Obama ‘amused’ by ‘strict interpreters of the Constitution’ inventing ways to block Scalia replaceme

[bemildred]

Source: Reuters

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to pick an indisputably qualified nominee for the Supreme Court and chided Republicans who control the U.S. Senate for threatening to block him from filling the pivotal vacancy.

Obama told senators he has a constitutional duty to nominate a new justice after Saturday’s death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and reminded them of their constitutional obligation to “do their job” and vote to approve or reject his nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the seat on the nation’s highest court should remain vacant until Obama’s successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“I’m amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there,” Obama said.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/obama-amused-by-strict-interpreters-of-the-constitution-inventing-ways-to-block-scalia-replacement/

[MariaThinks]

1. its the republican hypocritical way to all aspects of life

[Skwmom]

2. Scalia was not a strict constructionist. He could twist his opinions like a pretzel to support

the decision he supported.

[bemildred]

4. A grifter is what I see, and not a particularly smart one.

But with powerful friends.

[Skwmom]

6. I never saw the brilliance of the man either. He was a bully. n/t

[The Second Stone]

41. I disagree a bit

When he wrote insults, they really were quite clever. His opinions, however, were based on made up history and wishful thinking.

[droidamus2]

19. He always has

I remember watching Scalia on a roundtable type program, I think it was back in the 1980's or '90s, where they would have a panel of lawyers, judges, activists, etc and the host would setup a scenario that had to do with law, civil rights or whatever and they would discuss their opinions (Anybody remember this program and what it was called?). Even then I thought Scalia gave the most convulted self-serving opinions I had ever heard. I remember think the guy was crazy and this was long before he was on the Supreme Court.

[Raster]

30. In short, Scalia thought is judicial shit did not stink, however...

...the toxic odor of his racist, sexist, homophobic and hypocritical opinions always showed otherwise.

[YankmeCrankme]

31. I remember that show.

Retired Supreme Court judge Potter Stewart was one of the hosts. In the early 80's, The Consitution: That Delicate Balance was the name with Fred Friendly. Very good show that had great discussions on important issues that were balanced and civil.

[droidamus2]

36. Thanks

I have tried to remember the name of that program for a long time. I just checked it out at least some of the episodes are available on Youtube. For anybody interested in Constitutional questions I think they would still be worth watching.

[Codeine]

32. I enjoyed watching that as a kid.

I was an odd child.

[Skittles]

35. that is the very definition of a partisan hack

the man was a disgrace

[lark]

3. They are only for a strict read of the constitution when it fits their interests.

In other cases, like Citizens United, they don't give a flying damn. They are Repugs, which means they are 100% total hypocrites and care nothing for we the people and everything for the 1%.

[houston16revival]

14. What, exactly

are these strict constructionists?

Do they write with quill pens by candlelight, and travel by horse-drawn
carriage, and wear knee breeches?

They live in the minds of the Founders how, exactly?

They are strict in their own minds, rigid, reactionary, refusing to change.

Strict constructionist is a euphemism for control freaks for their own benefit.

[phantom power]

5. Have I mentioned lately, how much I like the "no-fucks-left" Obama?

I love that guy.

[Gregorian]

7. If he didn't nominate a justice they could impeach him, couldn't they?

He is required to do so. So not doing it would be a violation.

It's hard to not be angry with the obstructionist racist turds. No wonder Mark Twain had similar comments.

[Leontius]

21. He's not required to do.

He's allowed to do so.

[spooky3]

25. "The President SHALL nominate..."

Doesn't mean "is allowed to."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

[Yupster]

38. There's no time limit though

A president can say he will nominate someone and then let his time in office expire.

On edit, I don't know why a president would want to do that, but it would be Constitutional.

[spooky3]

39. then he hasn't followed the "shall."

[Yupster]

40. This is all silly lawyering, but then neither has

President Obama.

He has not followed the "shall nominate" either as he has not named a replacement.

His answer of course will be "Give a guy a break, I'm studying resumes and will name some one as soon as I've decided who is the best candidate."

And of course that would be the same explanation the fictional president who doesn't want to name someone would use, and he'd use it until he left office, and at that point the President shall appoint someone would be the next guy's concern.

[spooky3]

42. Any "silly lawyering" is in the argument that he be the first pres

To delay nominating someone for 300+ days, when delays like that have never happened.

[Yupster]

43. It would certainly be silly and he won't do it

and I don't know why any president would do it (well, maybe a president wants to be on the Supreme Court and his VP is far ahead in the polls so he delays until out of office and then the new prez selects him). Hey, it could happen.

