Wednesday, February 17, 2016
President Reagan Agrees with President Obama
"With just a year left in his presidency, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy left by Justice Powell. In his remarks he said, '....Join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our constitutional obligation of restoring the US Supreme Court to full strength.'
I wonder why the TeaPublicans would disrespect the memory of President Reagan by a pre-emptive threat to not even bring a Supreme nominee's vote to the floor? Mitch McConnell, for example, adamantly stated that President Obama should not fulfill his constitutional duties as President Reagan did in the last year of his presidency. I wonder what the difference is...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
The battle to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court is unfortunate and a little ironic that you had an originalist Supreme Court Justice, Scalia. If you read the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, it says the president ‘shall nominate,’ not might, not depending on what the political winds are, but SHALL, an imperative.
Where the hell do the GOP pols get off suggesting Obama shouldn't carry out his duty? They've claimed many times that Obama "shreds" the Constitution, and yet when they want it "shredded" that's fine with them? The Stupid Party is also The Crazy Party.
I don't wonder why Republicans appear to believe facts and the Constitution and the Bible and reality only matter when they can be interpreted to support what they want.
Not anymore I don't.
Reagans actions don't count. By the last year of his presidency, he had dementia and did not know what he was doing. That's the only way to explain it.
One of wingnuttia's heroes is Glen Beck who had his own show on FUX News. The TeaParty Rethugs still love their Glen. Here he is 'splainin' pretending to be God, why God took Antonin Scalia from this Earth:
“I just woke the American people up,” Beck said, pretending to be the mind of God. “I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, ‘look at how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you’ve lost your liberty so you’d better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the court] because for the next 30 years, if you don’t, the Constitution as you know it [is gone].'”
“The Constitution is hanging by a thread!” he proclaimed, repeating a line he has used on the stump. “That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist.”
So in his diseased little mind, Beck believes God interferes with America's politics. He really, really believes that shyte and so do his demented followers. God, the creator of all the universe in its immensity and complexity bothered to take out a little justice in a country on an insignificant planet so that another insignificant Earthling could be president? They really believe garbage.
Much to do about nothing. It just shows how stupid our politicians are and the biggest reason for term limits. McConnell should have followed boner out the door because he is worthless.
Why wouldn't BHO appoint a Justice and why wouldn't he appoint someone that thinks along his same line.
Why can't either party come up with a normal candidate. The democrats have an admitted liar who is under investigation and a non democrat who wants to increase free stuff. The republicans are just bat sh_t crazy. Maybe JB will enter and give us all a choice.
The righties say the Reagan comparison doesn't work because Reagan proposed his nominee earlier in the year -- if Scalie had died in October or November, the Repubes would be on board with Obama nominating a replacement? Hahahaha! They are so full of horseshit they all have brown eyes.
"When asked by "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace about Reagan's late-term appointment, Rubio doubled down on his debate comments.
'It doesn't really matter what they've done, what Reagan did back in '87. It was in '87 when he nominated him, so obviously it was still earlier in the year. If this was November, October or September of last year where the president had more than a year left in office, then perhaps this would be a different discussion,' Rubio said."
Nor does the Constitution set any time limit for the Senate to act on a presidents nomination.
Why wouldn't BHO appoint a Justice and why wouldn't he appoint someone that thinks along his same line. skudrunner @ 11:54 AM
skud, surely you know the President NOMINATES a candidate to the Supreme Court and the Senate COMFIRMS or DENIES acceptance of the Presidential nominee. The senate having the advice and consent function in the constitution really has the power, not the President. The founders designed it that way for a purpose.
Presidents do NOT appoint justices to the SCOTUS.
I assume you know this stuff skud and the primary purpose of your comment was to once again enunciate you usual hyperbolic BS.
The plot thickens:
From The Washington Post:
Justice Antonin Scalia was taking a free vacation at the exclusive Cibolo Creek Ranch in western Texas when he was found dead inside a guest room Saturday. The trip, the Washington Post reports, was a gift from the ranch’s owner, who just last year obtained a favorable result from the Supreme Court.
The 30,000-acre hunting ranch, located around 30 miles from the Mexican border in the West Texas town of Shafter, is also the home of owner John B. Poindexter, who owns the Houston-based manufacturing firm J.B. Poindexter & Co.
The two men already had a tenuous connection outside of the ranch. Last year, an age discrimination suit filed against the Mic Group, a subsidiary of J.B. Poindexter & Co., reached the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
In an email to the Post, Poindexter said Scalia, who was invited to the ranch as a personal guest, was not charged for his stay. A person “familiar with the ranch’s operations” tells the paper Poindexter typically hosts these free events two to three times a year.
“I did not pay for the Justice’s trip to Cibolo Creek Ranch,” Poindexter wrote in a brief email Tuesday. “He was an invited guest, along with a friend, just like 35 others.”
Poindexter added: “The Justice was treated no differently by me, as no one was charged for activities, room and board, beverages, etc. That is a 22-year policy.’’
