attack gun that was use so cleanly on Andre Breitfart.

      I wonder what Alex Jones, the definitive news source, has to say or maybe The Gateway Pundit has the truth.

      Delete
    2. Duck,
      Avail yourself of Google search. More than one mainstream media source is questioning the lack of protocol following the death of Justice Scalia.

      Delete
    3. Why should Nostradumbass rely on sanity when he has the voices in his head to tell him what to do?

      Delete
  6. The test of the reasonable man can be used regarding the known details surrounding the death of an elderly Supreme Court justice. Reasonable men can voice concerns but not necessarily conspiracies minus the granular forensics related to the demise.

    Good post, AOW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prince,
      When the facts are controlled, then conspiracy theories will thrive.

      We are living in Orwellian times!

      Delete
  7. I read the linked WaPo article, and it should depress every American, liberal, conservative or otherwise.

    The fact that the death of a Supreme Court Justice would throw us into such political chaos reveals just how sick and dysfunctional our system of government is.

    The federal government is a giant beast, eating and crushing all in its path. Those who think they can get on its back and tame it are fools. The beast will just eat them last.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      Would term limits for SCOTUS justices be a remedy for prefenting the kind of chaos now plaguing our ship of state?

      Delete
    2. AOW,
      We are too far down the road to dysfunction. This is the new normal.

      If the GOP wants to survive, they need to learn how to put up the PR show, be all nice and friendly, while wielding the rusty razor behind the scenes, just like the DemonCraps do.

      Delete
  8. From what I am reading, even realists on the left are saying the Senate will not vote on any nominee this year.

    So, it now comes down to a political game. Obama nominates someone and the GOP Senate either refuses to hold hearings, or holds hearings with the full knowledge that its all a kabuki and the nominee will never be confirmed.

    Depending on which side is smarter, this can be presented two ways to the American audience:

    1. Obama is smart and nominates someone reasonable but still in his ideological camp. Judge Srinivasan fits that bill. How can the GOP vote him down? They just confirmed him to an appeals court a few short years ago on a 97-0 vote.

    2. Obama goes full politics and nominates Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder or some other leftwing ideologue who also happens to be a minority, gay, transgendered or some other special status, allowing dems to smear the GOP as anti-(fill in the blank).

    I don't think #2 has the effectiveness it once had. In the soft, malleable minds, the GOP are already racists and they only hate Obama because of his skin color, not his leftwing activism, purposeful partisan titty-twisting or gross incompetence.

    That battle has already been fought, the lines drawn and ideological camps formed. There are no further votes to be gotten with such a strategy.


    So...

    If Obama is smart and want to make the GOP appear unreasonable, and appeal to the reasoned middle for the 2016 vote, he does #1.

    If Obama channels his uber-partisan Joker, and wants to administer one more titty-twister to the GOP just to hear their tortured howls and screams, he does #2. It doesn't gain any additional voters to the Democrat side in the 2016 election, but it does amuse the fringe lefties and burnish his credentials with them as a tough fighter who really brass-knuckled those hateful, racist Rethuglicans.

    A Third Way. Obama does the Dog Whistle, putting up someone (could be Holder or Lynch) who appears moderate and credible to the barely-paying-attention middle, with the help of the Government-Friendly Infotainment Media Complex.

    Partisan conservatives go nuts, screaming "NO Way!" and it makes the GOP look bad to those who do not understand what a partisan and leftwing hack such an Obama nominee is.

    Now that I've written all this out, I think they will go with the Dog Whistle...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would Holder be interested? He's a high powered Wall St. hack. He doesn't need the grief.

      Lynch also is a former director of the New York Fed and has made a career of coddling the banks. She's back to a nice Wall St. corner office next year.
      She's just a place holder to make sure it all goes easy for the captains of industry.

      They have no radical background.

      Delete
    2. Ducky,

      Agreed. The Supreme Court is no place to run a Clinton Foundation-style grift from, which is why I've always thought any talk of Hillary wanting it was silly.