Anyway, my point is that it would not violate the Constitution if the prez doesn't nominate a new justice because there's no time limit on it.

It's a logic problem for law school freshman. I don't believe the president will or should delay choosing a nominee and I don't believe he will.

And just cause something has never been done does not make it unconstitutional. If one president took 121 days to nominate, why can't another take 365? There's no rule on what the word reasonable means.

[LanternWaste]

27. He is obligated to do so

He is obligated to do so. Let's not play games and pretend something means something else.

[PoliticAverse]

8. They could just try filibustering it...

https://www.districtsentinel.com/obama-scalia-alito-not-comparable/

[Major Nikon]

9. There would be no need for a filibuster if they never schedule a vote

[longship]

12. Filibustering is a minority party tactic. The GOP is in the majority.

They don't need to filibuster, they control the stuff that gets to the floor. They control the judiciary committee.

Cruz is an idiot for saying he will filibuster. Who will he be filibustering? His own party?

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Wouldn't be the first time for that jackass

[AlbertCat]

17. Who will he be filibustering? His own party?

Haven't they already done this? Filibustering one of their own proposals?

I can't remember exactly what it was. It was a while ago.

[kairos12]

18. He just wants a Green Eggs and Ham redo.

[kimbutgar]

10. They should run Reagan's words in a commerical on Fox about him letting him nominate a judge in his

last year in the White House. Put their hypocrisy right up in their friggin faces in an annoying commercial.

[totodeinhere]

11. Of course the president is correct. And after all if the Republicans could elect a president then

they could turn the tables and select a conservative to replace one of the liberal justices when a liberal seat becomes open. That's how it's supposed to work anyway.

[houston16revival]

13. LOL ROFLAMO

Obama is sooooooo smooth. So Presidential. Cool, calm, collected.

He has ever so subtly called the Senate GOP hypocrites.

He never yells, he never mentions the word.

Bingo!

[AlbertCat]

16. so voters can have a say on the selection

They did.... and have. They elected Obama, and it's still his term.

[L.A.C.]

20. Maybe they should delay a vote

...that way when Bernie gets elected he can nominate Obama. Lol.

[bunnies]

22. Its the exact same way they read the Bible.

They're a special lot. Very special.

[OldRedneck]

23. It's about the end of one's term

So -- the Republicans are saying President Obama should not make any Supreme Court nominations in the last few months of his term.

Fair enough.

In the Senate, 21 Republican Senators are coming to the end of their terms. They should not vote on anything coming before the Senate. Ditto for the 10 Democratic Senators whose terms expire the same time -- January 2017.

If we apply this end-of-term-no-vote rule to the House, then, the entire House is out of business because their terms are only two years.

[maddiemom]

26. Good one!

I wish commentators would make the term "lame duck" clear as to meaning. Back when we used to have classes which studied "government," I remember learning that a lame duck was an officeholder AFTER someone new was elected to the office, but finishing out his term BEFORE the new office holder was sworn in. Right?

[passiveporcupine]

24. I love the way your title was truncated

Scalia replaceme!

[Arazi]

28. Obama nails it! "Amused" is absolutely perfect

He's just whip smart. I love how he can extemporaneously speak and gets it pitch perfect every time

[bemildred]

37. Yes, understated, I considered "baffled" and "confused" but "amused" is better.

No need to suggest they might be well intentioned.

[0rganism]

29. he should nominate the replacement in a couple weeks regardless

of course, McConnell's senate will block the nomination

and then a couple weeks later Obama can nominate another one
and another one
and another one

and they can all be highly qualified minorities, judicial professionals and maybe some with JAG backgrounds, etc.
and the Republican senators can dig their party's grave as deep as they like

[DirkGently]

33. Nothing strict about "strict constructionism."

No one ever gets to the precise original meaning of a text, nor are most of the people claiming to do so even trying, really. They're "strict" when it suits; more interpretive when that doesn't point in the direction they want.

Scalia, rest in peace, never seemed to me to be at all interested in getting to any kind of true, original meaning of the Constitution. He wanted it to say what he wanted it to say, and worked backwards accordingly.

To me whenever anyone claims to be adhering to some super-disciplined approach to the truth, it's a dead giveaway their intention is just the opposite.

Case in point: Ayn Rand's "Objectivism," which actually espouses a determinedly ultra-narrow subjective view of the world.

[geretogo]

34. Mr. President when will you realize you have a Mussolini loving Fascist House and Senate ?