U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Oshkosh, who is locked in a tough re-election contest, does not want President Barack Obama to nominate a replacement for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Whether Obama or the next president should nominate a replacement for Scalia, who was found dead Saturday, is suddenly an issue in Johnson’s and other Senate races, as well as the campaign for president. Many Republicans are saying the decision should wait for the president elected in November, while Democrats say there is no reason for Obama not to fulfill his Constitutional duty to name a successor for the current Senate to confirm.
“I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate,” Johnson said in a statement released Sunday. “America needs Supreme Court justices who share Justice Scalia’s commitment to applying the Constitution as written and to the freedom it secures.”
Johnson is being challenged by Democrat Russ Feingold, who served 18 years in the Senate before losing to Johnson in 2010. It is one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country, as Democrats see it as a potential seat to pick up as they try to regain the majority.
Feingold aligned himself with other Democrats, including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who want Obama to move forward with a nominee to replace Scalia.
“The Supreme Court plays a unique role applying the Constitution to important questions of American life and business, and I expect the president to nominate a new justice, as the Constitution requires,” Feingold said in a statement. “The Senate must then do its job by working in a bipartisan way to vote on the nominee.”
Scalia was found dead Saturday morning at a resort ranch in West Texas.
Obama said Saturday that he would nominate a successor “in due time,” angering Republicans who said the decision should not be his.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
Scalia led the conservative majority on the court, which often decides cases 5-4, meaning the naming of his replacement in an election year has repercussions for those running for both president and Senate.
Post a comment
Report
Watch this discussion.
(158) comments
"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate,” Johnson said in a statement released Sunday.
The current sitting President was elected by a majority of American citizens 4 years ago to fulfill his duties as outlined in the constitution. Appointing Supreme Court justices to vacancies is part of that responsibility.
If this were a republican president, Ron Johnson would be saying just the opposite.
Just as the Dems would if it were a Repub president. Look up Senate resolution 334 passed by the Dems for precedent.
Mrbaggins,
You're unecessarily being a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen, Mrbaggins.
No one, not even the Senior Senator from our Great State of Wisconsin Ron Johnson, is suggesting that our lovable dear leader-from-his-behinder, the historic but butt-nekkid Emperor "let them eat hope" Urkel, the First doesn't have the right.
No, rather your good friends across the great ideological divide are suggesting (advising) that BHO should allow the next president to make that appointment.
I know it's hard for liberals to understand, but sometimes what makes a great leader is using judicial restraint, common sense behavior, patience and propriety,
Lighten up and "Let It Be", baggydoggy. History will view him better, if he saw his legacy as bringing all Americans together, rather than further dividing us.
Of course, lockstep liberals and BHO will ignore this advice and appoint a sacrificial lamb to be skewered. But remember, by being imperious, you brought this much-deserved "Borking" on yourselves.
While they were able to block Miguel Estrada from the court, they weren't successful in blocking Alito. Did you know that Hillary, Schumer, Maverick Rusty McCain-Feingold and Obama all voted against the nomination of Justice Samuel Alito?
Liberal hypocrisy abounds abundantly.
So okey-dokey, artichokey, let's let the drama play out, but it's only guaranteed to generate more heat than light.
GDHM
The PATHETICALLY GUTLESS "Report Abuse" Brigade C0WARD(S) strike again.
Reposting:
@buckthorn (below)
Oh he of the "elections have consequences and at the end of the day, I won," President Obama's chickens are coming home to roost.
He burned through whatever political capital he had early on by shoehorning the ACA through, convincing legislators to vote against their constituencies, which they paid for with their jobs.
His extra-constitutional end arounds, his pathological narcissism, his inability to compromise and build consensus, his propensity to divide rather than unite, and his just plain lack of fitness for his position are his undoing.
Bill Clinton & George W. Bush dealt with far harsher Congressional climates than Obama. Reagan & Tip O'Neill, worked well together, but that's just not something for which President Obama's properly wired.
Arrogant to the very end, his epitaph will be 'We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.'
The Gotch
The PATHETICALLY GUTLESS "Report Abuse" Brigade C0WARD(S) strike again.
Reposting:
@KickiceWis (below);
Good Lawd it's hifreakin'larious to watch youse Lefties shamelessly flailing and hysterically hyperventilating to defend the U.S. Constitution because your pandering news sources tell you to.
It's an out-dated old rag written by old White Men riiiiiight up until your hyper-partisan Ox gets gored.
Then, in your words, all-of-a-sudden it's the "Founding Document."
"Justices are appointed by the President of the United States, and MUST BE CONFIRMED BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE. This is done following a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee" (bolds mine)
From Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America: The President "shall nominate, and BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..." (bolds mine)
A simple Senate majority determines whether a President's SCOTUS gets confirmed. The 114th Congressional Senate: 54 Republicans, 44 Lefties, & 2 Independents, I'd hazard a guess this is because elections have consequences.
