Wanting to stack the courts with biased judges is wanting to deny justice. It's both a danger and an insult to your fellow citizens.
I couldn't agree more that is why Scalia needs to be replaced with a jurist of like kind, a constitutional originalist, a purist, not another activist jurist the likes of Ginsberg, Kagen, or Sotomayor, heck even Kennedy is too activist. The court does not exist to change the constitution but, to see that the author's words & intents are adhered to based on the the original documents & precedents. The court does not exist to change the constitution or to form society to any subgroup's fancy that is what the ballot box is for and when people & their elected representatives can agree on a 2/3rds basis that the constitution needs amendment then the constitution gets changed. The founders of this nation never intended the country to be ruled by a judiciary of nine or by their consensus but, by the consensus of the people so, the only danger or insult is packing the court with yet another jurist which intends to toss aside the constitution and legislate from the bench.
It will be a year before Obama actually leaves office, and in that time he has every right and obligation to appoint a replacement for Judge Scalia.
He has the right to nominate yes but, as the founders penned the constitution they did not however give the responsibility of confirmation of a jurist to the executive branch so, the senate...the representatives of the people, are completely in their right not to address his nominations, request, or demands in his lame duck year. If you look back at history the supreme court started with only six jurists and has operated with less than nine more than once, it is the only right thing to do in an election year to give this appointment to the people & to their new executive whoever that may be...let the people decide what they want at the ballot box, seems fair enough to me.
But, we can expect the republicans to stonewall that replacement as they have stonewalled everything else Obama has tried to do whether it's good for the nation, to not. Because they couldn't care less what's good for the country, or it's citizens. All they care about is denying Obama any possibility of having a positive effect. And if that means the American people are also being denied any possibility of positive effective government, well, too bad for us.
Nothing and I do mean nothing this man has done has benefited this nation, in fact he has put us deeper in debt, more unsafe, and compromised the security of world peace with his ineptness. The most positive thing for this country, it's people, and what is left of our constitution will happen when the man leaves office.
How you can keep voting for these deliberately obstructionist scumbags is beyond comprehension. But you will, no matter what.
Are you kidding me? with the deliberate obstruction of any public debate on this travesty of a healthcare law? How about executive action after executive action to go around the representatives of the people or any form of public debate before decisions are adopted? you mean that kind of obstruction? Tit for tat...we did not like having the democrat led congress practice obstruction either so, this really should not bother you so much.
You will love this Purex, it is Obama back in '06 practicing his obstruction against Sam Alito's confirmation to Supreme Court, the hypocrisy is so delicious in this one. I should cued up Schumer and his hypocritical speech when the shoe was on the other foot...ya gotta love it.
lain:
