News Obama planning to nominate a new Justice to US Supreme Court

[SteamKing]

Ike's suggestion (I vaguely recall) was a twenty-year term limit. Our Constitution is in need of an overhaul, but that will never happen. Did you know that if no candidate gets a majority in the electoral college then the House of Reps chooses, with each state getting one vote? That's two hundred years out of date.

There's good reasons not to have a Supreme Law that's newer than last week. It takes time to shake all the bugs out.

The Twelfth Amendment was one of those corrections to the original document which needed to be made concerning the election of the president and vice-president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The House gets to elect the president, with each state's delegation getting one vote to cast. It would be interesting to see how a state delegation split along party lines would decide for which candidate to cast its vote.

The vice-president is chosen by the senate, with each senator getting one vote.

Only the election of 1824 has been decided by the procedure prescribed under this amendment.

The amendment process works pretty well, but it can be slow at times. The states are given the power to call a constitutional convention should a need arise for more changes than could be practically addressed by amendment. Some 28 states have passed resolutions calling for a new constitutional convention, with the minimum threshold being two-thirds (34) of the states, which is fewer states than are needed to ratify a constitutional amendment (three quarters or 38 states).

Scalia's reign was loathsome. I read some of his opinions. What a moron! He cited the TV show 24 Hours in one of his opinions. The R's will consider no candidate because they want to appoint another Scalia.

Well, at least Scalia could point to something concrete in his decision making. Some of Anthony Kennedy's reasoning sounds like it was cribbed from a fortune cookie.

 

[Hornbein]

The amendment process works pretty well, but it can be slow at times.

According to Wikipedia, it took 202 years for the 27th amendment to be ratified.

Did you know that the USSC has no constitutional authority to strike down laws as unconstitutional? They just did it, and the action stood. Madison vs. Marbury. I think of this whenever anyone declares himself a constitutional fundamentalist.

Monsanto and four other major chemical companies were fined over a billion dollars for fixing the price of urethane. They dropped their appeal when Scalia died.

 

[jim hardy]

There is a movement in the states to have the Presidency decided by popular vote. It is fairly close to passing. It gets no publicity.

It's treason.

Unravel constitutional checks and balances at your own peril.
My ignoramus state representative actually voted for that subterfuge.
When i explained to him the purpose of the EC his jaw dropped.
But he was replaced next election anyway.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.

Let the radicals stuff ballot boxes and intimidate voters. Electors make the choice.

 

[mheslep]

There is a movement in the states to have the Presidency decided by popular vote. It is fairly close to passing. It gets no publicity.

NPVIC has 61% of the 270 electoral votes needed after 7 yrs of efforts. The measure has been introduced in all 50 states and failed in most. Not so close, so not much publicity.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

 

[Derek Francis]

It's well within the constitutional powers of the president to appoint a SCOTUS Justice during their term. The constitution does not prohibit deciding a Justice on election year. This is politically motivated on the Republicans' part.

This is yet another example of how politicians are strict constitutionalists when it's in their favor, but ignore the constitution when it's not in their favor.

 

[mheslep]

It's well within the constitutional powers of the president to appoint a SCOTUS Justice during their term. The constitution does not prohibit deciding a Justice on election year. This is politically motivated on the Republicans' part.

This is yet another example of how politicians are strict constitutionalists when it's in their favor, but ignore the constitution when it's not in their favor.

See, " with the Advice and Consent of the Senate " in the Constitution, which can take any form the Senate sees fit. In this case, the Senate sees fit not to accept any more nominees from a President, well into the election, who has already placed two justices. Elections have consequences.

Also see the so called Biden Rule, so named after the VP who, when a Senator in a Democratic majority, suggested the same action

 

[Derek Francis]

You do illustrate a major problem in our partisan political system. Obama enjoyed the filibuster in Congress, but didn't enjoy when his legislation was being filibustered. I'm saying, Democrat or Republican, the constitution is the constitution. If Biden said that election-year picks should be delayed, then he was just as wrong as the Republicans' are.

There are things we can debate on the constitutionality of such as health care mandates and such. But there are things that are plainly described in the constitution such as the role of the Supreme Court and how a justice is appointed.

Plain and simple, there are reasons to reject a SCOTUS justice. Inexperience, lack of qualification, corruption and so on. But to reject a SCOTUS Justice because of partisan politics is not what the founders intended.

I do understand the GOP's fears to some extent. They lost a conservative justice and the SCOTUS is groomed to be the most liberal it's been decades. They see the United States moving away from it's original fundamental principles and a liberal SCOTUS would cement it. That, however, does not excuse this level of obstructionism.

I'm a liberal independent, but I'm also able to be objective. When Roberts sided against gay marriage, even though I disagreed with him, I defended his decision in front of my liberal social circle. My overall point was that the SCOTUS is not supposed to be a second Congress or a partisan institution. The fact that we have conservative and liberal Justices demonstrates a key failing in our system.