Showing the ubiquitous hyper-partisanship of the career Lefty, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has come down on both sides of the unwritten "Thurmond Rule."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule
"Senator Leahy rejected the rule in the closing months of the Democratic Clinton administration, but later invoked the rule in the last months of the Republican Bush administration"
Kinda like he was against it before he was for it, am I right?
It gets worse.
IL junior Senator and Lefty demi-god Barack Obama "(i)n January 2006 joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito."
And worse yet.
"In the last year of George W. Bush's second term Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) suggested that PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES THAT ARE NOT CONFIRMED BY JUNE of that year would not be confirmed at all." (bolds mine)
June?? Heck, that's right around the corner, isn't it?
Not only that, but do career Lefties to ignore the path Leahy, Feinstein, AND Obama took?
Them there are some pretty influential Lefties so this'll surely be a test of your secular faith, but I've little doubt you'll be able to see past the gross hypocrisy as youses have done so many times before.
Think Lefties are going to try to pull the ol' MA Side Step?
There they changed the Senate Special Election rules not just once, not just twice, but three times to benefit the democrat Party.
We shall see! (H/T) @Al Webb
The Gotch
TAKE 3:
Good Dogs, nasty censorious cowards and lockstep liberal lab rats,
While it's always good to see the smiling funchy of ex-Senator Maverick Rusty McCain-Feingold, the guy Wisconsin's Senior Senator Ron Johnson beat like a rented donkey, ...
WHY?
Did he, too, fail to rise to take the stink-bait of a liberal attack dog group?
Does he too, want to wait on the next president to choose Scalia's replacement?
Since he left the Senate body, does he know there's a solid Republican majority?
Does he know that Senator Grassley is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee now, and some "living-Constitution" left-wing wackaddoodle nominee won't even make it through the preliminary judicial vetting committee?
Does McCain-Feingold even know the Senate's job is to "Advise and Consent"? Does Maverick remember that they're the ones who vote to confirm any nominee?Does he know that it is their due legal responsibility in the Constitutional process?
WHY are we graced with Rusty's CA groovy, tanned and well-rested presence?
Are you proglobots just glad to see him, or is that a pickle in your pocket?
Does he even live in Wisconsin anymore?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The next president will appoint Justice Scalia’s replacement, and thereby determine whether the Supreme Court will remain a bulwark of liberty or a tool of liberal fascism, ... that is, assuming that sad sack Mitch McConnell stays sacked up and refuses to allow a vote on whatever token commie BHO decides to nominate.
Justice Antonin Scalia was historic in his own right, he was first Italian-American Supreme Court Justice. He was one of the greatest justices our country has known. Justice Scalia’s decades on the Court have transformed our country’s approach to the law through his unwavering commitment to the text and original meaning of the Constitution.
The historic but butt-nekkid Emperor "let them eat hope" Urkel, the First, who has shown such contempt for the Constitution and the laws, is the last person who should be appointing his successor.
The American people on both sides of the aisle are disgusted with the Washington Cartel status quo and another nomination by BHO would just bring about more of the same old same old.
Besides BHO's already made his indelible mark on the court. That damage is already done. We mustn't let him stack the court with neo-Marxist activist judges.
The people’s voice should be heard in November to determine who will appoint the next Supreme Court Justice.”
I suggest Ted Cruz appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. This former Rhodes Scholar sits on the Judiciary Committee, clerked for Chief Justice William Rehhquist, written many briefs for them and argued before them many times.
Veritas vos liberabit
GOOD DOG, HAPPY MAN
The fact that this being treated as a "debate" or a "controversy" in the media and public discourse is a complete joke. There is no "issue" here; the Constitution is clear, and history is clear (despite various attempts to obfuscate it, to raise "doubts" about it), and to "stir things up". The latter is nothing but noise; Republicans are simply playing to their bloodthirsty base with an election-year tactic. Johnson's "position" has no legitimacy in a country where the rule of law reigns, and ought to be treated as such by everyone. This includes the press, which has a duty to go beyond repeating what someone says and pose serous followup questions. Alas, this rarely occurs. "The so-called "Thurmond Rule", which is no rule at all, is today's "voter fraud", the fiction of the day.
The American people spoke overwhelmingly in the 2014 election and they said they've had it with 0bama and his party. The Republican led Senate better listen to the American people.
The Total votes cast in the 2014 Federal Elections was about 81,000,000. There were about 130,000,000 votes cast in the 2012 Presidential Election. Obama got about 70,000,000 votes.[huh]
Useless trivia.
Probably won't happen the way the Repubs want.Once the public realizes that they're obstructing the Constitution, they'll lose the majority in the Senate in November..
Or they'll have an even bigger majority.
Everyone dies at some point.
At some point in time,
it don"t happen soon enough,
like :"out with old ,in with the new".
that is, something ,that won"t be blocked.
So the Repub thugs want the president to ignore his constitutional responsibilities. Scalia, a noted constitutional scholar would certainly be against that.
Just like the Commiethugs if it were a Repub president.
Good Dogs and Gentle Readers,
Once again, with some four-part harmony, full orchestration and some tasty studio fx.
