Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Experts.....Can Obama nominate new Justice in time before November? Is there time?? (Original Post) Logical Feb 2016 OP
Even if he "could," s/he would never get approved by the Senate, obviously. villager Feb 2016 #1
4-4 splits go the defendant's side, or to the status quo Bucky Feb 2016 #3
That's what I figured. Meaning, they can't do anymore damage until a 9th new justice is appointed.. villager Feb 2016 #10
They don't want to "destroy the country" Bucky Feb 2016 #16
More Commie hysteria, I guess. Sure, who needs a climate or an economy? villager Feb 2016 #17
Yes, but the republicans will give him a warning not to itsrobert Feb 2016 #2
I agree! I would love Obama!! nt Logical Feb 2016 #6
Damn, what a good idea. ret5hd Feb 2016 #7
President's don't appoint SC Justice's, they nominate, GGJohn Feb 2016 #4
True, I worded it wrong. Changed it. Thanks! Logical Feb 2016 #8
No problem. eom. GGJohn Feb 2016 #11
Senator Phil E. Buster will become the new majority leader Bucky Feb 2016 #13
They do appoint them after they are confirmed. NYC Liberal Feb 2016 #20
is America ready for a Protestant Supreme Court justice? Bucky Feb 2016 #5
An Atheist Supreme Justice would be better! yortsed snacilbuper Feb 2016 #9
No. PFunk1 Feb 2016 #12
Agreed. Although "downballot" really requires a topballot choice with coat tails Bucky Feb 2016 #15
My guess: The Republican Senate will publicly refuse any Obama nominee tritsofme Feb 2016 #14
Yup. PFunk1 Feb 2016 #18
I would expect the white house to deny it catnhatnh Feb 2016 #19
 

villager

(26,001 posts)
1. Even if he "could," s/he would never get approved by the Senate, obviously.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:12 PM
Feb 2016

So what do a series of 4-4 ties mean, now?

Bucky

(54,020 posts)
3. 4-4 splits go the defendant's side, or to the status quo
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:14 PM
Feb 2016

ie, not overturning whatever they are asked to overrule

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
10. That's what I figured. Meaning, they can't do anymore damage until a 9th new justice is appointed..
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:18 PM
Feb 2016

So, the GOP is somewhat stymied this term in their ongoing project of destroying the country....

Bucky

(54,020 posts)
16. They don't want to "destroy the country"
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:25 PM
Feb 2016

just the Constitution and everything that this country stands for. I mean, jeeze, the way people exaggerate around here

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
17. More Commie hysteria, I guess. Sure, who needs a climate or an economy?
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:27 PM
Feb 2016

We'll still have the flag, goddamnit!

itsrobert

(14,157 posts)
2. Yes, but the republicans will give him a warning not to
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:13 PM
Feb 2016

But he will do it anyway ignoring their bullshit.

I wish he would nominate himself.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
4. President's don't appoint SC Justice's, they nominate,
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:14 PM
Feb 2016

the Senate confirms or reject the nomination.
What are the chances of the repuke controlled Senate confirming a nominee from Pres. Obama?

Bucky

(54,020 posts)
13. Senator Phil E. Buster will become the new majority leader
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:22 PM
Feb 2016

That or Obama has to appoint a tepid candidate. Of course anybody Obama appoints will necessarily be an improvement on civil rights

NYC Liberal

(20,136 posts)
20. They do appoint them after they are confirmed.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:01 PM
Feb 2016

President nominates a candidate.
Senate confirms the nomination.
President appoints the candidate.

PFunk1

(185 posts)
12. No.
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:19 PM
Feb 2016

Done some quick research on this and due to the current nature of things anyone Obama puts up will be DOA thanks to repugs controlling both houses. Which means (and I know some will disagree with me on this) taking back the senate is now more important that winning the white house (though that's also important). Especially how divided the party is now.

Down ballot folks, Down Ballot.

Bucky

(54,020 posts)
15. Agreed. Although "downballot" really requires a topballot choice with coat tails
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:24 PM
Feb 2016

I think this increases the logic for a Sanders nomination. Clinton won't seem transformative enough.

What's really important, however, is that the Republicans must nominate Trump or Cruz, IOW someone who will turn out millions of extra new voters for the Dems.

tritsofme

(17,379 posts)
14. My guess: The Republican Senate will publicly refuse any Obama nominee
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 06:23 PM
Feb 2016

And call the presidential election a referendum on the SCOTUS.

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
19. I would expect the white house to deny it
Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:00 PM
Feb 2016

and express shock and dismay at the death, but with as many members of the court having reached an advanced age they would be crazy not to have their top 2 or 3 choices teed up...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Experts.....Can Obama nom...