If you haven't been following the news, Judge Scalia passed away so there is a vacant on the court so it is even and there is no tie breaker. I would have preferred a republican judge be in place when a vacancy opened up but such is life.

What irritates me over all of this is that many of the republicans, including the republican presidential candidates have suggested that Obama shouldn't be allowed to nominate anyone. Among the more stupid of excuses was that it is an election year and that he is a lame duck at this point. Then they openly come out and say they will just block anyone he puts forward until there is a new president.

This gives republican and conservatives a bad name and makes them hypocrites. This is just another example of republican politicians following the constitution only when it suits them. The constitution is clear, it is the president's responsibility to nominate the next judge and there is no mention that a president cannot or should not nominate someone while they are a lame duck or during an election year. Republicans are just making crap up and the whole country can see their BS.

I don't like the situation any more than they do but that is just reality. By coming out and instantly saying they will stop anyone Obama nominates they are just increasing the waste and bureaucracy of our government. People are already annoyed at how big and wasteful the government is and here we have republicans adding to the same thing they condemn.

Sure, republicans may not like who Obama nominates, but they should still do their fricken jobs, have the hearings, and then deny if appropriate. Don't be whiny douche bags complaining about it, do your jobs according to the constitution and be the better person.

Isn't it congress who "appoints" the Supreme Court Justice through a confirmation hearing?

I thought Obama can only nominate.

President appoints, with "advice and consent" of the Senate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

The appointment and confirmation of Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States involves several steps set forth by the United States Constitution, which have been further refined and developed by decades of tradition. Candidates are nominated by the President of the United States and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate. Confirmation by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court.

If you haven't been following the news, Judge Scalia passed away so there is a vacant on the court so it is even and there is no tie breaker. I would have preferred a republican judge be in place when a vacancy opened up but such is life.

What irritates me over all of this is that many of the republicans, including the republican presidential candidates have suggested that Obama shouldn't be allowed to nominate anyone. Among the more stupid of excuses was that it is an election year and that he is a lame duck at this point. Then they openly come out and say they will just block anyone he puts forward until there is a new president.

This gives republican and conservatives a bad name and makes them hypocrites. This is just another example of republican politicians following the constitution only when it suits them. The constitution is clear, it is the president's responsibility to nominate the next judge and there is no mention that a president cannot or should not nominate someone while they are a lame duck or during an election year. Republicans are just making crap up and the whole country can see their BS.

I don't like the situation any more than they do but that is just reality. By coming out and instantly saying they will stop anyone Obama nominates they are just increasing the waste and bureaucracy of our government. People are already annoyed at how big and wasteful the government is and here we have republicans adding to the same thing they condemn.

Sure, republicans may not like who Obama nominates, but they should still do their fricken jobs, have the hearings, and then deny if appropriate. Don't be whiny douche bags complaining about it, do your jobs according to the constitution and be the better person.

Unfortunately, the Democrats would do the same thing.  If dems and libs play dirty while Republicans and conservatives play clean, it leaves republicans at a disadvantage.  what you posted  only tells one side of the story .
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/

Fixed error.

Wonder if this will make you just as mad... 

Unfortunately, the Democrats would do the same thing.  If dems and libs play dirty while Republicans and conservatives play clean, it leaves republicans at a disadvantage.  what you posted  only tells one side of the story .
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/

Fixed error.

I disagree. This is what turns off voters and dissolutions them. They know they cannot trust either side to do their job and they think that the republican position of smaller government as guided by the constitution is a lie.
When our line is "well the democrats did it first" we sound like 1st graders  shirking responsibility. Do the cops get to beat suspects because previously the suspects beat a cop? Government accountable to the people means an elected official does their job as required whether they like it or now. We must do it the right way consistently that way we actually have a leg to stand on when we point out that democrats do it. As it stands now, when we point at democrats doing it previously they just point back and say we did it before them too etc etc etc.

And now Obama is talking about nominating a republican governor as the next justice. I am sure it is just a tactical move but it just makes republicans look worse because the democrats look like they are working across party lines and the republicans aren't.

If he nominated a pro constitution justice that would do his/her job properly without political bias, I would support it.

Unfortunately,  that isn't how he rolls, neither are the justices he has appointed.   So I believe the Senate needs to do their job and deny such individual.

I can see why this process and posturing could be disturbing to some, but I am not too bothered by it. That's politics, and like it or not, politics has deeply infiltrated every aspect of our system, even our Constitution, and the legal system. If it weren't for politics, every Supreme Court decision ought to come back 9-0, based purely on reasoning and logical consistency with the Constitution and other legal rulings. Yet we have the opposite. Supreme Court decisions often come down split 5-4 over party lines, or other ideological or political alliances amongst the justices on specific types of issues. And there are those Supreme Court decisions that seemingly overreach the purview of the Constitution, and seem purely motivated by the justices' personal ideals and prejudices, such as the gay marriage ruling.