      Schumer? He's an egotistical camera-hog, but he seems to be in it more for the fame and power-wielding than cashing in.

      I still say Obama goes for someone everyone the left nuts know will be on their side *wink wink* but yet looks perfectly reasonable and presentable to that vast middle that doesn't pay attention and hates all that partisan squabbling.

      A lib I read this morning cast it in this light: It takes 60 votes in the senate to make a Supreme Court Justice. There are 46 Democrats (including two who engage in the fiction they are "independents"), so the Dems need to come up with a nominee that can gain the support of 14 Republicans.

      If the Repubs were smart, they would play this game and demand up front that Obama nominate someone known as a middle-of-the-road candidate, then demagogue the hell out of that person as a too dangerously far-left and point out how he/she is outside the mainstream and use that for the ultimate vote down.

      But, we all know it won't play out that way.

      The GOP has a special talent for Shooting themselves in the face with the crap cannon as the seltzer bottle they had hidden in their trousers explodes, all accompanied by a chorus of old white men making creepy comments about female sexuality while trashing half the country as moochers... Real winners there.





      Delete
  9. SF,
    Yes, likely thr Dog Whistle -- for the November 2016 campaigning.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For what it's worth, a friend told me last night that there will indeed NOW be an autopsy of Justice Scalia's body. AFTER the embalming which already took place as part of the preparation for interstate transport.

    Frankly, I fail to understand why the Scalia family was even given a choice about the autopsy. Typically, when someone dies out of state, an autopsy is automatically triggered -- unless the deceased's doctor is licensed I that state.

    I know about these details because a dear family member, who resided in Virginia, died in Marylamd: the family doctor was not licensed in Virginia and so was not even consulted,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HEADLINES at DRUDGE


      Detectives question lack of autopsy in Scalia death...

      'Took look at report and almost fell out chair'...

      SAVAGE: 'Was he murdered?'

      WILL TX GOV CALL FOR INVESTIGATION?

      Conspiracy theories swirl...

      Will Lie In Repose At Supreme Court...

      Death boosts legal chances for Obama's climate scheme...

      Delete
    2. There will be no Paul Newman or Tom Hanks to fight the powers and investigate this until, at the end of the movie, he exposed the truth and the nefarious powers who were trying to hide it, so don't hold your breath.

      Delete
  11. It just kills me when the say Obama is a 'lame duck' and should not appoint a Justice. "Let the will of the people" bullshit....Marco Rubio announced his 'retirement' effective in 2016...hmmmm maybe he should recuse himself from Senate votes cause he is a 'lame fuck'. He should recuse himself from voting in any confirmation vote. I am tired...tired..tired. The Republicans are scripting this like a Samuel Beckett play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How quickly you forget the revolting spectacle perpetrated by Democrats when Robert Bork was nominated for a place on the high court. Also the filthy, degrading Smut Circus your party made of the hearings when Clarence Thomas was nominated.

      Your kind always forgets everything that fails to flatter and kowtow to the Left, –– egregious activities that rob leftist operatives of any shred of credibility they might otherwise have had.

      The Double Standard, arrogance, blatant hypocrisy, and adamant, bigotry, as routinely practiced by the Left, is the most disgusting, enervating and demoralising aspect of American politics.

      Yes, the Constitution says the president has the power –– and the duty –– to nominate anyone he wants for the high court when a vacancy arises, but the nomination can only be confirmed with the ADVICE and CONSENT of the senate. Moreover there is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that compels the senate to CONFIRM the nominee.

      Much as you and your kind would obviously like to have it, we are not supposed to live in a dictatorship where a parliamentary body exists for the sole purpose of rubber stamping every whim, cprice and mad desire that emanates from the tyrant, EVEN when the tyrant has been foolishly ELECTED by the populace.

      Delete
    2. Who left the gate to the Dementia Ward open?

      Delete
    3. SF,
      Despite having deleted this same comment earlier today,, I'll let the comment stand this time. Entertainment and all that.

      Delete
    4. FT,
      Thank you for that excellent response.

