Supreme Court Nominees

[Perianne]

The Supreme Court:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg - 82 years old - Bill Clinton
Antonin Scalia - 79 years old - Ronald Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - 79 years old - Ronald Reagan
Stephen Breyer - 77 years old - Bill Clinton
Clarence Thomas - 67 years old - George H. W. Bush
John Roberts - 61 years old - George W. Bush
Sonia Sotomayor - 61 years old - Hussein Obama
Elena Keagan - 55 years old - Hussein Obama
Samuel Alito - 55 years old - George W. Bush

By the time the next person is sworn in as President, all the above will be one year older than is listed.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is essentially deceased already. Antonin Scalia remains as the greatest Justice ever. Kennedy is an unreliable vote. Breyer is so far leftwing it is ridiculous. These four are already over 75 years old.

It is not far-fetched to figure that the next president could nominate 3-4 candidates for the Supreme Court. Other than immigration, the Supreme Court nomination process is the most important thing the next president will do.

Who do you put the most faith in to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court?

Hands down, I have to give this to Ted Cruz.

Your thoughts?

[LongTermGuy]

The Supreme Court:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg - 82 years old - Bill Clinton
Antonin Scalia - 79 years old - Ronald Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - 79 years old - Ronald Reagan
Stephen Breyer - 77 years old - Bill Clinton
Clarence Thomas - 67 years old - George H. W. Bush
John Roberts - 61 years old - George W. Bush
Sonia Sotomayor - 61 years old - Hussein Obama
Elena Keagan - 55 years old - Hussein Obama
Samuel Alito - 55 years old - George W. Bush

By the time the next person is sworn in as President, all the above will be one year older than is listed.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is essentially deceased already. Antonin Scalia remains as the greatest Justice ever. Kennedy is an unreliable vote. Breyer is so far leftwing it is ridiculous. These four are already over 75 years old.

It is not far-fetched to figure that the next president could nominate 3-4 candidates for the Supreme Court. Other than immigration, the Supreme Court nomination process is the most important thing the next president will do.

Who do you put the most faith in to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court?

Hands down, I have to give this to Ted Cruz.

Your thoughts?

My Thoughts...Trump / Cruz in office together...still a possibility "IMO"....Nowadays there are so many definitions views / Opinions on the word "Conservative" besides the standard flow of thought...

Let me put it this way...I feel Trump will put the "right" people in...and it wont be Trump alone trying to make the decision...he will have the best advisers for whats best for the country and "in line" with his already stated Promises ....again...just my Opinion...

[Black Diamond]

The Supreme Court:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg - 82 years old - Bill Clinton
Antonin Scalia - 79 years old - Ronald Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - 79 years old - Ronald Reagan
Stephen Breyer - 77 years old - Bill Clinton
Clarence Thomas - 67 years old - George H. W. Bush
John Roberts - 61 years old - George W. Bush
Sonia Sotomayor - 61 years old - Hussein Obama
Elena Keagan - 55 years old - Hussein Obama
Samuel Alito - 55 years old - George W. Bush

By the time the next person is sworn in as President, all the above will be one year older than is listed.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is essentially deceased already. Antonin Scalia remains as the greatest Justice ever. Kennedy is an unreliable vote. Breyer is so far leftwing it is ridiculous. These four are already over 75 years old.

It is not far-fetched to figure that the next president could nominate 3-4 candidates for the Supreme Court. Other than immigration, the Supreme Court nomination process is the most important thing the next president will do.

Who do you put the most faith in to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court?

Hands down, I have to give this to Ted Cruz.

Your thoughts?

Cruz would be most likely to nominate conservative judges. For sure.

[Perianne]

The question might be solved if Hillary wins. Gag.


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is open to the idea of nominating President Barack Obama for a seat on the Supreme Court, she said Tuesday, responding to a question at an Iowa town hall.


“I will certainly take that under advisement,” she said in Decorah, responding to a man’s recommendation. “I mean, he's brilliant, he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor, so he’s got lots of credentials.”