Even fair-minded liberals @Madison.com are getting tired of the continuous child-like censoring of Conservative thought. This person would probably burn books, too.
The always kind thoughtful liberal response is left dangling out there with no context, and straight people wonder what was actually said. I wish he'd GetBanned again.
You should understand that speech with witch you disagree sold be met with more free speech that defends your own POV, not censorship. That's liberal low-rent.
TAKE 2:
The historic first-ever Italian-American Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, was one of the original Originalists who based his legal wisdom on the Constitution.
He was a person of strong faith, so to him the Constitution was like The Book, itself, sacred and therefore rooted in sola scriptura
The godless Lefty, OINK minions continue to misconstrue the basic principles within his legal philosophy, especially the one where he insists that legislatures, not the Constitution (or the courts), should be the vehicle for change in our modern society.
There is nothing in the Constitution that bars the people from passing laws legalizing homosexual marriage, the death penalty, or abortion. So, ...
If you want abortion on demand, ... pass a law.
If you want homosexual marriage, ... pass a law.
If you want firearm restrictions, ... pass a law.
Tired of the death penalty? Then, pass a law through the legislature.
(some states have exercised their 10th amendment rights in this regard).
This isn’t controversial, though to many on the progressive left, it’s anathema.
Justice Antonin Scalia was one of the greatest justices our country has ever known.
His decades on the Court have transformed our approach to the law through his strong unwavering commitment to the original text and meaning of the Constitution.
Our lame duck leader, the historic, but butt-nekkid Emperor "let them eat hope" Urkel, the First, has shown such contempt for the Constitution and the law, that should he should be the last person who should be appointing his successor.
He's already made his own indelible mark on the Supreme Court.
He mustn't be allowed to stack it in Satan's favor.
The American people on both sides of the aisle are disgusted with perpetuating the status quo of Washington Cartel. Another nomination by BHO would just bring about more of the same old, same old godless Marxist policies.
In our Representative Republic, the voice of We, the People must be heard this November in order to determine who will appoint the next Supreme Court Justice.
Veritas vos liberabit.
THE MOST RIGHT REVEREND, DOCTOR GOOD DOG, HAPPY MAN
The PATHETICALLY GUTLESS "Report Abuse" Brigade C0WARD(S) strike again.
Reposting:
@bogie/Shake/Bender/Argyle/aprilshowers/etc (below)
Aw, poor Lefty thinks the rules don't apply.
And they don't in an emotionally gratifying truth centered reality.
"He gets to make the nomination."
With the ADVICE and CONSENT of the 114th Congressional Senate, who need but a simple majority to so do.
44 Lefties and 2 Independents add up to 51 ONLY in Common Core Math Class.
All you need to do is tell us how you arrived at the...um...answer.
Per you, the good people of the U.S. went for Barack Obama twice, as did the good people of WI.
The good people of WI also went THREE times for our thrice-elected Governor Walker.
There's that danged Common Core Math again, is three greater than two?
WoofDah!!
The Gotch
The Gotch
"Sen.Ted Cruz is also on the committee.
Because of his legal training, expertise and experience of having clerked for Chief Justice Willaim Rehnquist, witten many briefs and argued before the Supreme Court, I thnk he would be the most logical choice to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice."
Except for one teenie tiny problem there Gotch. Senator Ted Cruz is not the president. Senator Ted Cruz is an extremist. Therefore, that extremism will prevent him from being elected president of the United States.
Please try to stick to the document that your side claims they defend.
Extremism didn't stop Soetoro. Oh, but he had skin color.
Ronnie's been smokin the good stuff again.
Seems, La Repubes, get a tad surly and get kinda mean,somewhat snarkily and feel hungover,
whenever, it"s looking like :"the times, they are a changin",
and most certainly, while the "The Insane Klown Posse",rocks on,
this is true, and that be the case.
You can feel it.
What I find most interesting is all the Dems who can quote the constitution when it comes to the president nominating a Supreme Court judge. (FYI, I think he has every right)
When Walker was considering appointing a judge to the State Supreme Court, which he had every right, they sure seemed to have a problem understanding the State Constitution.
I guess they did a lot of reading and somehow developed some reading comprehension in these few months.
I don't specifically recall anyone saying Walker could not appoint a State Supreme Court judge. Of course he has every right to do so.
What I do recall is the complaining about the underhanded effort to put a referendum on last springs ballot to change the way the Chief Justice was appointed. The Chief Justice was the longest tenured judge on the bench and that process served Wisconsin just fine for over 100 years. But the sitting Chief Justice refused to stop the John Doe investigations against Walker so they put a referendum on the ballot in an election that typically sees small voter turnout and one that typically sees more republican turnout than democrat.
And surprise, surprise. The 100 year old law that served us well was overturned and that John Doe investigation was squashed by a new Supreme Court ruling with a new Chief Justice. Go figure huh?