Poindexter explicitly denied paying for Scalia’s charter flight to the ranch and declined to identify the friend who accompanied Scalia or any of the other guests on the trip.
Just another little reminder of how our government works: If you're rich, you get to pay to play. Grease the palms of Supreme Court judges, and you get a nice hearing before the Court or have your case declined. Give a bundle to any US Congresscritter, and you get a nice little law to make you even richer.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are correct: The System Is Rigged.
Scalia is lionized by the righties even though he accepted perks from people who had cases come before the Supreme Court. Conflict of interest? Some people would call it graft. But the righties don't seem to have a problem with that at all.
And more on Scalia's cozy little friendships with other people who have cases before the SCOTUS.
None of Scalia's cozy relationships with people who have cases before the court pass the smell test. Here's one from 2004:
Trip With Cheney Puts Ethics Spotlight on Scalia
Friends hunt ducks together, even as the justice is set to hear the vice president's case.
January 17, 2004|David G. Savage | Times Staff Writer
Email
Share
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent part of last week duck hunting together at a private camp in southern Louisiana just three weeks after the court agreed to take up the vice president's appeal in lawsuits over his handling of the administration's energy task force.
While Scalia and Cheney are avid hunters and longtime friends, several experts in legal ethics questioned the timing of their trip and said it raised doubts about Scalia's ability to judge the case impartially.
But Scalia rejected that concern Friday, saying, "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned."
Federal law says "any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned." For nearly three years, Cheney has been fighting demands that he reveal whether he met with energy industry officials, including Kenneth L. Lay when he was chairman of Enron, while he was formulating the president's energy policy.
A lower court ruled that Cheney must turn over documents detailing who met with his task force, but on Dec. 15, the high court announced it would hear his appeal.
As the Court prepares for yet another term during which a number of the cases heard and decided will have a profound impact on all Americans, we cannot afford to risk a further erosion of trust in this esteemed body’s commitment to the rule of law. Whether we agree or disagree with the Court’s decisions, it is vitally important that every American believe that the administration of justice is fair and that the justices act with the highest possible standards of integrity. For the integrity of our courts, and the public’s trust in our democracy, the highest court in the land must be bound by a set of ethical standards.
SOURCE
Shaw, thanks for pointing out that Scalia may have had his hand in the till. I know Glenn Beck and God are close, but I'm thinking maybe God just said enough's enough Nino.
Really Shaw? You wonder what the difference is?
RN, that was a great link. Here are some of the points for the proposed code of ethics for the SCOTUS. It's a disgrace that there is no binding code of ethics for the Supremes. Roberts doesn't think one is necessary? Does he really believe that becoming a Supreme eliminates human failings? One would think the tendency to corruption is stronger when one has a powerful posit ion.
Scalia gave the appearance many times of impropriety. Clarence Thomas' wife Ginny was an ardent supporter of the Tea Party! Imagine the rage on the right if, say, a liberal Supreme's spouse was a strong supporter of OWS!
Here are the points in the code of ethics that many believe the SCOTUS should adopt.
The Code sets forth five Canons—simple rules that all judges should be able to follow:
A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially, and Diligently
A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That Are Consistent with the Obligations of Judicial Office
A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
The system is rigged. If you work hard, take some risks you may become successful but there is no guarantee. If you want guarantees rely on government handouts you will stay in place.
You make it sound like Scalia was horrible for accepting the trip. Do you think it horrible for clinton to sell favors for speech money or rent the WH for contributions.
Politicians will never act on something that is not in their best interest. Why do the majority go into office well off and come out uber rich. They certainly didn't make their money because they worked hard or are smart. They sold the American people for their own profit.
Dave, I don't want to believe what I think is the reason.
Kevin, Scalia's acceptance of perks from people who have cases before the SCOTUS is TOTALLY out of order. Scalia's arrogance around that issue was shameful and embarrassing to the position he held. Argle Bargle. Scalia was a consistent opponent of constitutional claims made on behalf of gay rights. He opposed striking down states' anti-sodomy laws. He opposed striking down the federal ban on same-sex marriage.
@Kevin --- but I'm thinking maybe God just said enough's enough Nino.
--------
I feel guilty for laughing.
While the loonies on the far right internet news sites are promoting the insane idea that President Obama had Scalia murdered, real questions about his free vacation at the exclusive, secluded ranch:
"As in invited guest, Scalia was not charged for his stay at the luxury resort. The Washington Post notes that Scalia’s stay at the resort brings up several important questions, especially in light of the fact that Poindexter recently had business with the Supreme Court.
One of Poindexter’s companies was involved in a case that made it to the high court. Last year, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving an age discrimination lawsuit filed against one of these companies, court records show.
The nature of Poindexter’s relationship with Scalia remained unclear Tuesday, one of several lingering questions about his visit. It was not known whether Scalia had paid for his own ticket to fly to the ranch or if someone else picked up the tab, just as it was not immediately clear if Scalia had visited before.
