Antonin Scalia dead at 79.

[JWeinCom]

AAA300 said:

JWeinCom said:

Except, that's not what they said.  They've said simply that Obama can't fill the vacancy at all.  This isn't a case of checks and balances, this is a case of the Senate outright refusing to fulfill their duty to help fill vacancies on the court.  Why shouldn't the Senate give any potential appointment an honest and fair evaluation, as is their responsibility? 

The fact that you want to ignore the 2012 election is ridiculous.  In 25 different terms in this century (out of 58), the president has had one or both parties representing the opposing party.  Not only is it possible for the population to vote one way with congress and another with the president, but it happens nearly half the time.  

And by the way, none of those 25 different congresses tried to obstruct the process in the way that is happening now.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Obama didn't run in 2014.  There are many factors involved in congress races, so to label this simply as "they voted against Obama" is a childish oversimplification to be charitable.  

And, what criteria may I ask do you use to claim the president should not be able to appoint a successor to Scalia?  Reagan was able to appoint in his last year.  Bush was allowed to appoint with a Senate controlled by the opposite party.  So on what criteria are you going to say that Obama should not be able to nominate ANYBODY to the court?

You don't read my comments!  I never said he could not appoint some one,only that I hope the Senate can delay. And no one ignored the 2012 election but as someone already pointed out and you ignored that we the people can't vote him out. And that's the reason in 2014 the people voted for the Senate to block him,as most Republicans ran on stopping Obama and Obama care. Also the Senate hasn't done anything yet and if Obama put forth a good candidate he/she would get threw. But as my original comments state no one in there right mind would think that Obama will appoint a moderate judge! So when they say they will block that's political talk for were not allowing a far left judge on the supreme Court. And they should do that because that's why they were voted in control of the Senate in the first place. Go figure a politician going to Washington and fulfilling its promises to stop Obama. It's ridiculous to ignore the 2014 election and as you said childish.

If you're hoping the Senate can delay, then you're hoping he can't appoint someone.  You didn't say "boy I hope the Senate evaluates the nominees well and appoints someone who represents the views of their constituents".  Nope, you just asked for a total shutdown of the process.

I can absolutely ignore that we the people can't vote him out.  Because we COULD have voted him out.  In 2012.  And we didn't.  So, until another election is held, or if he's impeached, then he's the president, and he has all the powers of the president.  We don't change the president, or strip him of powers, if public opinion changes.  That's just not how it works.  

As for why people voted how they did in the Senate races, I personally have no idea.  And, no offense, but I sincerely doubt that you were following all 33 elections close enough to know what platforms each candidate was running on.  

Several senators, including the majority leader, have outright ruled out any appointment from Obama.  As in, they're not willing to give any suggestion a fair hearing.  And, it's actually quite likely that Obama would suggest a moderate.  It's an election year, so he might want to put someone in now who is less liberal as opposed to risking someone like Cruz coming into office and voting in a hardline conservative.

And, I'm not ignoring any election results.  I'm suggesting that the senators who were voted in do the job they were voted in for.  That job is to give a fair and honest evaluation of any nominee to the supreme court.  I hardly think it is childish to expect elected officials to do their jobs.