The whole thing about nominating anyone for a post in the Supreme Court has often turned into a a Watergate inquisition . No matter which President we have , whatever his (her's) choice is , it's going to be a battleground . The death of (1)>>Justice Antonin Scalia sent shock waves through the political world, potentially upending the presidential race and possibly rendering governance in Washington even more challenging over the next year. Scalia's colleagues will mourn their longtime friend and fellow justice this week before resuming their work on a lineup of cases fraught with political implications. Their test will be whether they can reach decisions in cases involving abortion, labor unions, President Barack Obama's health care law, voting rights, immigration and other topics without reaching an inconclusive 4 to 4 vote. Democrats and Republicans are in a panic, Republicans seem so focused on the 2016 presidential election that they’ve forgotten Barack Obama won the 2012 election and is still, in fact, president (1.2)>>most of all "conspiracy" theories are now abounding forth . Who determines who the best candidate is? A bunch of men? Everything should matter. What you think is the "best job" is more than likely not what I would consider all that great. Confirmation hearings should never have anything to do with politics, either, but they always do. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell almost immediately declared, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” AS of RECENTLY ( February 5th,2016 ) Chief Justice John Roberts says he is concerned that partisan political battles over Supreme Court nominations have led to a widespread misunderstanding about the role of the court. Roberts told an audience at New England Law School in Boston late Wednesday that the heated confirmation process — along with misleading attacks on the court’s opinions — lead the public to believe the court is just as politically motivated as other branches of government.One way for Obama to appoint himself is for the GOP to obstruct his nominee until 2017 and then have Hillary get elected in a landslide.The American people's disdain for Republican obstructionism will come to light in an election year and Hillary's coattails could be long enough to sweep in some key victories in the Senate.Then, she nominates Barack Obama and he gets confirmed.So it stands to reason that Republicans have very little incentive to even consider President Obama's suggestion for who should replace Justice Antonin Scalia, There's some historical precedent for them to do just that. A hazy rule dating back decades that congressional experts say is really more of a tradition suggests senators can oppose some of the president's judicial nominations in the months before a presidential election. It's known as the (2)>>"Thurmond Rule," for reasons we'll get into, but there is widespread disagreement on what it even means and when it can be invoked. A long-serving and hard line conservative justice, Scalia's death has deprived conservatives of their majority on the court, and the fact that a Democratic president can nominate his replacement is obviously of great concern to the GOP. .If Senate Republicans hold fast to their vow not to confirm anyone Obama nominates, then the Supreme Court will operate with eight justices not just for the rest of this term, but for most of the next one as well. High court terms begin in October, and the 80 or so cases argued in the course of a term typically are decided by early summer. The irony is not lost on Americans that Senate conservatives are vowing to shirk their constitutional responsibility to replace a man they heralded as a “hero” for his strict and uncompromising adherence to the precise wording of the Constitution. Mr. Obama also dipped into the recent history of the Senate, noting the long history of each party opposing judicial nominees, and acknowledging his own opposition to Judge Alito. “I think what’s fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party,”
NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>Justice Antonin Scalia. Was a hardliner , Scalia deserves his place among conservative icons that have helped shape modern conservatism. Appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1986, Scalia was a reliable conservative presence on the Court for three decades. He defended the rights of the unborn on a Court that largely did not. He opposed affirmative action as antithetical to the principles of equality under law. He defended the death penalty as legally permissible. At the core of these and many other rulings and opinions was a simple yet vastly critical concept: That the U.S. Constitution should be taken for what it says and what its authors intended—and nothing more or less. (1.2)>>most of all "conspiracy" theories . So when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead over the weekend, Jones' reaction was pretty predictable. He released an "emergency transmission"—shortwave radio-speak for "Facebook video"—on Saturday night with a title that suggested he was waiting for all the facts to come in: "Justice Scalia Murdered?" Alex Jones and InfoWars are right on the mark, have already diminitized your role as mainstream media, and covers the topics with more knowledge and researtch than your brain dead communications (propaganda) majors who spend more time with script than investigation. The minute a no autopsy and quick embalming was a announced, everyone should have seen the Red Flags. With a figure as important as a supreme court justice, I would think that an autopsy would be standard operating procedures. What it the President "didn't wake up" one morning ? Wouldn't we expect an autopsy to
find out why. (2)>>"Thurmond Rule," The Thurmond Rule is an informal and somewhat amorphous tendency in the United States Senate regarding confirmations of judicial nominees. While it originated with former segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond's opposition to President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in June 1968, the specifics of the rule vary between sources. Thurmond himself said that no lifetime judicial appointments should move in the last six months or so of a lame-duck presidency. In the last year of George W. Bush's second term Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein suggested that nominees that are not confirmed by June of that year would not be confirmed at all, while Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy stated the rule as meaning "judicial nominations do not advance in the Senate in the latter part of a presidential election year without the support of Senate leaders and top lawmakers on the Judiciary committee."