It is also still not known who else was at the Texas ranch for the weekend, and unless that is revealed, there could be concerns about who could have tried to raise an issue around Scalia, said Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal and judicial ethics at the New York University School of Law. He compared it to unease that arises when judges and officials from major companies are invited to seminars or educational events that bring them together for periods of time.
Yes, there are several troubling questions now that need to be answered. Although Poindexter admitted to The Washington Post that Scalia was part of an invited group of people and it was standard policy not to charge invited guests, he did confirm that he did not pay for the charter flight that Scalia took to West Texas. So, if he didn’t pay for the charter flight—who did? Supreme Court justices receive a salary of $223,500, hardly enough to pay for charter flights to secluded luxury resorts.
So who was Scalia traveling with? Who were the other invited guests? Who paid for the charter flight? The public really does deserve to know." --d.k.
skudrunner: "You make it sound like Scalia was horrible for accepting the trip."
He accepted a free vacation at a very exclusive, very expensive ranch from a guy who did had a case before the SCOTUS! Yeah. That's wrong.
skudrunner: "Do you think it horrible for clinton to sell favors for speech money."
The whole system of politicians and judges giving and receiving perks stinks. But we the people keep voting for the system, don't we. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
So Obama isn't going to Scalia's funeral, but he is attending the memorial service, and the TeaPubes are having their usual hissy fit. President Obama is doing the correct thing. The wingnuts would have a hissy fit if he did attend Scalia's funeral, saying he was trying to hog attention. Obama is breathing, and pisses the Goopers off.
'
Whatever Scalia's positive qualities in his early years on the court it is apparent that as things didn't go his way consistently (Especially on gay rights. Especially) he just decided that he was above propriety and turned into a typical hack.
American jurisprudence hasn't lost much.
President Obama will visit Supreme Court Friday to pay respects to Justice Scalia, White House spokesman says; Vice President Biden will attend funeral Saturday - @gregorykorte
Ducky, yes. He may have started out brilliant, but he deteriorated into a hack.
RN, Mr. Obama is paying his respects as he should. Logistics for the president's security would probably make a mess out of the funeral on Friday, so that's probably why he made the decision to not go but send Biden instead.
It's all very simple really. We have to take a lot of the blame ourselves.
The Grand Opposition Party no longer offers candidates with any value, or credible credentials, but those who find their way into politics due to the inactive voice of moderate and progressive America, leaving only extremists supported by other extremists.
While the quiet majority wallows in self-pity and apathy to avoid the voting booths, the vociferous minority sends the likes of Ted Cruz, Orin Hatch, Donald Trump, and even David Duke into office. While we protest peacefully, Tea Party rallies turn into aggressive, violent gangs, stomping women's faces into the cement.
Until we, as the majority political group, become active and find our voice, along the awesome power we hold, we're going to continue to see radicalism in the US Government, federal and state alike.
Sandra Day O'Connor, the retired Supreme Court justice appointed by a Republican president, said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama should get to name the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
O'Connor, in an interview with a Fox affiliate in Phoenix, disagreed with Republican arguments that the next president, and not Obama, should get to fill the high court vacancy.
"I think we need somebody there to do the job now and let's get on with it," said O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court.
O'Connor, 85, agreed it's unusual for a Supreme Court vacancy to open in an election year, which "creates much talk around the thing that isn't necessary."
But she said the president still has an important responsibility to fulfill.
Lots of butthurt going on in wingnuttia becuz Obummer won't attend Nino's funeral. It's not enough that Obummer will pay his respects on Friday, no, the hate-ragers want Obummer to be at the funeral, even tho they hate his guts and nothing he does would satisfy these unhappy losers.
Grand Mufti Barack is too big and important to sit through a funeral. He's probably got a tee time at Blackwood Country Club. It is indicative of Obama's character and tin ear. Just my two cents as one who has attended many funerals because it was the protocol.
Lady
He cancelled his Tee time because of unfavorable optics. It is all about the optics with him.
He would be in a real quandary if it was Thomas instead of Scalia.
Lady Pinkbottom (or whoever you really are) and skudrunner, you are two peas in a pod. Both of you would give an aspirin a headache with your bitching about President Obama.
You've been published so that normal people can see what consuming hatred does to a person's sanity.
Holding onto hatred and anger is like drinking poison and hoping the object of your hatred and anger dies.
Shaw, posting their comments also clearly shows that they have no legitimate argument, just bs.
Uh...you forget. This appointment was after the Democrats blocked his previous two appointments to the Supreme Court, which was left vacant in early 1987, more than 6 months before the election year even began and more than 1.5 years before Reagan left office. Big difference. Scalia actually passed away in an election year with Obama leaving office in 11 months...Mike
So what? Show me where in the constitution it says that the president should not nominate a Supreme Court judge in his last year. In fact, he will not be upholding the constitution if he does not appoint a new justice.
Post a Comment