I am unaware of anyone saying that Obama should have complete authority to appoint a nominee, so this seems like a very uncontroversial statement. Why did you quote it? How does it relate to your opinion?
And what other attributes are important to consider?
What Rutledge proves is that the high minded ideals of Hamilton's Federalist 76 and 78, used by people to highlight intent of a weakened Senate and a strengthened executive that got its wishes done, didn't hold up in reality. Rutledge's integrity wasn't questioned before he came out against the Jay Treaty, which exposes motivation.First of all, it should be noted that if a Senator legitimately believes a judicial candidate is not sane, that would be a completely valid reason to reject him as a candidate. (There was also a slightly less severe position that Rutledge had demonstrated recent behavior which put in question his general judgement which could impact his effectiveness as a judge rather than it simply being a matter of him expressing political opinions.) There also was evidence of Rutledge suffering from issues with alcoholism by the point he was rejected by the Senate, which also would be a completely legitimate reason to block his nomination to such an important post.
Ultimately, even if you argue the Rutledge rejection was purely about politics, and believe its fine for the Senate to consider the politics of a candidate, that's extremely different than the blanket rejection of any nomination from a President of the other party. (It was also understood until at least extremely recently that the political angle if valid only applied to a candidate with extreme positions and not merely views they disagreed with rather than the Senate only accepting candidates they would view as ideal when a President of another party is in office.)
When you get down to it, there is not much difference between a political party blocking a nominee for basically a whole year (probably literally a year until a new nominee is confirmed if the plan works) and a party saying they simply won't confirm an elected President of the other party's nominees to the Supreme Court period.
You're the one that claimed the Pope was wrong about what Catholicism meant
and you just claimed now that Supreme Court justices couldn't run circles around you intellectually. Hell, you think they are 'idiots'.
In before his usual "who me?" act.
the democrats from almost Day 1 of the bush presidency planned to block, delay, litmus test every Bush judicial nomination.
Go educate yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/01/us/washington-talk-democrats-readying-for-judicial-fight.html
This started liberal & democatric planning against Bush nominations started around april 2001, ~3 months after Bush became president.
Democats acting like pure little angles in this situation can go f themselves. Esspically turds like Schumer who worked to oppose Bush from nearly day 1 on judicial nominations.
Wrong again, that's just your wrong interpretation, but then again, since you are the expert on everything -- including thinking you know my opinion and stance on things better than I do -- have at it if that's what you want to believe. It's still a relatively free country
Someone can be relatively smart in some ways, and still be a complete idiot in other ways. As the expert on everything you should know this.
A lot of people are calling for the senate to vote for / against a nominee strictly based on their qualifications, when obummer himself made it clear he does not support that approach. Presumably he wanted to also include the makeup of the court in the equation, something he now wants the senate to ignore.
Could you really blame him? Bush's justices paved the way for Super Pacs.
Big fan of those?
Well by all means explain what areas you think these justices are 'complete idiots' in then. Did you mean making their grocery list? Getting soap scum off of the shower tiles? I imagine you meant in a legal sense, which is of course what I meant. Do you consider yourself to be a more intelligent legal mind than these justices? If not, what metric are you using to call them idiots?
The constitution is a living document mate.
Bush because president Jan 2001, the democrats started planning on how to block his justices April 2001. So 3 months after Bush was president.
Citizens United wasnt decided until 2010.
It doesn't matter. The Senate is not beholden to the President. Never wa,s, never will be.
Then the President should nominate somebody that the people approve of. People toss around that the President has the mandate since he was elected, as if that means he gets what he wants. The Senate was also elected, and has their own mandate.How did you interpret what I said into the Senate has to do what the President commands?
The Senate has a job to do, the Court has a job to do that they are currently understaffed for. Lets watch the Senate dodge their responsibility and see what the outcome will be.
Then the President should nominate somebody that the people approve of. People toss around that the President has the mandate since he was elected, as if that means he gets what he wants. The Senate was also elected, and has their own mandate.
If the court can't do their job, then it is up to the President to nominate somebody the Senate feels is acceptable. I have no doubt they will affirm somebody like Scalia again maybe he should do that.
If anything Democrats should be feeling pretty good because they've gotten to reject at least one SCOTUS pick (Bork) without retribution to date.
No, it's up to the president to nominate someone HE finds acceptable. Then it's up to the Senate to decide if THEY find the nominee acceptable. The job of the president is definitely not to nominate someone that the Senate would find acceptable as that would be a gross violation of the separation of powers.
The President can do his job as he sees fit, but it's a two part task. Sure, he can nominate someone he finds acceptable all he wants, but if he wants that nomination to be successful in getting confirmed then he'll nominate someone the Senate finds acceptable. If he wants to prioritize task 1 over task 2 that's his call but he really has no standing to complain if he does as he already laid out in his own words what the Senate role is when he was a Senator. Obama says he's a Christian but he's going to find out there's something behind that whole Hindu concept of karma.
By a conservative supreme court.
Do you think citizens united still would have happened had Gore won the presidency?
No, it's the obvious interpretation.
Again, it's hilarious that you could claim to know more about Catholicism than the Pope and then have the temerity to call anyone else an 'expert on everything'.
I imagine you meant in a legal sense, which is of course what I meant.
Do you consider yourself to be a more intelligent legal mind than these justices?
Stop giving people the benefit of the doubt, they know perfectly well what they're doing. They support what benefits their side at the moment and are perfectly willing and able to do a 180 in thinking when supporting the opposite benefits their side. If anything Democrats should be feeling pretty good because they've gotten to reject at least one SCOTUS pick (Bork) without retribution to date. Indeed, the entire Bush presidency was one of threatened or actual obstruction, fillibuster, or other moves by the Democrats to minimize or eliminate the ability of the President to confirm his choice of judges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_Supreme_Court_candidates
It has nothing to do with prioritizing either task as both are equally important parts of the same process; it would be insane to nominate someone he didn't find acceptable just because the Senate did.
The Republicans made a dumb mistake by giving the game away: they should have made up excuses why each nominee was unacceptable instead of just declaring right away that they weren't going to approve anyone. I guess signalling to the ultra right crazies like you is more important to them.
"obvious" --- to you , and also wrong.
I don't bother going back to old threads and continue to argue the point. You think you know my position better than I do, have at it, but you're wrong.
Again, you are simply wrong in your interpretation, but being wrong is a hard concept to grasp for an expert on everything such as yourself Suffice it to say that you're arguing against a position that doesn't exist.
I'm sure they are fine legal minds, but they let their ideology overrule their legal perspective. Thus, they come to absurd conclusions in support of their ideology.
Nope, I have no legal training, some of us (wink wink) are not experts in every field. I'm pretty sure you've made some comments about Clarence Thomas and other conservative justices that show you are .. less than impressed by their legal mind and acumen.
The President can do his job as he sees fit, but it's a two part task. Sure, he can nominate someone he finds acceptable all he wants, but if he wants that nomination to be successful in getting confirmed then he'll nominate someone the Senate finds acceptable. If he wants to prioritize task 1 over task 2 that's his call but he really has no standing to complain if he does as he already laid out in his own words what the Senate role is when he was a Senator. Obama says he's a Christian but he's going to find out there's something behind that whole Hindu concept of karma.
So you care more about the appearance of fairness than actual fairness. Got it, you just want the comforting lie that Republicans would behave better than Democrats actually did in similar circumstances in the past. Too bad they didn't meet your unspoken need to allow you to continue to rationalize your own past (and future) partisanship.