      Delete
    5. Thank YOU! A bit of recognition is balm to the savage breast. ;-)

      We don't seek agreement necessarily, but at the very lest ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of our attempts t contribute to the conversation.

      Once again I am STUNNED at the lack of intelligence establishment Republicans show when confronted with Fake Outrage and Blistering Accusations from the Left. So far none of the GOP candidates have deigned to MENTION The Televised Crucifixion of Robert Bork and the Disgusting Travesty Democratic operatives, particularly the odious Anita Hill made of the Clarence Thomas hearings.

      I must say, however, that FOX News did a good job of skewering the Left with series of film clips that proved IN THEIR OWN WORDS what lousy stinkin' hypocrites they really are.

      However, as always, the Left has thoroughly mastered the Art of Showing No Shame while Admitting No Guilt.

      DASTARDS!

      Delete
  12. Great article by Rich Lowry: Block an Obama Nomination

    The GOP have historical precedent on their side. Just two Supreme court justices in our nation's history have been approved by the opposition party in a president's last year.

    More than seven were rejected in a president's last year. So, I repeat. Historical precedent in on the side of the GOP.

    From Lowry's article:

    This is a chance for the Senate, in behalf of the prerogatives of Congress, to show some institutional self-respect. It owes President Obama no deference or consideration. He has trampled on the legislative power at every opportunity, including attempting to deem the Senate in recess on his own say-so (he lost the resulting Supreme Court case 9–0). His unconstitutional immigration and clean-power directives both have been held in abeyance by the courts.

    If President Obama wanted a collegial relationship with the Republican Senate, he should have thought of that long ago, and if didn’t want to lose the Senate, he should have moderated his stances. Now, he will pronounce himself shocked and saddened that Congress doesn’t want to hold his coat while he remakes the high court. The Senate should hold firm, and let Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues rend their garments and gnash their teeth.


    I can only add, "Put that in your hopium pipe, light it up, and shove it where the sun don't shine."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope McConnell and Ryan grow a spine and fight back.

      Delete
    2. Mystere,
      Do you think they will? They are deathly afraid of the racist card, which Obama knows full well know trumps every other cars in the deck.

      Delete
    3. AOW, I think they know if they don't, they'll get themselves voted out in a flash. I hope they have the guts to fight back and do so for once.

      Delete
  13. From There's precedent for rejecting Obama Supreme Court nominee:

    The last three times a justice was nominated and confirmed in a presidential year were in 1956, 1940 and 1932.

    [...]

    If you want a clear precedent for election-year nomination and confirmation, you have to go back 100 years ago, to 1916, when Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis in January and John Clarke in July.


    Read the entire essay at the above link.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Looks like the naked mole rats in the GOOP are following their time-worn strategy of talking tough off the cuff, and then folding like a house of cards in a rainstorm...

    ...it barely took three days this time...

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-16/republicans-show-signs-of-division-on-supreme-court-tactics

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/16/gop-signs-back-down-vow-block-obama-scotus-nominee/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the GOP folded. Again.

      Delete
  15. Premature evisceration.

    Obama hasn't even floated a name yet and the Republicans are trying to shoot it down.

    To "make a stand for conservatism" as if they had any inkling ehat that means.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Clearly Obama is going to nominate someone. He's playing political football and I hope Senate Republicans put their pads on for once and play using the same set of rules. No room here for Mr. Nice Guy.

    The question is, what should Senate Republicans do? Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has hinted he might have hearings. Big mistake. It's opening Pandora's box. You go through weeks of hearings with the Dem media lauding the nominee (bound to be some sort of minority victim) and then turn him or her down? Then what? Obama nominates ANOTHER victim. This could go on past election day.

    In my view, the better course is to say that NO hearings will be held and NO VOTE. Pretty tough stuff but the negative political fallout would be over more quickly and not this drip, drip, drip of turning down nominees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,
      I agree that the drip, drip, drip you mentioned is the worst possible course. But I doubt that the GOP will go the route of no hearings. We shall see soon enough.

