Should Obama nominate a Supreme Court Justice or leave it to the next President?

[nclib]

Option 1 of course.

It is absurd (but not surprising) that Republicans want to leave a Supreme Court seat vacant for well over a year. (inauguration is 11 months, then it won't be the first item addressed, then nominated then confirmed by the Senate, then seated)

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Ugh, this situation kinda remind me all that crap with Constitutional Tribunal in Poland.
I guess the best solution is to look backward and find some historical examples of similar situations if any were present.

[NeverAgain]

LOL, the fact that is a question is sad. We need to follow the constitution and not partisan politics.

[Blue3]

This question being asked is sad, ridiculous, pathetic.

There's no question that he won't. No question. How anyone can think it's even a possibility otherwise is beyond me.

[nclib]

He definitely will nominate someone--but may not be confirmed. Yes, it's sad this needs to be asked, but it does, and all three forum Repubs so far have voted no.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

As President, he is given the privilege of power to appoint to the Supreme Court. The Senate's job is to review the nominee and make sure they are fit for the job.


If Republicans stall this, they only hurt themselves. And there's absolutely no guarantee the next President will be a Republican.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Option 1.

Republicans have no respect for the Constitution.

[muon2]

He definitely will nominate someone--but may not be confirmed. Yes, it's sad this needs to be asked, but it does, and all three forum Repubs so far have voted no.

I think the question of whether the President should nominate and whether the Senate should confirm are entirely separate. Obama has the authority to make a nomination and has no reason not to do so. How the Senate responds depends on who is that nominee, and that falls entirely within their authority.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution is in no way ambiguous on this matter. The winner of the 2012 Presidential election has the right to fill all vacancies on the Supreme Court that occur between January 20, 2013 and January 20, 2017. End of story.

[nclib]

He definitely will nominate someone--but may not be confirmed. Yes, it's sad this needs to be asked, but it does, and all three forum Repubs so far have voted no.

I think the question of whether the President should nominate and whether the Senate should confirm are entirely separate. Obama has the authority to make a nomination and has no reason not to do so. How the Senate responds depends on who is that nominee, and that falls entirely within their authority.

Agreed but many Repubs have flat-out said that every nominee will be blocked, and that Obama should simply leave the seat vacant.

It's certainly up to the Senate to decide on an individual nominee. But if a moderate qualified non-controversial nominee can't get confirmed, that would be simply be partisanship and obstruction. Even Clarence Thomas (who was replacing liberal Thurgood Marshall) got through a Democratic Senate.

[muon2]

He definitely will nominate someone--but may not be confirmed. Yes, it's sad this needs to be asked, but it does, and all three forum Repubs so far have voted no.

I think the question of whether the President should nominate and whether the Senate should confirm are entirely separate. Obama has the authority to make a nomination and has no reason not to do so. How the Senate responds depends on who is that nominee, and that falls entirely within their authority.

Agreed but many Repubs have flat-out said that every nominee will be blocked, and that Obama should simply leave the seat vacant.

It's certainly up to the Senate to decide on an individual nominee. But if a moderate qualified non-controversial nominee can't get confirmed, that would be simply be partisanship and obstruction. Even Clarence Thomas (who was replacing liberal Thurgood Marshall) got through a Democratic Senate.

If I correctly heard what the President spoke about last week, then there are other options. For example, the President could invite McConnell to the WH and say "Mitch, give me five names you would support for SCOTUS, but they must be candidates who could get 60 votes to overcome cloture. Since that requires at least 6 Dems, or more if some of your caucus balks, I'll check with the Senate Dems to know that it is the case. Then I'll pick one from your list as my nominee." That would be the real spirit of bipartisanship, which is different from nominating someone perceived as a moderate.

[Illiniwek]

Option 1.

Republicans have no respect for the Constitution.

[Sir Mohamed]

He should.

Policy differences aside, but I think what some GOP officials (and I say officials, not the entire party) is doing is a disgrace. What Mitch McConnell said is not only disrespectful to the president, but also the constitution. It clearly states that the president has to power to nominate a justice, and the senate should vote on him/her after a fair hearing. There is no provision that states “except the last year of a presidency”. What’s then next? Saying a president shouldn’t veto a bill in his last year? Mitch says, the people should have the chance to vote on it. What is with the 65 million people that voted for Obama in the last election? They voted for a president to serve four years, not three.
What I think is the true disgrace is not that the GOP has reservations with a liberal justice (btw: Scalia and others were confirmed by an anonymous vote or close to that), but that Mitch and others just want to deny that right to Obama. He could have said: “Let’s find a justice of the political center. None who is an outspoken liberal or an outspoken conservative. Someone respected by at least a majority in both parties”). I think it’s so sad that there is such a level of hatred for this president.

