The Senate rejected 27 (20%) of the 149 nominees to the Supreme Court made between the nation's founding and 2005. The reasons for the rejections vary, and include incompetence, inexperience, and impropriety. Most of the rejections, however, reflect in part, or even primarily, a difference between the President and the Senate over whether the nominated justice represents the right ideological choice.........
Weird that a graph of what presidents did nominate someone for the SCOTUS in the last year of the term is "statistics."
Fact is there's a vacancy in the Supreme Court and the President is obliged to attempt to fill it, which is his duty according the Constitution.
You're assuming the new appointee nominee will be liberal.
The GOP -for once!- is playing politics, when it matters.
When don't political parties play politics?
Agreed! Where in the constitution does it say Congress should or must accommodate the president?Is it written somewhere that whatever the president attempts is to be obliged, by the other two branches of government? Obama himself has told us that he is neither Emperor nor King... However much you regret and dislike it, he's correct.
Plain old obstructionism could cost them seats in swing states and thus control of the Senate.
That's right, all this drama that carries the risk [of] senators losing their seat come November is liable to be for nothing.
It would be a catastrophic political mistake for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other GOP leaders in Congress, not to mention Republicans running for president, to campaign until Election Day on a unified platform of forcing a government shutdown of the U.S. Supreme Court -- one that could dramatically increase the chances that Democrats win the presidential election and make sweeping gains in the 2016 congressional elections.
Democrats will charge, and a large majority of independent and moderate voters will agree, that Republicans have taken their politics of obstruction to the draconian extreme of a two-term government shutdown of the Supreme Court. Democrats will charge, with good reason and strong chances of success, that the GOP Supreme Court shutdown scheme embodies everything Americans dislike about Washington and everything that brings Congress to such high levels of public disrepute that, according to RealClearPolitics, more than three-quarters of Americans disapprove of Congress.
The biggest losers of the GOP Supreme Court scheme will be Republican senators and candidates running in New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania and other states in which close elections could well be tipped to Democrats by a roused Democratic base and outraged moderate and independent voters, who will conclude that the Republican Senate itself represents everything they detest about the partisanship and dysfunction of Washington.
[...] a unified platform of forcing a government shutdown of the U.S. Supreme Court [...]
If the GOP scheme were to prevail, McConnell and Republicans would undermine the court not only for the remainder for its current term but for its next term as well. Even when the court convenes on the first Monday of October 2016 for its next term, the GOP-imposed judicial havoc could continue until well into 2017, or whenever the new president nominates, Senate Judiciary Committee considers and the full Senate votes to confirm a nominee for the vacant seat.
The whole matter of law and justice itself needs a revolution.
A Responsibility I Take SeriouslyThe Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It's a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead.It's also one of the most important decisions that a President will make. Rulings handed down by the Supreme Court directly affect our economy, our security, our rights, and our daily lives.Needless to say, this isn't something I take lightly. It's a decision to which I devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation with legal experts, members of both political parties, and people across the political spectrum. And with thanks to SCOTUSblog for allowing me to guest post today, I thought I'd share some spoiler-free insights into what I think about before appointing the person who will be our next Supreme Court Justice.First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified. He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I'm looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary's role; who understands that a judge's job is to interpret the law, not make the law. I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.But I'm also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. There will be cases in which a judge's analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment. That's why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It's the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.A sterling record. A deep respect for the judiciary's role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That's what I'm considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court. And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they'll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.(source)
Full strength? No wonder this man never published an academic paper in his field -- constitutional law!
Two months after Obama elevation to US senator Michelle was promoted and her salary bumped to $317,000. Such coincidental timing and such a large bump.
In fact, Mrs. Obama's income in 2006, a year after her promotion, had decreased to $273,618. And for 2007 (the year she actually started working part-time), her income was $103,633, according to the couple's tax return for that year. She took an "unpaid leave of absence to work on her husband's presidential campaign" in 2008, but still received $62,709 from the hospital. However, Easton noted that her final reported salary "consists of accumulated but unused vacation time plus the final payout from a supplemental executive retirement plan."Easton said the nearly $317,000 figure is "misleading" anyway because it includes more than just her salary. He said the figure "also includes a performance bonus, a one-time signing bonus (she had other, competing offers at the time), and a one-time mandatory payout from a terminated retirement plan." This is reflected in the fact that her 2006 earnings were less than in 2005.
Who would-a thunk it? The constitution and the Supreme Court are somewhat related...
Page created in 0.043 seconds with 27 queries.