      Delete
    2. But Mike, your hero, Saint Ronnie Raygun, nominated Anthony Kennedy in the last year of his term and clearly Kennedy's nomination passed.

      Why is the situation different now?

      Delete
    3. The Senate is in the middle of a 10-day recess until Monday, Feb 22, giving Mr. Obama a chance to bypass Congress and install a successor quickly. Given Senate Republicans’ vow to block a nomination until the next president takes office in January, a recess appointment could be Mr. Obama’s only real opportunity to get a liberal justice on the bench.

      If a justice is installed through a recess appointment, he or she could serve only through the end of the next session of Congress — the end of 2017, at the latest.

      Delete
    4. Eisenhower made 3 SCOTUS recess appointments

      Delete
    5. Ducky,

      We are a much more polarized nation now. That is what is different.

      Also, Kennedy was only the second time in our nation's history when an opposition party approved a president's nomination is his last year in office.

      They have rejected at least 7, so historical precedent is on the side of the GOP.

      The court has a solid four-person liberal block: Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan (the sanest and smartest of them all, and who will be Chief Justice some day).

      There are now two reliable conservatives on the court: Alito and Thomas (who better start cooking his bacon and eggs himself).

      Rounding out the team are...

      The switch-hitting trans-agendered Justice Kennedy...

      ... and Chief Justice Roberts, who hears voices, sees things that aren't there, and produces law from thin air. I think he studied Blackstone the Magician instead of Blackstone the esteemed British jurist.

      The GOP would be nuts and suicidal to put through one more Obama leftwing loon like So-So Mayor or Ruth ACLU Buzzi.

      Delete
  17. Obama has no class and no respect for our nation's traditions:

    Obama to skip Scalia funeral.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grand Mufti Barack is too big and important to sit through a funeral. He's probably got a tee time at Bushwood Country Club

      Delete
    2. It should be noted that he is attending the memorial service.

      He was not a personal friend of Scalia so it can be understood that he's not attending the funeral service.

      Tempest in a teapot.

      Delete
    3. Duck,
      I disagree. For the record, it is not a tempest, but rather indicative of .Obama's character and tin ear. Just my two cents as one who has attended many funerals because it was the protocol.

      Delete
  18. A very proud Progressive.February 18, 2016 at 7:04:00 AM EST

    Mr. Obama has the brains to pay his respects as he should, today instead of attending the funeral for the Judge and upsetting it by having so much security present. Logistics for the president's security would probably make a mess out of the funeral on Friday, so that's probably why he made the decision to not go but to send Biben instead.send Biden instead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama got brains? Got any proof o dat?

      Delete
    2. He gots da brains in his azz

      Delete
  19. The Grand Opposition Party no longer offers candidates with any value, or credible credentials, but those who find their way into politics due to the inactive voice of moderate and progressive America, leaving only extremists supported by other extremists.

    While the quiet majority wallows in self-pity and apathy to avoid the voting booths, the vociferous minority sends the likes of Ted Cruz, Orin Hatch, Donald Trump, and even David Duke into office. While we protest peacefully, Tea Party rallies turn into aggressive, violent gangs, stomping women's faces into the cement.
    While us democrats have not one but TWO great candidates running.
    Ever hear the expression, there's no comparison !

    ReplyDelete
  20. David Duke? You mean the Democrat who tried to join the GOP 5o years ago and got kicked out? Everybody knows the Democrats are the party of the KKK.

    You got two great candidates? A 1930's commie and a corrupt global influence peddlar and international firebug married to a serial rapist?

    Better have the staff check your meds, grandpa. I got a news flash for you. This is the 21st century.

    ReplyDelete

  21. Wasn't Scalia AWOL at a couple of Obama's State of the Union speeches? Turnabout is a bitch. I saw statistics on how often presidents attended Supreme Court justice funerals and its not like they always do -- often the VP goes, and sometimes I think not even the VP.