[Classic Conservative]

He should nominate one, I think but the Senate shouldn't have to confirm them if they don't want to.

[This account no longer in use.]

There is absolutely no reason not to. I seriously doubt Republicans can hold back a Supreme Court nomination for a whole year.

[President Johnson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution is in no way ambiguous on this matter. The winner of the 2012 Presidential election has the right to fill all vacancies on the Supreme Court that occur between January 20, 2013 and January 20, 2017. End of story.

He should.

Policy differences aside, but I think what some GOP officials (and I say officials, not the entire party) is doing is a disgrace. What Mitch McConnell said is not only disrespectful to the president, but also the constitution. It clearly states that the president has to power to nominate a justice, and the senate should vote on him/her after a fair hearing. There is no provision that states “except the last year of a presidency”. What’s then next? Saying a president shouldn’t veto a bill in his last year? Mitch says, the people should have the chance to vote on it. What is with the 65 million people that voted for Obama in the last election? They voted for a president to serve four years, not three.
What I think is the true disgrace is not that the GOP has reservations with a liberal justice (btw: Scalia and others were confirmed by an anonymous vote or close to that), but that Mitch and others just want to deny that right to Obama. He could have said: “Let’s find a justice of the political center. None who is an outspoken liberal or an outspoken conservative. Someone respected by at least a majority in both parties”). I think it’s so sad that there is such a level of hatred for this president.

Well said.

There is absolutely no reason not to. I seriously doubt Republicans can hold back a Supreme Court nomination for a whole year.

I think they will. Sadly.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

He should nominate. The Republicans are under no obligation to confirm that nominee.

[Higgs]

Obama can nominate whoever he wants but Republican Senators better vote down any liberal judges he nominates.

[Higgs]

Option 1.

Republicans have no respect for the Constitution.

Just curious, how do we have no respect for the Constitution? McConnell and other Senators have just as much a right to vote down Obama's nominees as Obama has the right to nominate them.

[Clark Kent]

Leave it, unless either Comrade Sanders or Trump defies all odds and is elected. I'd trust an Obama nominee far more than a Sanders or Trump nominee.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Option 1.

Republicans have no respect for the Constitution.

Just curious, how do we have no respect for the Constitution? McConnell and other Senators have just as much a right to vote down Obama's nominees as Obama has the right to nominate them.

Its not so much that anything McConnell and the Republican Caucus has done (or threatened to do) is blatantly illegal as it is that it goes against the spirit of the Constitution. The argument put forward by Ted Cruz and others - that Obama should not nominate a replacement for Scalia because it is an election year - it patently absurd and has no grounding either in precedent or in the text of the Constitution. As stated by yourself and others in this thread, the responsibility for filling vacancies on the Supreme Court rests with the sitting president, not the would-be future president. It is beyond clear that McConnell's only objection to receiving a nominee in 2016 is that the incumbent president happens to be a Democrat - were Mitt Romney in the Oval Office today, no member of the Republican Caucus would have batted an eyelash when he moved to fill this unfortunate vacancy.

You are correct, of course, that the Senate is not Constitutionally obligated to confirm the president's nominee, and were Obama to put forward a blatantly partisan candidate - say, Debbie Wasserman Schutlz - I would expect that nominee to be flatly rejected. To refuse to consider any nominee, on the basis of a warped interpretation of presidential authority concocted for exclusively partisan reasons, is a wholly different matter. No-one will send Mitch McConnell to jail for this act, but he should be ashamed of himself for politicizing the last quasi-nonpartisan institution in the national government. (Yes, I am aware that Democrats have done the same thing in the past. Such is deplorable, but it does nothing to change the fact that in this instance Senator McConnell and his colleagues are on shaky moral ground. Two wrongs don't make a right.)

[OSR stands with Israel]

LOL, the fact that is a question is sad. We need to follow the constitution and not partisan politics.

[NeverAgain]

Option 1.

Republicans have no respect for the Constitution.

Just curious, how do we have no respect for the Constitution? McConnell and other Senators have just as much a right to vote down Obama's nominees as Obama has the right to nominate them.

Well when you have McConnell not just saying he'd not vote for the nominee, he'd deny a hearing on such. And the front-runner of your party saying on the matter "delay, delay, delay". I didn't hear this coming from the Democrats in 1987/8. To be fair, the Democrats tried to invoke the Thurmond rule in the waining days of Dubya, which is dumb, but the Thurmond rule actually applied there.