There was plenty of ‘Walker shouldn’t appoint one since the election is soon and it would make someone the incumbent’, ‘There is nothing coming before the Court that needs the position filled before the election’, etc.
Like I said before, I believe that the President, like Walker, has every right to nominate someone. I also believe the Senate should take whatever time is needed to properly scrutinize the nominee, within reason. It has taken as much as 6 months in recent years to come up with a suitable replacement, longer in our early history. I also believe in the case of a lifelong appointment greater scrutiny should be given.
As far as changing how the Chief Justice is chosen I have no problem with the change. We've had plenty of 100+ year old laws that seemed to serve the majority well thrown out as of late. Mostly by the courts.
Bottom line here is it depends on who President Obama nominates. Republicant Senator Ron Johnson, Wisconsin will NOT vote for any nominee because he knows he is toast in this next election so being an obstructionist of the constitution and a flagrant bigot to a minority nominee, Republicant Johnson's term is over.
Wow, the Right wing posts just get nastier and nastier.... you should see the comments on the FOX news story about this.... the most disgusting and vitriolic Right wing posts ever seen.
"Wow, the Right wing posts just get nastier and nastier.... "
There is no limit to how nasty they will get. People like Trump and Cruz embolden them. Talking heads like Rush, Beck, Coulter and Britebart feed them lies and hate. This is what the right wing wants. Anger fuels hatred and hatred garners conservative votes. Conservatives are domestic terrorists.
"Head over to any Lefty site and peruse the tolerant & glowing testimonials to the late Justice Scalia."
May his memory rest in peace and honor.
That being said, the man was a raving lunatic and was an incredibly biased and politically driven and motivated justice that had no business being on the bench. The man was a disgrace.
"Let me put a finer point on it. I hope he sends us Elena Kagan.”
Every lunatic has a good idea now and then. Even Hitler had Volkswagen.
" ...incredibly biased and politically driven ... "
And the other 4 on the liberal side aren't ... just those on the right?
@KickiceWis;
"Every lunatic has a good idea now and then. Even Hitler had Volkswagen."
Interesting Der Führer & good ideas reference.
You did know where he got his idea for a Master Race and the eugenic approach it required.
None other than nascent Progressive/Lefty/KKK darling Margaret "Human Weeds" Sanger.
We don't need all those six degrees of separation between classist, elitist, ableist, racist, totalitarian thought and the Lefties that championed them.
Just a short hop & yer there!
The Gotch
"He's gone where the goblins go, below! below! below!"
This IS a left wing site and you left wingers are dancing on Scalia's grave.
While you left wing nut jobs are busy dancing on Scalia's grave.
Argle-bargle
Sen Ron Johnson (R-wifes money) is a stain on the underwear of the body politic.
The people of the US elected Obama twice over clueless Rethuglican opponents. He gets to make the nomination. The Senate can pull their usual reprehensible obstruction but outside of the bat-guano crazy 25% that continually supports them, the American people will see it for what it is, an abdication of their responsibilities to govern this country.
It's the Constitution that applies - Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. the process usually takes less than 90 days, so if the President and the Senate are doing their jobs, which is to uphold the Constitution, there is time to get this done in the next 90 days, which is the end of May.
Let's have a civics class then, Gotch. Does advice and consent mean they must vote on nominees, or does blocking any vote also count? According the NY Times, the Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote from the day of nomination. How many days would a proper use of advice and consent include? Would the Senate still be acting properly if it took 150 days? 180 days? 365 days? How about an entire term of 4 years? Do you draw the line anywhere? At what point would you say that the Senate has abdicated its responsibilities? Do you really expect that the country will look favorably upon a Senate majority party that behaves in the way Johnson and McConnell are talking?
You are correct that the New York Times writes that it has never taken more than 125 days ... you forgot the rest of the paragraph ... "But few presidents have successfully filled vacancies announced in their final full year.”
@aspyder
So friggin' what? Is that supposed to be a point that you're trying to make.
@gotch
So that's your answer. Be a self-indulgent weasel. You can't even come up with an intelligent response.
@buckthorn
If you can't figure out the relevance of my comment you must be a product of our public school system.
Sorry, but you are only half right.... Check again, if Congress is in recess he has the authority to make a recess appointment..... Or do the rules only apply to the Republicans?
So answer the question you never will. Do bootlickers just tolerate the taste of their master's boots or do they actually grow to like it?
dawg:
Name calling and made-up words, is that all you have?
Boxcars. Really?
Dog, that the best you have to defend "Worthless" Johnson, (Republicant) by Bloviating on about Feingold?
The story here is about the continued INEPT actions of Republicant Senator Ron Johnson, Wisconsin who ranks 96th out of 100 in Senate votes for the best intentions of the American people.
And now--this story here, by the way, is about how "Worthless Johnson" (Republicant) is failing his duties to us Wisconsinites by obstruction of his sworn Senatorial duties.
Apparently GDHM (Gotch or Al Webb) came through and deleted their own posts again. That's what happens when the med's kick in.
For those who wonder what the "deleted comments" were---Bloviations that I wish you could see.