    Also, Scalia went to an Italian restaurant instead of attending Obama's 2nd inaugural address. But you didn't hear the bitchers and whiners complain about that because it was disrespecting the president, something they do every day of their petty lives.

    As I said, turnabout is a bitch. Obama owes Nino nothing. I'm glad he's not going. Those awful people complaining demand respect but have no problem giving nothing but insults and contempt to Mr. Obama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Low Class politicians bring out low class worshipers...

      Delete
  22. Shaw, posting comments under different names clearly shows that you have no real say in this argument. As your comments are asinine.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hilda,
      You responded to a sock puppet attempting to impersonate Beak.

      Delete
  25. The loonies on the frightwing blogs question Obama's faith all the time. They believe he's a secret Muslim. 29% of the American people believe Obama is a Muslim thanks to FUX News
    and the idiots who watch it. The Pope is the leader of millions and millions of Catholics and Trump is the leader of building gambling casinos

    ReplyDelete
  26. If the Pope wants to interject his leftist political agenda into this American Presidential campaign, he is fair game now!

    ReplyDelete
  27. THE PROGRESSIVE ASS-HATS WHO POST HERE ARE PATHETIC MORONS,, JUST LIKE THEIR GOD OBAMA, THEY SEEM TO HAVE little OR NO principles except to aggrandize and make themselves more and more important

    ReplyDelete
  28. A very Proud ProgressiveFebruary 20, 2016 at 7:03:00 AM EST

    The American people are not with the Goopers on the issue of nominating a replacement for Scalia. A majority of Americans want the slot filled. Another issue where the Goopers are out of sync with the rest of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  29. President Obama said in a radio interview airing on Monday that Donald J. Trump, a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination, is exploiting the resentment and anxieties of working-class men to boost his campaign. Mr. Obama also argued that some of the scorn directed at him personally stems from the fact that he is the first African-American to hold the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Michael K.February 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM

    Since there has been discovered a heretofore unknown obligation of a president to attend the funeral of a man who loathed him and whose life and work opposed him at every instance, thought I'd remind everybody of the man's own habits while he was alive: Scalia skipped the majority if President Obama's SOTU because he called them "childish." Scalia The Originalist mocks the US Constitution, which stipulates a report to the nation from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Constitution does not specify the the SCOTUS attend the SOTU.

      In this digital age, all can access the SOTU -- live or later.

      Delete
    2. These polls which support the lunacy of "progressives" only seem to appear in their stupid ramblings on conservative blogs.

      Delete
    3. I find it amazing that they think they quote the Constitution when they only regurgitate their own self serving opinions but then, denial of realty seems to be the guiding principle of leftists of any stripe.

      Delete
    4. HI, Warren.

      The hypocrisy is sometimes astounding, isn't it?

      Do they hear the duplicity spewing from their own mouths? Naw.

      Delete
    5. Warren,
      As you know, the trolls proliferate during any election year.

      This year is especially bad in that regard because there is no incumbent POTUS.

      Delete
    6. "The Constitution does not specify the the SCOTUS attend the SOTU."

      I didn't write that the Supremes are constitutionally bound to attend the SOTU, I pointed out that the "Originalist" thought the SOTU address by the POTUS was childish, and therefore he did not attend. Just as a Supreme is not bound to attend a SOTU, neither is a POTUS bound to attend the funeral service of a Supreme. It's a matter of choice. Scalia chose not to attend the president's address to the nation, and the president chose not to attend the religious service. It's that simple.

      Delete
  31. As FT said "Yes, the Constitution says the president has the power –– and the duty –– to nominate anyone he wants for the high court when a vacancy arises, but the nomination can only be confirmed with the ADVICE and CONSENT of the senate. Moreover there is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that compels the senate to CONFIRM the nominee.

    Game, Set, Match.

    AOW, yes we've had that discussion. Originally in 2008 I believe. (as per the trolls crawling out from under the bridge)

    It only gets worse as the election comes closer and as we get tired of the mass stupidity of Democrats and their never ending avarice for power, control and money plus their base of the mentally deficient "entitled".

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective