President Obama will not attend Justice Scalia's funeral..... (Page 2)

While I can't imagine Obama would put anyone up that they would truly be in favor of, I think it is a terrible error in strategy to say they won't even consider anyone. I think it would be much better for them to say they'd be happy to look at someone they feel had the qualifications for the position. But then again, why would anyone expect the R's to do something that made sense.?

OK, but President Obama has not worked with them and they don't owe him or the "process" anything.  I hope NOTHING gets done this year with regard to the open Justice seat, Gitmo, etc. 

Personally, I'm fine with them just saying no to anything he wants.  He has stated he will use his last year to push through as much of his agenda as he can.........just say no.

I don't disagree with what you've said, at all. My point was more the optics and perception. They could also burn up some of his and their time with the appearance they were considering it. Which would aid in your second point. 

The media will be hard on the pubs either way, I just think it looks better if they work the process, same result. 

Agree. 

And it looks like we may end up with a GOP candidate who doesn't care about overall perception AT ALL.......this will be interesting.

That was my initial thought, then I decided it could be used against them.  If the Republican Senators know that they won't confirm President Obama's nominee, regardless of the nominee, then they are better off saying so before the nomination.  Otherwise, if Obama nominates a minority (African-American, Hispanic, woman, LBGT, etc.), the Republicans will be called racist, sexist, homophobic by not confirming or even putting it up to a vote.

Both parties play by the same rules.  If the rules allow for the senate to delay confirmation hearings, then so be it.  There should be no doubt that the Democrats would do the exact same if the tables were turned.

Yeah, as LB says it is what it is.  Obama could put somebody up, but they'd have to be somebody who could get through the congress he has.  The Republicans could lose the congress and win the white house and we'd have a similar stalemate next year.

Elections do have consequences at every level.

Except for the time that the tables were in fact turned and the Democrats did not do the exact same thing. They held the hearings in '88 and even went ahead and confirmed Reagan's nominee. Maybe it was because Ted Cruz wasn't around at that time to tell everyone Reagan was a lame duck president and they should wait to see what the people want. 

It's not hard. The President gets to appoint who he wants, and the Senate gets to approve or reject them. For Republicans to say that they will not even consider an Obama appointee without even knowing the name first is complete BS. I understand the Constitution doesn't put a timeline on Senate confirmation, but it was clearly not the intent of our Founding Fathers for the Senate to be able to just punt on this for an entire year because they don't like the guy in office. To put it another way, if the GOP retains the Senate but Hillary takes the White House, why don't they just delay, delay, delay for another four years until the people have a chance to speak again? After all, the Constitution doesn't forbid it.

As I said in another thread, I don't care one bit if Republicans reject every single person Obama nominates for the next 11 months. Just so long as they're actually taking the nomination in to consideration and making a merit-based decision. Even if that merit is nothing more than the person's stance on abortion and gay marriage (which, let's be honest, is really all this comes down to). They have the votes to block anyone, so man up, put it to vote and reject them. I'm not putting this all on the GOP Senators either. Obama doesn't have the Senate he would like, so it's his responsibility to nominate someone who has a legitimate chance of being confirmed by a bunch of GOP senators. If he comes out and nominates some super liberal judge, then he's just as bad as the GOP. But until he actually names someone, we don't know if he's willing to reach across the aisle and compromise for the good of the country, working to get our highest court in order. I'm not exactly optimistic that Obama will do that, his track record would suggest otherwise, but I will refrain from judgement until after he announces his nomination. We do know that the 11 GOP senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee won't. They're more worried about playing politics. 

I hope Trump gets in and nominates his sister.

lol, I have this picture in my head of Trump winning and nominating somebody completely off the wall.  Then the Republicans try and figure out a way to get Obama's nomination back in consideration.  

In all seriousness I think Obama should do his job and nominate somebody who he thinks can get approved.  The Republicans should then consider that person based on his or her merits and let the process work.  If Obama puts up left wing nut jobs then it's easy, if he nominates a centrist then the Republicans should consider them.

I don't want far left wing or far right wing people on the court.  I want people who follow the law and constitution.

Are you saying you are confident that the Democrats would have considered a Bush nominee for SCOTUS if the nomination would have been less than 8 months before the 2008 election?  There is no way you can believe that.  Politics in the nomination/confirmation process is a fact of our system.  Both sides play politics - see the Democrat's derailing of Reagan's first nominee made in July of 1987, Democrats refusal to hold hearings on several of GW Bush's circuit court appointments when they were in control of the Senate, and President Obama's attempts to make an end-run around "advice and consent" by his recess appointments to the NLRB (ultimately ruled unconstitutional). 

While I personally believe that a sitting president should have the right to nominate whomever they choose and the senate should vote to if the nominee is qualified for the job, politics doesn't work that way - on either side of the aisle.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I have no idea what would or would not have happened with a 2008 SCOTUS nomination. Since, you know, it never happened. All I said was that the last time this actually occured, back in '88, the Dems could have gone the route of the current GOP and they didn't. So you can't really say there's no doubt they would now.

But you bring up Reagan’s first nominee as an example. And that, to me, is a perfect example of when the system actually worked. There was a 0% chance of Reagan getting a conservative judge through the Senate confirmation process. Dems told him not to waste his time nominating Bork, but he did it anyway. At that point, I suppose the Dems could have taken the McConnell/Cruz position of sitting back and waiting out Reagan’s presidency. Claim that the people should have a voice. Instead they did their job, held their hearings, and then voted him down in both in the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the floor. That in turn forced Reagan to look for a candidate that would actually appeal to both parties, and he did. Reagan found a unicorn, a judge acceptable by both parties, in an election year no less, and Kennedy was approved by a Senate vote of 97-0. 

That’s where we’re at today. Obama has a yuuuuuge task ahead of him in finding a candidate who can garner bi-partisan support. And if he can’t (or if he doesn't even try and just blatantly throws out a liberal candidate), then Republicans should have no qualms about voting down the nomination. But once Obama puts a name in the hat, Republicans need to grow up and give that candidate an honest and fair evaluation. Right now they just sound like a kid at the playground who says he’s gonna take his ball and go home if he doesn't get his way.  

I'm glad Dems gave Kennedy a chance. If you look at his rulings throughout the years, I think he's been one of our greatest SCOTUS judges. He's not a shill for either party like some of his peers. So maybe election year nominations are the way to go. Too bad the GOP is going to throw a temper tantrum until 2017.

Caitlyn Jenner as Secretary of Transportation? 

One of the Captains from "Wicked Tuna"...for head of US Fish & Wildlife