I just read an interesting article that would be the ideal in your face conservative terrorists for the president.
Nominate Loretta Lynch to the Supreme Court. That would be a good one to challenge these brazen idiots. She was just vetted for the Attorney General position. They couldn't find any reason to disqualify her. And as a prosecutor, it is difficult based on her record for Republicans to claim she is too liberal. Plus, refusing to approve a black woman for the bench would be political poison for Republicans in an election year.
I like this idea. Put them in their place Mr. President and nominate Attorney General Lynch and then watch the conservatives squirm. It is time to end their reign of terror.
Plain and simple: The IS Senate needs to sit on any discussion of SCOTUS appointments...it's their perogative to do so.
Well not exactly that "plain and simple".
Here is the language:
In the event of a vacancy on the the nation’s highest court, the founding document explained that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court.”
Advice and consent has been regularly accepted as "Senate Confirmation Hearings". The president can take suggestions from anyone as to whom to nominate but the decision of whom is solely that of the president. Once the president names a nominee, that nominee is vetted through a background check by the FBI and then confirmation hearings are held. Nothing in the constitution gives the senate the "option" to hold hearings or not. The constitution isn't even defined as a two party system. The constitution does not say that the Senate shall decide that a nomination will be deferred to the next president. The Constitution does not say that presidents may nominate justices. It says they shall do so. The senate is out of line in this opinion and is violating the constitution if they choose to take this approach.
And there is no timeline. Thank you for pointing that out. 0bama is so busy trying to start WWIII with Russia, he has no time to nominate a justice.
Elections have consequences.... get over it!
Kind of fun sitting back and watching the Republicans heads explode! LOL
So much for their plan to overturn Roe V Wade... or pass more restrictive voting laws, or get rid of Obamacare, or pollute our Environment, or allow Corporations to vote, and on, and on, and on.
The only heads exploding are libs, knowing that there is nothing they can do. Elections (2014) have consequences.
Well there GDHM, look who's doing the whining now. "He's already made his mark on the Supreme Court. He mustn't be able to stack it." You righties did not like the lefts comments about act 10, right to work, and prevailing wage. Now look at the republicans, crying like a bunch of babies.
And this is why Johnson is going to be replaced.He claims adherence to the constitution but really he adheres to the rules of the oligarchy that he represents in every vote.Just as he claims he represents the people of Wisconsin. He is a empty suit being used as a tool. Sadly he represents why this country has sold out its spirit of freedom for all to freedom to the richest. And as Scalia who often attended the retreat at the Koch brothers house he represents them not us.(U.S.)
"In our Representative Republic, the voice of We, the People must be heard this November in order to determine who will appoint the next Supreme Court Justice."
The voice of the people was heard in the last election as it will also be heard in the next election. The voice of the people was that Barack Obama was elected president. He was elected to serve to the end of his term which is January 20th, 2017. A Supreme Court opening just occurred this past weekend. THIS president that was elected by "WE THE PEOPLE" has the responsibility to fill that seat. This is not the responsibility of the next president regardless of your warped opinion of the constitution.
"Our lame duck, the historic Emperor "let them eat hope" Urkel, the First has shown such contempt for the Constitution and the law, that should he should be the last person who should be appointing his successor."
And if you wouldn't mind, could you share with everyone just one tiny little example where this president actually disobeyed the constitution or actually ignored an actual law? One's argument is always stronger with the use of actual facts instead of endless words. Truth is proven by fact, not word count.
RoJo wants to wait thinking there will be a Republican President. I seriously doubt that's going to happen. The polls already show America is fed up with the Republicans. This will be another obstructionist nail in the coffin of the GOP. The Republicans are already saying there is good news about the upcoming elections. The good news is the Dems don't have a plan. The bad news is they might not need one.
For 7 years all we have heard from Republicons is Obama is acting unconstitutionally. Now they don't want him to exercise his Constitutional rights. Hypocrites.
I noticed none of the WSJ resident right wing nut jobs have chimed in yet. I suspect they are all waiting to hear from Rush, Glen Beck or their other mouthpieces so they know what to say. Too bad for them that today is a holiday. They just hate it when they need to say something but the holiday delays the official talking points.
Posted by an expert on nut jobs.
I hope Obama picks an Asian, Hispanic, Woman or Black. Then every night on the news, from now until the election, America can watch republicons beat up on them. Oh and Ron Johnson? He can vote NO. That will help his chances in November (which is why he would prefer not to until after the election).[wink]
Anyone believe if Ron Johnson was in Obama's shoes he would defer picking a nominee until after the election? Anyone? Anyone?
Ron Johnson would need a lot of newspaper stuffing to fill President Obama's shoes.
I would like Ron Johnson to provide a cut-off date when a President in his last term should not make any nominations. This question was asked of many republicons this last weekend including Presidential candidate. Funny how none could come up with a date.
Rubio yesterday on Meet the Press claimed it was a standard practice by presidents not to do it so why would Obama break a presidential tradition?
