Still not responding factually or accurately. Just more insults.

Read the Constitution, and show us where it says Obama has to wait.

Simply amazing how liberals become rabid constitutionalists when it benefits them...simply AMAZING.....

No one knows who Obama will nominate. He will have to ask Al Sharpton first.

You noticed that too?

he has to wait until Senate approves his Appointee!
That's the Idea of "Advise And CONSENT"!

Shortly after Scalia's death was confirmed, the communications director for Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, a member of the Judiciary Committee, signaled the battle ahead.

Conn Carroll posted on Twitter: "What is less than zero? The chances of Obama successfully appointing a Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia."

Here's Obama's shortlist for new Supreme Court Justice

Laura Bult NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Updated: 02/13/2016 9:08 PM ET


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/obama-shortlist-new-supreme-court-justice-article-1.2530852/

Again, you are ignoring what I said. I ALSO said it is advise and consent. What I have been criticizing, are those who say that Obama should be told not be allowed to SUBMIT anyone for consent.

THOSE are the people who are ignoring the Constitution.

February 14, 2016
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.



BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

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

seems there are a few that are ignoring what you said....

hypocrisy does

Reagan isn't considered any less 'american' for having done it on his way out

Dems passed the resolution!

Are you dense? I NEVER said he HAD to wait you frickin genius...I mplied its in the best interest of an ALREADY divided country that he allow an election to take place that would allow the PEOPLE to nominate the next justice by way of their vote in NINE months.
THAT is MY opinion....if YOU cant understand that, thats on YOU...but dont put words in my mouth.

And DONT give me that excuse of "oh there are cases that will be missed" crap....there will ALREADY be cases that will be heard with 8 justices while waiting on Dear Leaders liberal hack justice to be confirmed.

Finally....if EeyoreFranksAndBeans cant get it now....someone else PLEASE explain it to him....be warned though, his wall of "logic" smells alot like a wall of bs...

Yea, they ignore him because no one cares what he said.

Everyone knows how libtards are.
If Obonzo farts, it's an edict from god.

Here's another fun fact: Kennedy was nominated BEFORE Reagan's final year, then only because of Bork's and Ginsburg's withdrawals. Of course neither withdrew because of support from the other side of the aisle.

Yes, from the toothless one.

Reid blocked everything the Democrats thought would HURT Obama's agenda if it got through the senate.
McConnell is going to block everything the Republicans think will HELP Obama's agenda.
Chuck Schumer said the Democrats should block any SCOTUS nomination the President Bush made 18 months before the end of Bush's term.

The Democrats and Republicans are basically cut from opposite ends of the same cloth.

http://nypost.com/2016/02/14/scalias-gift-to-america-saving-the-supreme-court/

Scalia’s gift to America — saving the Supreme Court

By Post Editorial Board

Modal TriggerTrigger

Scalia’s gift to America — saving the Supreme Court

Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death at 79 robs the high court of one of its most important and influential jurists ever.

President Obama’s announced intent to choose Scalia’s successor promises a bitter battle — and a futile one: No Supreme Court nominee been named and confirmed in a presidential election year since 1940.

Nor should partisan rancor overshadow the record Scalia built in three decades on the high court, whose fundamental outlook he helped redefine through his brilliant mind, pointed wit and zest for intellectual combat.

A Jersey native who grew up in Elmhurst, Queens, Scalia was already the leader of the fight against judicial activism when he became the first Italian-American justice.

Indeed, as Elena Kagan said long before she joined the high court, Scalia “really transformed the terms of legal debate in this country. He is the justice who has had the most important impact
over the years on how we think and talk about law.”

Scalia was the most eloquent and passionate advocate of “original understanding” — the notion that judges should decide a law’s constitutionality by its actual words, not the “intent” behind it or the needs of society.

“It is not supposed to be our judgment as to what is the socially desirable answer to all of these questions,” he said. “That’s supposed to be the judgment of Congress.”

Indeed, he wrote in one of his many memorable opinions, “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

He believed not in a “living” Constitution, subject to “the passions of the moment that may cause individual liberties to be disregarded,” but an “enduring” one, dedicated to federalism and the separation of powers.

Which is why, though a strong social conservative, he argued that Constitution neither guarantees the right to an abortion nor precludes the states from allowing it.

This divide over the purpose of judicial power is the main reason confirmation fights have become circuses. Scalia was confirmed unanimously — which would never happen today.

In his remarkable 30-year tenure, Scalia became the left’s favorite judicial bogeyman. Yet his closest personal relationships on the court were with his two most liberal colleagues, Justices
Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who once said, “I love him. But sometimes I just want to strangle him.”

Best known for his thunderous dissents, he also penned (at least) his share of than landmark majority opinions. Everything he wrote was eminently quotable.

As Terry Eastland noted in The Weekly Standard a decade ago, Scalia wrote for the long term, aiming to influence the next generation of lawyers. That he most certainly did — and this nation and its rule of law are much the better for it. RIP.

Filed under antonin scalia , editorial ,


Ginsburg : that is her quote, however she said that in reference to an argument over opera. Which they both loved & had in common. This is in other recent articles *
----------------------------------------
Top Stories: Antonin Scalia’s Death Puts A Spotlight On West Texas
By Krystina Martinez • 6 hours ago

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died at Cibolo Creek Ranch, a remote resort ranch south of Marfa.

http://keranews.org/post/top-stories-antonin-scalia-s-death-puts-spotlight-west-texas/ * AUDIO- 07:36 seconds*

The top local stories this morning from KERA News: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death this weekend has caused a scramble in Washington to find his replacement. It’s also put a spotlight on West Texas.

Scalia died at a remote resort ranch in West Texas. The location was so far removed that the inquest had to be done by telephone.