Regarding Obama's constitutional responsibility to nominate a replacement for Scalia, I am guessing there is some wiggle room or gray area in that. After all, if Scalia had instead died one day before the end of Obama's term, would Obama still be forced to nominate a candidate? While he may have the responsibility, I am guessing he is not obligated by duty to do so within a certain time frame, in which case it is completely reasonable for the Republican party to vocally oppose an Obama nominated successor.

Obama has almost a year left in his presidency, there is no articulateable reason why he should not nominate someone. Suggesting that he should not makes conservatives look like whiny brats. Lets all be more mature, let him nominate someone without comment and then during the confirmation hearing do the necessary diligence and approve or deny the nomination based on whether they will rules based on the constitution. Don't give the democrats sound bites to latch on to. Voicing these things immediately gains us absolutely nothing. Let the legal system play its course and follow the constitution that they claim to love so much.

How would you like to hear a similar line from any other public servant? If the teacher looked at the dumb student and said "it doesn't matter what he wrote, I am sure it will be bad so I will give him an F right away" do you think that would fly?

Trump, to his credit, was the only one who gave a realistic answer when he said Obama would nominate someone anyway so he wasn't going to comment on what Obama should do.

Sounds like the usual suspect is frothing at the mouth at the possibility his idol has a chance to pack the court with another anti-2A justice. 

Ah, then all those "reasonable" laws he loves to try and justify will come pouring forth to his immense pleasure.

If he nominated a pro constitution justice that would do his/her job properly without political bias, I would support it.

Unfortunately,  that isn't how he rolls, neither are the justices he has appointed.   So I believe the Senate needs to do their job and deny such individual.

A recent email from the white house confirmed my suspicions on what Obo is going to do.  He touts about how judges use their "personal views" and blah blah blah to judge.  Written law is not to be interpreted by "personal view"  and the constitution is clear in what it says and how it says it.  Many "controversial" decisions by the courts are because people feel that the judges ruled against their own "personal views", but yet the written document, which should not be changed or modified by a judge (only measured against the words) is what needs to be followed.      Yes, the senate NEEDS to block any such person.  Obo can go ahead and do his "duty to the constitution" (pick and choose when he likes to do this) and the Senate needs to do their DUTY and block it.

Obama has almost a year left in his presidency, there is no articulable reason why he should not nominate someone. Lets all be more mature, let him nominate someone without comment and then during the confirmation hearing do the necessary diligence and approve or deny the nomination based on whether they will rules based on the constitution. Voicing these things immediately gains us absolutely nothing.

If the teacher looked at the dumb student and said "it doesn't matter what he wrote, I am sure it will be bad so I will give him an F right away" do you think that would fly?

There are reasons: a year is not much time compared to the norm, Obama may not be obligated to nominate a successor within a specified time frame, Obama has already appointed 2 judges to the Supreme Court, a judge's death is an unusual and unplanned event, and any nomination may be a waste of time and paperwork. Maybe to you these are bad reasons, but they are still reasons. From a different point of view, there are really only two reasons that Obama should nominate a successor: one year is enough time to nominate and approve a justice so it might as well be done, and doing so successfully will let Obama abuse his power. Are these good reasons?

Your teacher analogy is not in exactly the same situation. It would be nice if it were, but we all know politics is not academic and not objective. That being said, I'm sure your teacher scenario happens constantly in our schools. Grades in humanities courses are determined in large part by instructor bias.

Sounds like the usual suspect is frothing at the mouth at the possibility his idol has a chance to pack the court with another anti-2A justice. 

Ah, then all those "reasonable" laws he loves to try and justify will come pouring forth to his immense pleasure.

Perhaps you didn't read the post where I clearly laid out that I don't like it when conservative republicans disregard the constitution they claim to love and make us conservatives look stupid.

Do I need to use smaller words for you to understand? Maybe my daughter can copy the US constitution with a crayon so that you find it easier to read.

What is the matter, you cannot comprehend that there exists a conservative who doesn't like beer?

There are reasons: a year is not much time compared to the norm, Obama may not be obligated to nominate a successor within a specified time frame, Obama has already appointed 2 judges to the Supreme Court, a judge's death is an unusual and unplanned event, and any nomination may be a waste of time and paperwork. Maybe to you these are bad reasons, but they are still reasons. From a different point of view, there are really only two reasons that Obama should nominate a successor: one year is enough time to nominate and approve a justice so it might as well be done, and doing so successfully will let Obama abuse his power. Are these good reasons?

Your teacher analogy is not in exactly the same situation. It would be nice if it were, but we all know politics is not academic and not objective. That being said, I'm sure your teacher scenario happens constantly in our schools. Grades in humanities courses are determined in large part by instructor bias.

The point that Obama has already picked two justices is a valid concern, it does pose a moral question of whether it is a good idea for a single president to pick 1/3rd of the supreme court. Now having said that, do you think a republican president in Obama's position would use the reasons that you gave to turn around and say "I think I will leave it to the next guy."? My biggest point here is that I don't want a liar or a hypocrite. If Ted Cruz, for example, says Obama shouldn't nominate anyone then I would expect him to take that same position if he were president in the same situation.

Ye it takes time and money to have hearings for a nominee but it also takes time and money to rehear cases that the court ties on or doesn't take because of not having all judges.