Posted on Feb 18, 2016
O'Connor undermines GOP talking points on Court vacancy
2.22K
16
29
3
3
0
We've all heard the discussions and more discussions over who should appoint the next member of the SCOTUS. Here a former member of the SCOTUS weighs in, and even she mentions that the appointment should happen now. RP does this change your opinion, make you think about the actual process, or does it tie you along your party line even more? In case anyone asks, the poster of this believes what the constitution says. Not what any politician of either party wants to spin it to say, so I believe that the President is well within his rights to nominate a person to join the SCOTUS, and the Senate should hear and debate the selections. Should they be found in accordance to the Constitution not good enough, then they should move on. If by the Constitution they are qualified, then they should be assigned the post. Note...there aren't many qualifications to be a member of the SCOTUS in accordance to the Constitution. I'll post that link in the discussions.
O'Connor undermines GOP talking points on Court vacancy
Posted from msnbc.com
Election 2016
Supreme Court
Republicans
Democrats
Justice
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 12
3
3
0
To me this is not an issue one way or the other, over history both parties have played this game. Obama himself filibustered a SCOTUS appointment for the same reason. Back in the 60's Dem. played it like the Repub. are now. Just seems in this day and age the press and both parties make mountains out of mole hills.
(3)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Agreed. Totally. But it's odd to have a former judge speak out on the topic. Not sure if that's ever happened before.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
As someone who doesn't side with either party of the DC machine - I do believe it's the President's duty and right to nominate someone. It's also the Senate's right to nay the nominee. The bickering back and forth reminds me of kindergarten playtime and there's only one optimus prime toy - but everyone wants it.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The whole idea that these appointments don't happen in an election year as some sort of tradition is a line of bullshit. The SCOTUS is appointed for life and seats only come available when someone dies or retires. Justices have definitely chosen not to retire in an election year, but that hardly sets some sort of precedent where the sitting POTUS is expected to leave the seat vacant for another year.
Obama should nominate a decent candidate and let the GOP decide to play obstructionist in an election year. We can then all see how that plays out on November 8th.
Obama should nominate a decent candidate and let the GOP decide to play obstructionist in an election year. We can then all see how that plays out on November 8th.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Agreed. I posted this being I've never heard a former justice speak out on or about the process, and for her to do it, kinda speaks volumes.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google