She acknowledged that there might be a few obstacles in the way, first and foremost whether Obama would want the job after eight years in the White House. “He may have a few other things to do,” she said, “but I’ll tell you, that’s a great idea.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-01-26/clinton-open-to-idea-of-appointing-obama-to-supreme-court

[glockmail]

Since Cruz has the most experience of any senator arguing at the Supreme level and has been a consistent conservative throughout his career, he's the obvious choice here.

One wonders just how delusional Ginsberg and Breyer must be not to retire during The Obama presidency, risking the possibility of a Republican winning the presidency in 2016.

[Perianne]

The Supreme Court:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg - 82 years old - Bill Clinton
Antonin Scalia - 79 years old - Ronald Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - 79 years old - Ronald Reagan
Stephen Breyer - 77 years old - Bill Clinton
Clarence Thomas - 67 years old - George H. W. Bush
John Roberts - 61 years old - George W. Bush
Sonia Sotomayor - 61 years old - Hussein Obama
Elena Keagan - 55 years old - Hussein Obama
Samuel Alito - 55 years old - George W. Bush

By the time the next person is sworn in as President, all the above will be one year older than is listed.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is essentially deceased already. Antonin Scalia remains as the greatest Justice ever. Kennedy is an unreliable vote. Breyer is so far leftwing it is ridiculous. These four are already over 75 years old.

It is not far-fetched to figure that the next president could nominate 3-4 candidates for the Supreme Court. Other than immigration, the Supreme Court nomination process is the most important thing the next president will do.

Who do you put the most faith in to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court?

Hands down, I have to give this to Ted Cruz.

Your thoughts?

Hands down, I still have to give this to Cruz. Scalia's death today changes the scene for me.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Damn sure is mighty convenient that he died before the obama goes out and Trump(or any other Republican) comes in huh? And he was the most vocal , respected one that opposed the treasonous acts of the obama traitor.
I do not care who(what entity) certifies his death was by natural causes I'd be my life and every damn thing that I own that he was murdered and that deed was done to give obama this last chance to seed another fing traitor onto the SCOTUS.
Folks, odds are about 999 to 1 that he was murdered to insure the gains by obama, and the globalists are not destroyed and even further gains in the near future are achieved IMHO.
I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO TAKE PLACE WHILE THE TRAITOR IS STILL IN OFFICE.

GAFFER AND I EVEN DISCUSSED IT SEVERAL TIMES IN EMAILS!!-TYR

[tailfins]

Let Obama make a recess appointment or leave the court 4-4. Let's hope McConnell doesn't confirm someone like Elizabeth Warren with mostly Democrat votes.

[Black Diamond]

Here's the deal:


Either this do nothing Senate blocks Obama from another communist justice in which case we are voting for two branches of government..


Or we are screwed

[NightTrain]

This could not have happened at a worse time.

GOP had better drag this out until we get another President in the saddle or we're finished.

[Perianne]

Hands down, I still have to give this to Cruz. Scalia's death today changes the scene for me.

And strangely enough, I believe Rubio would be true to the conservative cause and nominate a conservative judge.

[Black Diamond]

This could not have happened at a worse time.

GOP had better drag this out until we get another President in the saddle or we're finished.

It will show the degree to which Republicans are on Obama's side

[Perianne]

This is yet another twist in an already difficult election season.

The Democrats should play this for all it is worth. Nominate some openly-gay homosexual sodomite. The Repubs will be afraid of being called names and will be tempted to approve it. If they don't approve, then the Dems and media will throw snot balls at the Repubs. Then Hussein can nominate anyone he chooses and the Repubs will approve.

We are doomed.

[fj1200]

This could not have happened at a worse time.

GOP had better drag this out until we get another President in the saddle or we're finished.

I disagree. :eek: Let's say the worst happens and BO gets his commie/leftie... The Republicans win with, say, Cruz who will likely get to replace Ginsburg with a conservative justice and Kennedy with a more conservative justice likely at the very least in a first term. Less likely in a first term and more likely in two terms gets to replace Breyer with a solid conservative justice.