But apparently Rubio forgot that there was this thing called history and Politifact and well once again, Rubio had no clue:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/do-presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/
According to the Dems the cutoff is the last year in office. The repubs will comply.
Contrary to what RoJo and the raving nutjobs formerly known as the GOP would like to believe, now is the best time to nominate and confirm a justice. With 2-party control, a centrist jurist is more likely to be nominated. Bad things happen when 1 party has full control and gets to ram policies down the throats of the people with no check on their power, not even laws... For an example, see Wisconsin over the last 5 years
You've got to be unimpressed with the callousness the Republicans have shown with the passing of Scalia. McConnel was spouting off within mere hours of Scalia's death that Obama shouldn't get to choose. Class, pure class there. I'm hoping their pettiness shows while the SCOTUS process plays itself out. Could you imagine the collective sigh of disbelief among the Republicans when Scalia's death was announced. It almost makes me giddy after having no voice in Wisconsin the last five years. Side note. I did see the Journal refer mistakenly to Bradley as the "incumbent". That was Walker's aim when he made the announcement appointing her to the chair. People forget stuff like that. Vote people.
RoJo should stick to talking about the few things he knows something about. Feingold is a lawyer with a law degree from Harvard. Obama taught constitutional law. They are correct when they say the President has the constitutional obligation to appoint a new justice. Now do your job Johnson and review the qualifications of whoever is nominated.
I'm thinking worthless Johnson, Republican, Wisconsin, would vote YES if the nominee was Russ Feingold!
Ironic that conservatives now feel that "the people" want a justice that shares Scalia's views. "The people" want the views of a once sitting judge to be preserved.
Well that's not how it works conservatives. Apparently "the people" want a liberal judge. That is because they elected a liberal (not liberal enough) president, twice. They know its the presidents job to appoint a Supreme Court judge when an opening presents itself. It is not the Republican Senate's job to decide if they will hold confirmation hearings or not. It is their job to hold hearings on a presidential appointment to the bench and to confirm that appointment if there are no illegal activities in that nominee's past. Is not the senates job to deny confirmation based on politics.
We are on the verge of civil war in this country. The conservatives keep saying they want to "take their country back"."We the people" want our country back from your treasonous tyranny.
The American people spoke in 2014. They want 0bama stopped.
The next POTUS will choose at least 2 more supremes. If the Republicans are upset now, they will certainly be challenged over the next 4-8 years. Imagine a supreme court where there is a 7-2 progressive majority!
Changes to the supreme court take generations to undo. We can certainly do better than another Scalia type.
Hey, Johnson, #1-YOU are not president, #2-Obama is and #3he still gets to make that choice as he doesn't leave office until NEXT January. So, you and the rest of your cronies can just take a very long walk off a really short pier. Please, take Walker, Fitzgerald, Voss and Nass with you!
I get the idea that RoJo and other Republicans really want to do away with the office of POTUS unless that individual is one of them. If the constitution gives the president the mandate to nominate to the supreme court and the senate the duty to confirm that nomination, then this is how it works. The president has 11 months of work to go, and this is one of the tasks he is obliged to undertake.
For any Republican to undermine the constitution is wrong. They continually cite the document to make their points but only when it is to their advantage.
RoJo is far from the brightest kid on the block. Should he get reelected, we'll know that he is at least brighter than those voting for this dummy.
Might be his last chance to vote for a nominee- he should want it now- corrupt moron that made his money by marrying rich
I forgot, it is a holiday today. ALEC and Brietbart and National GOP HQ are all closed.
Therefore, NO POSTS from Gotch, Dog, Al Webb, Lynne4300, hope they enjoy the day off, that Reince Priebus (yes THAT lather, Reince Priebus, lather again, Reince Priebus again) is one heck of a boss.
Do you suppose Unions worked to get holidays, besides 40 hr weeks, vacations, benefits, better pay, safety protection?
If there was a gop president hearings would be scheduled next week.
We'll have to wait 11 months for that.
Johnson said “America needs Supreme Court justices who share Justice Scalia’s commitment to applying the Constitution as written ...”
Interesting statement coming from a guy who quite obviously does not want to apply the Constitution as written when it comes to which president gets to appoint the next justice.
Why don't you read it. Dick? I did and it's silent on when vacancies must filled.
The Repubs can either have a centrist judge now or a more liberal judge in 2017 when Hilary and Democratic senate are in charge.
The Dems love their felons and traitors.
Ron who? If President Obama nominates it during his term or Hillary Clinton during hers, the party of "NO" will have some objection. That's all they're "good" for.
Hey RoJo, the American people HAVE spoken. We elected Obama for FOUR years in 2012 and have entrusted him to fulfill the Constitutional duty of appointing a SC Justice should a vacancy occur during his term, which it now has. So Shut IT! Unless you really want to wait for the next President to appoint Scalia's replacement, then we might end up with President Clinton appointing Obama, which is ok too..
Yes Josam the American people spoke loud and clear in 2014. They said no more 0bama.
