Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
There is no constitutional requirement
Topic Started: Feb 25 2016, 12:52 AM (829 Views)
Unnamed Source
No Avatar
Jr. Member
[ * ]
We might as well increase the number of justices to 435 and disband the congress. They have already ceded a lot of their own power to the supreme court. I won't even talk about how much power they have ceded to the executive. The founding fathers never intended for the supreme court to have as much power as they have. Like any group if given the power they would probably abuse it and become an oligarchy of (insert number here) of black robed dictators.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Congress can change laws and quotas, but the argument by Obama and his minions. distort the truth. I listened to Obama this morning on TV implying congress has to take action to seat a new justice. Which is simply not true, no time constraint exists despite the nine justice limit. There is nothing to prevent this number from changing. There is nothing that says congress must take action to fill a seat for ten years if they so choose. Congress is an equal branch of the government and the president has no authority over their actions. I wish he would stop lying.

Harry Reid, King of Obstruction and guys like VP Biden who opposed appointing a justice in a president's last year in office are hypocrites. Let congress do as they believe is warranted.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Looks like the Judicial Branch really isn't a seperate but equal branch of our Govt if another branch makes the appointments, radifies and determines the number of members. What am I not seeing here?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Unnamed Source
No Avatar
Jr. Member
[ * ]
Pat
Feb 25 2016, 02:09 AM
Congress can change laws and quotas, but the argument by Obama and his minions. distort the truth. I listened to Obama this morning on TV implying congress has to take action to seat a new justice. Which is simply not true, no time constraint exists despite the nine justice limit. There is nothing to prevent this number from changing. There is nothing that says congress must take action to fill a seat for ten years if they so choose. Congress is an equal branch of the government and the president has no authority over their actions. I wish he would stop lying.

Harry Reid, King of Obstruction and guys like VP Biden who opposed appointing a justice in a president's last year in office are hypocrites. Let congress do as they believe is warranted.
Its all politics. I agree with this congress not wanting to allow Obama to put another liberal in. What's the sense of having a majority if you are going to cave to the minority? A minority who would never cave if they were the majority. But the Republicans have a way of looking bad and giving the democrats ammunition even when they are in the right. They should play the game and tell president Obama to go ahead and make his appointment(s). They should then refuse to nominate them. Vote them down and say next?
Edited by Unnamed Source, Feb 25 2016, 03:51 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
That may yet happen. From every article I have read, the republicans don't trust the president o pick a moderate. They believe he will nominate another like his first two picks who have proven to be to the left.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I believe the President was talking about that OUGHT to be done rather than what HAS to be done. I agree with him on what OUGHT to be done.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I do too Colo, but I don't believe he would choose one who is fair. The court is supposed to be blind to the justice's personal views. Obama could stack the court with a closet left wing idealist by this choice.

I would feel more comfortable with Trump making the choice.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
So, Pat, you would rather have a right wing Republican stack the court? I think I understand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I'm glad we agree the article is misleading.
Now does anyone think for a nanosecond that Obi would not try to put in a far left liberal? LOL I wouldn't trust him to appoint a good dog catcher.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Feb 25 2016, 02:45 AM
That may yet happen. From every article I have read, the republicans don't trust the president o pick a moderate. They believe he will nominate another like his first two picks who have proven to be to the left.
They are going to take the bait and screw themselves as usual. Obama is sitting them up to look like the obstructionists they are. Then when Hillary and the new senators take over next year they will nominate and confirm a liberal on the court. Watching the GOP transition from the party of conservative principles to the funny farm is pathetic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis