Wow they just keep coming, denying Pres. Obama his right

[cal04]

Republicans want a "strict constitutionalist" to replace Scalia while denying Obama his constitutional right to nominate a justice
https://twitter.com/igorvolsky

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

1. 4-4 until the next death is better than 5-4 with Scalia

As of right now, the Supreme Court is more liberal. Ties are broken by lower court rulings. That gives us a much better chance than it getting kicked to the SCOTUS.

If they block Obama, they'll block Hillary and Bernie. Similarly, if they block Obama, we'll block Trump or Cruz or Rubio.

It's not the worst of all situations IMO

[Travis_0004]

2. Thats kind of a stupid post

The senate has the power to vote however they want. Eventually they have to compromise, but one cant take away the senates constitutional right to vote how they want.

[cal04]

3. I don't think they have the right to insist he not nominate someone

even if it is their job to confirm or not
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/cruz-rubio-mcconnell-insist-that-new-president-fill-scalia-seat-on-supreme-court.html/

[Ms. Yertle]

4. Nobody thinks

that they will "insist" he not nominate someone. He can nominate, and they can refuse to confirm. And will, most likely.

[cal04]

6. that's what they're saying in this article

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/cruz-rubio-mcconnell-insist-that-new-president-fill-scalia-seat-on-supreme-court.html/

[Ms. Yertle]

8. Just read the article,

and I'm seeing it differently. I think they are stating that they won't confirm anyone Obama nominates. That's far different from telling a sitting president he can't nominate.

I guess it could be interpreted either way.

It wasn’t exactly clear if they were calling on Obama to refrain from naming a new justice, or on the Senate to block any nominee.

[cal04]

10. Thank you for your post

I think the many different articles like this are saying it so many ways I may have interpreted it wrong




In a swift statement designed to warn Barack Obama against even nominating a replacement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scalia-obama-replacement_us_56bfabe4e4b08ffac1258cf5

[Ms. Yertle]

5. Precedent:

In 1968, after announcing he would not seek another term as President, Lyndon Johnson attempted to replace the retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren with Associate Justice Abe Fortas. Johnson also nominated Homer Thornberry to fill the Fortas seat. The Senate Republicans filibustered the Fortas nomination and threatened not to reconfirm Fortas in his Associate Justice seat unless Johnson backed down on the nomination of a Chief Justice. The Republicans with help from some Southern Democrats prevailed and lame duck Johnson allowed the next President to nominate the next CJ. That set a precedent for Lame Ducks not choosing Supreme Justices. Homer Thornberry was withdrawn and the Court ran with 8 justices until Nixon chose Warren Burger.

It's happened before.

[Mosby]

7. who cares about twitter.

[spanone]

9. of course they do.

hey wing nuts