We should reform the Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment and we should have an in depth discussion on its merits and faults, and how its role today is different than when it was created. However, it shouldn't be done in a partisan way.

 

[jim hardy]

Plain and simple, there are reasons to reject a SCOTUS justice. Inexperience, lack of qualification, corruption and so on. But to reject a SCOTUS Justice because of partisan politics is not what the founders intended.

My thoughts

They're hard nosed horse traders, posturing.

If it looks like Hillary might win
conservatives will hurriedly confirm Garland
on the premise he's at least somewhat centrist , a better offer than they're apt to get later.

 

[Derek Francis]

Yes, the proposition is basically take Obama's 60 year old moderate Justice or take Hillary's 45 year old super-liberal Justice.

 

[mheslep]

... If Biden said that election-year picks should be delayed, then he was just as wrong as the Republicans' are.

Constitutionally, Biden was not wrong. You may not have liked the Biden Rule, and the solution for that is also available: the ballot box.

Biere are things we can debate on the constitutionality of such as health care mandates and such. But there are things that are plainly described in the constitution such as the role of the Supreme Court and how a justice is appointed.

I quoted the relevant clause, which does not say hold committee hearings on TV,

But to reject a SCOTUS Justice because of partisan politics is not what the founders intended.

The power of consent is given to the Senate, a political body, an elected body. The current action is unassailably on constitutional grounds.

For examples of recent unconstitutional actions, see the dozen or so unanimous SCOTUS decisions against the Obama administration. The recess appointment decision comes to mind, where the Obama administration asserted it could determine when the Senate was in recess and not the Senate itself.

 

[Derek Francis]

You may not have liked the Biden Rule, and the solution for that is also available: the ballot box.

Voters already did decide at the ballot box in 2012 to keep Obama for a second term. I've never heard of a case in which a president (and their party) had to win two elections in order to keep all of their presidential powers for one term. One election means one full term.

I think it's always been understood that the right for Senators to deny a SCOTUS pick only in extreme cases, such as them being wholly unqualified. It's generally always been that the SCOTUS pick would be accepted so long as they're actually an experience judge and they haven't molested any children or something like that.

 

[Evo]

Well Mitch McConnell says no Supreme Court Justice can be approved unless the NRA (National Rifle Association) approves them. So the NRA gets to pick our new Supreme Court Justice?

McConnell: No New Supreme Court Justice Until The NRA Approves Of The Nominee

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and appointed with the advice and consent of the National Rifle Association, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The Majority Leader’s statement is significant for several reasons.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2b741dea-644c-34d1-b7e2-e870df0a0b68/ss_mcconnell%3A-no-new-supreme.html?nhp=1

The Senate Defers to the N.R.A.

It turns out that the most important voice in the Supreme Court nomination battle is not the American people’s, as Senate Republicans have insisted from the moment Justice Antonin Scalia died last month. It is not even that of the senators. It’s the National Rifle Association’s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/opinion/the-senate-defers-to-the-nra.html?_r=0

 

[Mark44]

I think it's always been understood that the right for Senators to deny a SCOTUS pick only in extreme cases, such as them being wholly unqualified.

The "right" is as laid out in the Constitution, the "advise and consent" part. The Senate denied the choice of Robert Bork, who was eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

 

[Mark44]

Well Mitch McConnell says no Supreme Court Justice can be approved unless the NRA (National Rifle Association) approves them. So the NRA gets to pick our new Supreme Court Justice?

Sounds good to me (an NRA member, one of 5,000,000)... And to turn the tables, don't you think that Harry Reid would have been beholden to, say, NARAL or any number of other groups for earlier SCOTUS picks?

 

[Evo]

Sounds good to me (an NRA member, one of 5,000,000)...

Well, you are definitely in the minority with 242,470, 820 adults in the USA. Absolutely no way the NRA should be in any position to decide the election of a Supreme Court Judge.

As 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 242,470,820 adults living in the United States. The total population was estimated at 316,128,839 people, with 76.7 percent of those people being over 18.

 

[Mark44]

Well, you are definitely in the minority with 242,470, 820 adults in the USA.

That may be, but there are more than (edited) 5,000,000 in the country who are armed, and the NRA speaks for them as well.

 

[Evo]

That may be, but there are more than 5,000,000,000 in the country who are armed, and the NRA speaks for them as well.

What? Five billion armed Americans? The total population of the US is only 316,128,839.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sounds good to me

On principle why do you think it's a good idea? The NRA is a public office? I don't remember seeing them on a ballot.

 

[Mark44]

What? Five billion armed Americans? The total population of the US is only 316,128,839.

I got overzealous with my zeroes. There are more than 5,000,000 armed Americans...