The Supreme Court:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg - 82 years old - Bill Clinton - Conservative replacement
Antonin Scalia - 79 years old - Ronald Reagan - Leftie at worst replacement
Anthony Kennedy - 79 years old - Ronald Reagan - Conservative replacement
Stephen Breyer - 77 years old - Bill Clinton - Conservative replacement
Clarence Thomas - 67 years old - George H. W. Bush - Conservative
John Roberts - 61 years old - George W. Bush - Conservative
Sonia Sotomayor - 61 years old - Hussein Obama - Leftie
Elena Keagan - 55 years old - Hussein Obama - Leftie
Samuel Alito - 55 years old - George W. Bush - Conservative


By my count that gives three replacements plus Thomas, Roberts, and Alito with a solid 6 vote majority. Perhaps not engaging in a completely obstructionist manner will help us in the end by forcing BO to appoint and non-leftie hack. All is not lost unless we muff this election.

[fj1200]

We are doomed.

Not at all.

[glockmail]

I disagree. :eek: Let's say the worst happens and BO gets his commie/leftie... The Republicans win with, say, Cruz who will likely get to replace Ginsburg with a conservative justice and Kennedy with a more conservative justice likely at the very least in a first term. Less likely in a first term and more likely in two terms gets to replace Breyer with a solid conservative justice.



By my count that gives three replacements plus Thomas, Roberts, and Alito with a solid 6 vote majority. Perhaps not engaging in a completely obstructionist manner will help us in the end by forcing BO to appoint and non-leftie hack. All is not lost unless we muff this election.

Good point. Except, however, that is Ginsberg were to keel off the Democrats would have her on perpetual life support, brain dead, and wouldn't pull the plug until the next Democrat gets elected.

[Kathianne]

I disagree. :eek: Let's say the worst happens and BO gets his commie/leftie... The Republicans win with, say, Cruz who will likely get to replace Ginsburg with a conservative justice and Kennedy with a more conservative justice likely at the very least in a first term. Less likely in a first term and more likely in two terms gets to replace Breyer with a solid conservative justice.



By my count that gives three replacements plus Thomas, Roberts, and Alito with a solid 6 vote majority. Perhaps not engaging in a completely obstructionist manner will help us in the end by forcing BO to appoint and non-leftie hack. All is not lost unless we muff this election.

I disagree with your 'completely obstructionist' regarding not confirming-I'm still undecided about even holding hearings.

As you mentioned regarding marriage, the 14th, etc., there is history here with what the Democrats have done with much more time between the vacancy and the elections. Nope, the Senate should stand firm and let whomever wins in November name their choice.

[Black Diamond]

I disagree with your 'completely obstructionist' regarding not confirming-I'm still undecided about even holding hearings.

As you mentioned regarding marriage, the 14th, etc., there is history here with what the Democrats have done with much more time between the vacancy and the elections. Nope, the Senate should stand firm and let whomever wins in November name their choice.

Yeah I am not willing to take a chance on Obama getting his way either. Enough is enough.

[fj1200]

Good point. Except, however, that is Ginsberg were to keel off the Democrats would have her on perpetual life support, brain dead, and wouldn't pull the plug until the next Democrat gets elected.

Be that as it may she is now my favorite Justice outside of the conservative ones for her dogged perseverance. ;)


I disagree with your 'completely obstructionist' regarding not confirming-I'm still undecided about even holding hearings.

As you mentioned regarding marriage, the 14th, etc., there is history here with what the Democrats have done with much more time between the vacancy and the elections. Nope, the Senate should stand firm and let whomever wins in November name their choice.

If acting in such a manner were to negatively impact the likelihood of a Republican win in November then it should be considered. Whatever your opinion on that even in a worst case scenario things look good assuming a Republican president.

[Kathianne]

Be that as it may she is now my favorite Justice outside of the conservative ones for her dogged perseverance. ;)



If acting in such a manner were to negatively impact the likelihood of a Republican win in November then it should be considered. Whatever your opinion on that even in a worst case scenario things look good assuming a Republican president.

Somehow it's always twisted that the Republicans should take the 'higher road' while losing issue after issue; appointment after appointment.

That is the type of argument that has led to the Democrats winning the long game on not just specific election results, but cultural changes. It's also led to the current state of the pseudo Conservative party and the current leader for it's presidential choice.

I don't think that the tone of the majority needs to mirror Obama's 'shut up! I won!' I do think though they must answer what has gone before with the same in return. Explain why, but don't just cave.