If the Republicans obstruct, it's going to cost them in nov. The presidency is 4 years, not 3.
How? The Black Panthers are not going to deliver for Hitlery.
Dear Ron, Obama is the President of the US for another full year. His second term wasn't a 3 yr term.
Ron Johnson just might get what the headline suggests. Obama as a Supreme Court Justice.
Nice try but if the shoe was on the other foot you can bet he'd want the appointment to be before the election. He's been around long enough to know how the political game is played rather coming coming out and sounding totally stupid. Maybe he's hoping he'll get the appointment after Feingold beats him.
The republicans need to run out the clock on this one..
Obstructionism will cost Republicans legislative seats in the Fall elections.
How? Promising to stop 0bama is what got them the majority in 2014!!
Why? So, Hillary or Bernie can appoint a much more liberal leaning justice after January 2017?
I think that if a republican wins the next presidency they should wait until the following election to nominate a replacement for Scalia.
Obama for Supreme Court!
Yeah, Yeah. Better a seat on the supreme court than a Clinton-like career of speaking to banks and insurance companies acquiring more millions.
Nobel aside, He's too busy trying to start WWIII with Russia.
I fully look forward to watching the GOP fill up its diapers over the next year, and then Hillary or Bernie can nominate Obama.
The Black Panthers are not going to deliver Hitlery or Bernie.
I was at one of Feingold's county town hall meetings about 10 years ago. One of the attendees statement/question was express thingeir opinion that he should not automatically approve of G.W. Bush's SC appointments. Feingold disagreed stating that it was the presidents duty to appoint whomever he wanted being the president and that he(Feingold) would vote to approve anyone Bush nominated unless extraordinary circumstances. Believe me I am not Obama's biggest fan. I have any number of issues with him but he is the president and the office should be respected. He should be able to nominate and the senate should approve provided the nominee isn't some wacked out nut or has a criminal past. Looking up the history of SC appointments it appears republican presidents after WW2 have certainly had more picks than dems. Ike=5. Kennedy=2, Johnson=2, Nixon=4, Ford=1, Carter=0, Reagan=4, Bush=2, Clinton=2, Bush-=2, Obama=2 18-8 favoring conservative judges. Republicans are gambling on a obtaining a republican prez AND retaining the senate. With what republicans are pulling now, what would happen with a rep. prez and a dem senate? NO republican pick would ever be appointed. The games must stop. Again, Obama should be able to nominate who he wants and the senate should approve. My bet is a republican prez is elected and they would be able to pick a replacement for Ginsburg anyway.
I think the GWBush appointee that feingold supported was John Ashcroft for attorney general. It was a pretty close vote and most Democrats voted against his appointment, but yes, Feingold supported the nomination since it was Bush's choice.
And, Feingold caught a lot of flak for that vote, too. But, he's a principled person and he acts on his principles.
Johnson's a principled man too, only he acts on ALEC principles!
So you're saying if Rusty wins, he can vote on Trump's choice to fill Scalia's seat.
I wish Ted Cruz, in particular, but other congressional Republicans, had waited for Scalia's corpse to get cold before sending out press releases vowing to stop an Obama nominee for being confirmed.
"The stakes are high", Cruz said during the debate on Saturday night. "Two branches of government hang in the balance"- the drama queen of hyperbole. I'm so tired of the constant politicizing of everything that government is supposed to do.
Scalia not writing decisions for the supreme court this session means that the Dollar General decision- oral arguments heard, decision not yet written- is going to be decided in a way that expands tribal sovereignty rather than diminishing it and the national 'right to work' case, currently before the court, Friederich v CTA will be decided on the side of the public unions. Good, from my perspective.
In other cases, in the event of a 4-4 decision, the lower court decision will stand.
If the Republican senators prove to be too obstructionist, it could well affect whether or not they remain the majority party after the November elections, regardless of who is the new president.
We'll survive with 8 justices, if needed, and many decisions may be better than otherwise if the lower court decision stands. But, will the Republican majority in the senate survive?
We'll see.
Didn't Scats recently fill a Wi Supreme Court vacancy with just a few months before the April election? So, why shouldn't the POTUS Obama nominate and have them elected by the Senate? Drag it out Senators, it will be a classic election talking point against you!
Walker had to do it now, because that was the only way he could continue the record of appointing this person every year for three years in a row!
Hardly. The promise to Stop 0bama is what got them the majority in 2014.
We should wait until the election is decided. Obama is a weak President who acts by executive order. That's one more thing he can hide in the White House and talk about.
He's had the fewest executive orders since U.S. Grant. Still has about 70 to catch Bush and 150 to catch Reagan.
Obama had issued 226 executive orders in 7 years =2.6/month. Walker thus far has issued 185 executive orders in 5 years in Wisconsin = 3/month. Walker issues more executive orders than Obama.
Obama issued much less than Bush. Check those numbers.
Obama will issue fewer executive orders than Ike or Nixon or Reagan or W. You must have another category called 'really weak' presidents.