 

[Evo]

I got overzealous with my zeroes. There are more than 5,000,000 armed Americans...

Also, they can lobby, they pay politicians to sway their votes, that's the way it's done, I'm not naive. But to state that the NRA has the final and only decision is WRONG. McConnell comes across as a nutter, even if what he says is the way it's really going to happen. If the NRA makes these kinds of decisions, if the NRA controls the Senate, it's scary and McConnell has officially let the cat out of the bag. IMO.

 

[Mark44]

On principle why do you think it's a good idea?

The NRA is one of many groups that lobbies for various policies and for or against various political appointments. I, along with virtually every other of my fellow NRA members, wants a nominee to the Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment. The Founders believed that the citizens of this nation would not be able to maintain their freedom if unarmed.

Just in case anyone doesn't know it, the Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There are way too many on the Left, from Michael Bloomberg on down, who would gladly infringe upon this amendment, either wholesale, if they could, or little by little, with gun registration, lawsuits against companies manufacturing firearms and ammunition, and lots of other regulations.

The NRA is a public office? I don't remember seeing them on a ballot.

Nor have I seen NARAL or any number of other groups on the ballot, either, but so what?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I, along with virtually every other of my fellow NRA members, wants a nominee to the Supreme Court to protect the Second Amendment.

I want my freedom of speech protected too. Should we require the porn industry to approve of a nominee? Seems like a lot of power to give special interest groups.

 

[russ_watters]

It is an unfortunate reality that a lot of politicians on both sides have benchmark issues that are non-negotiable to them. The only thing I see surprising here is that he's so explicit about it.

Note, however, that he's being misquoted/misinterpreted here. What he actually said is this:

"...can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses."

He didn't say they have veto/approval power, only that he couldn't imagine a nominee that both organizations (not one or the other) opposed of. A much weaker statement than their interpretation of it. This is a nothingburger that they are trying to hype beyond what it is. But the source is ThinkProgress, so...

 

[Evo]

Just in case anyone doesn't know it, the Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To me the key here is "militia", we are no longer in need of a local militia, so there is no longer a need for people to keep and bear arms to form a militia. I think the 2nd Amendment became obsolete a long time ago and needs to be removed. We're not going to start another gun thread, I'm not against people owning guns, this is about the insane (IMO) revelation that the NRA is being allowed by our Senate to decide on the next Supreme Court Justice.

Edit: Didn't see Russ's post, but I still feel that the NRA has too much influence. I do feel that if the NRA says no, the nominee has no chance. Russ, what do you think, would the Senate go against the NRA?

 

[Derek Francis]

I'm not trying to vilify responsible gun owners, but I personally don't see the point of collecting scores of guns and needing assault rifles.
Mod note: Deleted trolling comment

 

[Mark44]

To me the key here is "militia", we are no longer in need of a local militia, so there is no longer a need for people to keep and bear arms to form a militia.

The recent rulings of the Supreme Court follow the original intent of the writers of the constitution, that it doesn't refer to an "official militia," but rather to the plain old folks who picked up their rifles and stood against the Redcoats. See the Heller decision.

I think the 2nd Amendment became obsolete a long time ago and needs to be removed.

Your sentifment is exactly why I am a member of the NRA -- there are too many people who believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

 

[Evo]

The recent rulings of the Supreme Court follow the original intent of the writers of the constitution, that it doesn't refer to an "official militia," but rather to the plain old folks who picked up their rifles and stood against the Redcoats. See the Heller decision.

Your sentifment is exactly why I am a member of the NRA -- there are too many people who believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it says.

Many things no longer have any use or meaning. Times have changed drastically over the past 200 years, things that the people that wrote the constitution couldn't ever dream of, if they were here today, I'm sure they would re-write it. We have police, we have sheriffs and state troopers, a National Guard, we have the military, none of these things existed when the constitution was written. It's obvious that parts of the Constitution are grossly obsolete, it's old, things have changed.

 

[Mark44]

I'm not trying to vilify responsible gun owners, but I personally don't see the point of collecting scores of guns and needing assault rifles.

Virtually no one in the US has an "assault rifle," which by definition has a selector switch so that it can be fired in full-auto mode. The guns that an ordinary citizen can purchase are semi-auto only.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This has been interesting, but let's make sure we don't turn this into a gun rights debate

 

[Mark44]

Times have changed drastically over the past 200 years, things that the people that wrote the constitution couldn't ever dream of, if they were here today, I'm sure they would re-write it. It's obvious that parts of the Constitution are grossly obsolete, it's old, things have changed.

Times have changed, yes, but people haven't. What parts are grossly obsolete? Apart from the 3/5 of a person for slaves, I can't think of anything that is "grossly obsolete." The Framers were wise enough to leave room for changes to the Constitution, which they deemed to be too important to be left only to majority rule.