[fj1200]

I don't think that the tone of the majority needs to mirror Obama's 'shut up! I won!' I do think though they must answer what has gone before with the same in return. Explain why, but don't just cave.

True, but at this point it's politics which is a dangerous game. :eek:

[Kathianne]

True, but at this point it's politics which is a dangerous game. :eek:

Everything is politics.

[Kathianne]

Related:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/republicans-win-nino-article-1.2536350


Republicans, let's win this one for Nino

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, February 18, 2016, 8:00 PM
BY CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors?author=Charles-Krauthammer)

Let’s understand something about the fight to fill the Supreme Court seat of Antonin (“Nino”) Scalia. This is about nothing but raw power. Any appeal you hear to high principle is phony — brazenly, embarrassingly so.


In Year Seven of the George W. Bush administration, Sen. Chuck Schumer publicly opposed filling any Supreme Court vacancy until Bush left office. (“Except in extraordinary circumstances.” None such arose. Surprise!) Today he piously denounces Republicans for doing exactly the same for a vacancy created in Year Eight of Barack Obama.


Republicans, say the Democrats, owe the President deference. Elections have consequences and Obama won re-election in 2012.

Yes. And the Republicans won the Senate in 2014 — if anything, a more proximal assertion of popular will. And both have equal standing in appointing a Supreme Court justice.

It’s hard to swallow demands for deference from a party that for seven years has cheered Obama’s serial constitutional depredations: his rewriting the immigration laws by executive order (stayed by the courts); his reordering the energy economy by regulation (stayed by the courts); his enacting the nuclear deal with Iran, the most important treaty of this generation, without the required two-thirds of the Senate (by declaring it an executive agreement).

Minority Leader Harry Reid complains about the Senate violating precedent if it refuses a lame-duck nominee. This is rich. It is Reid who just two years ago overthrew all precedent by abolishing the filibuster for most judicial and high executive appointments. In the name of what grand constitutional principle did Reid resort to a parliamentary maneuver so precedent-shattering that it was called the nuclear option? None. He did it in order to pack the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia with liberals who would reliably deflect challenges to Obamacare.


On Tuesday, Obama loftily called upon Congress to rise above ideology and partisanship in approving his nominee. When asked how he could square that with his 2006 support of a filibuster to stop the appointment of Samuel Alito, Obama replied with a four-minute word salad signifying nothing. There is no answer. It was situational constitutional principle, i.e., transparent hypocrisy.


As I said, this is all about raw power. When the Democrats had it, they used it. The Republicans are today wholly justified in saying they will not allow this outgoing President to overturn the balance of the Supreme Court. The matter should be decided by the coming election. Does anyone doubt that Democrats would be saying exactly that if the circumstances were reversed?


Which makes this Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s moment. He and his cohorts have taken a lot of abuse from “anti-establishment” candidates and media for not using their congressional majorities to repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, block executive orders, etc.


What was the 2014 election about, they say? We won and got nothing. We were lied to and betrayed by a corrupt leadership beholden to the “Washington cartel.”


As it happens, under our Constitution, the opposition party cannot govern without the acquiescence of the President, which it will not get, or a two-thirds majority of the Congress, which it does not have.


But no matter. Things are different now. Appointing a Supreme Court justice is a two-key operation. The President proposes, the Senate disposes. There is no reason McConnell cannot hold the line. And he must. The stakes here — a radical generation-long reversal of direction of the Supreme Court — are the highest this Senate will ever face.

If McConnell succeeds, he will have resoundingly answered the “what did we get for 2014?” question. Imagine if the Senate were now in Democratic hands. What we got in 2014 was the power to hold on to Scalia’s seat and to the court’s conservative majority.


But only for now. Blocking an Obama nominee buys just a year. The final outcome depends on November 2016. If the GOP nominates an unelectable or unconservative candidate, a McConnell victory will be nothing more than a stay of execution.


In 2012, Scalia averred that he would not retire until there was a more ideologically congenial President in the White House. “I would not like to be replaced,” he explained, “by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I’ve tried to do for 25 years.”


Scalia never got to choose the timing of his leaving office. Those who value the legacy of those now-30 years will determine whether his last wish will be vindicated. Let McConnell do his thing. Then in November it’s for us to win one for Nino.