Read the US Constitution, bub. Those are the rules, not some crap you make up on the fly.
And the constitution is Silent. Read it.
Here's an alternative approach:
Let President Obama appoint. Let the Senate oppose. Repeat and repeat again, if time allows. Then let the American people decide what to do about it in November.
With thanks for that idea to Paula.
Anyone's opinion about the president is irrelevant. The Constitution has put the rule in place, and we all need to abide by them. We don't get to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the president should nominate someone, or whether the Senate should hold hearings.
For Johnson and his colleagues to suggest that we need to consider other criteria (theirs) in addition to the Constitution is insulting and outrageous. One again we can clearly see that Republicans don't care a wit about the Constitution or the rule of law. They're quintessential Machiavellians: the ends justify the means. Nothing could be more unAmerican.
They're just borrowing the Dems criteria
We have a Congress with an 11% approval rating and a President with a 49% approval rating and our dullard Senator wants the President to leave it up to a subsequent leader to nominate the next Justice? Then Mr Johnson, why was Ronald Reagan allowed to nominate Justice Kennedy in the last year of his Presidency? Because it was his duty and we had a Congress that knew it was in the nation's interest to work with him. Would you have denied him that right? We need better representation in Washington. Mr Johnson has to go.
Well, well, well...just look at what Chuck Schumer said in 2007 regarding George W. Bush nomination...both parties play these games. Admit It! Quit throwing stones in your glass house.
"When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.
Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40C2DVfjX
More important than what was said is what happened. Were the nominations blocked?
Note to Ron: The president gets to nominate Supreme Court justices and Obama is president until his term runs out next January. The people have already had their say - in 2012. Read the constitution - better yet, have someone explain it to you.
The only war to explain anything to Ronny is with pictures!
You're at war all right. With logic and common sense.
Note to Adams, The constitution is silent on when SC openings must be filled. Read it.
As I posted earlier:
Senator Ron Johnson, Republican, Wisconsin, will soon announce that the Senate prefers to wait until after the new President takes office next January to approve a candidate. (So Feingold gets to vote on the candidate.)
PERFECT EXAMPLE of the REPUBLICAN Senate NOT doing their job and it will be a BIG talking point against said Johnson in his reelection campaign. (Although, said Johnson hasn't done anything in 7+ years anyways so nothing new there!)
The voters should decide - what a frikkin load of hogwash. The voters did decide - November 6, 2012. Johnson, McConell, et al - you don't get to just make stuff up!
Wrong. 2014 is the most recent election.
Take a moment of silence for the late Cornelius_Gotchberg!
Apparently he was Justice Scalia as Gotchie has been absent from here since the demise of his honor!
Referring to the title of the article, if Wisconsin had a Johnson, it would be him.
Why bother to report anything "Senator" Johnson has to say. Of, course, he wants the next president to appoint Scalia's replacement....that's not news, just partisan politics as usual. It's sham to see "our" supreme Court treated like a "game" between republicans and democrats. I know, it's been that way for a long time...but that doesn't make it right.
I am on the fence about this one. Who would be better. An Obama nomination or a Clinton nomination of Obama. Decisions decisions.
LOL, you're counting on the Black Panthers to deliver the election for Hitlery. Not gonna happen.
And we want someone half way competent to replace RonJon
Observer-- You set a low bar for RonJon's replacement.
Republicans love to tout "Elections have consequences" They are right! They do!
Obama is President, so get over it.
And Harry Reid changed the senate rules concerning judgeship appointments, so get over it.
If senate republicans had not played hardball with minor routine presidential appointments it might not have been necessary. When a group of republican party leaders meets in secret and plans to thwart every thing a president wants to do on the day he is inaugurated, what do you expect.
You haven't even seen hardball yet.
Your alternative realty posts always make me chuckle.
I believe that was a an Obama quote.
And the only election that matters right now is the last one, 2014
At least the republicans have come out and admitted that their appointments to the SCOTUS are purely partisan in order to make up a court of activist jurists rather than a court od constitutional scholars who put the constitution ahead of partisan politics.
Soon to be ex-Senator Johnson doesn't even know who the REAL Justice Scalia was. He sent out a condolence with a photo of a Scalia-impersonator! Quit impersonating a Senator, Ronnie.
Hey, Ronnie Boy ... If you want to vote on the successor, better hope the nominee comes up for a vote before this November. Because you won't be around to confirm ANYONE after that! Toast don't get to vote.
Apparently McConnell forgot that Obama won the 2012 Presidential Election.
The American people spoke loud and clear in 2014. No more Soetoro!
Duh! Of course he does. Couldn't of guessed that one. What a clown. [beam]
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it clean. Exchange ideas and opinions on posted articles. Don't promote products or services, impersonate other site users, register multiple accounts, threaten or harass others, post vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language. Don't post content that defames or degrades anyone. Don't repost copyrighted material; link to it. In other words, stick to the topic and play nice. Report abuses by clicking the button. Users who break the rules will be banned from commenting. We no longer issue warnings. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.