• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can O Pull a SCOTUS Fast One on Tuesday Morning?

Fruityfact said:
I don't think it's the move.
OTOH, if there's a chance to trash citizens united, it'd be worth it.
Click to expand...

I'd do it if I was stiffed by a bunch of obstructionists denying a fair hearing to my pick. But, I suspect that Obama lacks the stones.
 
calamity said:
I'd do it if I was stiffed by a bunch of obstructionists denying a fair hearing to my pick. But, I suspect that Obama lacks the stones.
Click to expand...

Lacks the stones to get embarrassed 9-0 in the SCOTUS just like last time he tried to pull the recess bull****.
 
calamity said:
I say give it a go, Obama. What have ya got to lose?

Obama could still force Merrick Garland onto Supreme Court during 'intersession recess' - Washington Times
Click to expand...

That would be a typical Obama move, but as the article points out, Garland would only serve a year at most and would be out if the senate confirmed his replacement. Plus he would be out of a job entirely as he would lose his seat on the DC court. So while Obama might be up for it, I don't see how Garland benefits in any way.
 
very interesting, the word "FORCE" is used.

the only way a person can be put on the court is by whats stated in the constitution and there is no force there.
 
I don't think he'd do it.

Most problematic for Mr. Obama is that recess appointments have a shelf life. Even if he succeeds in putting Judge Garland on the bench, the appointment would expire at the close of 2017 — and could end even earlier if the Senate confirms a full-fledged replacement named by Mr. Trump.

Worse yet for Mr. Obama, Judge Garland would lose his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — oftentimes dubbed the second-most powerful court in the country. That means the president would be trading a lifetime of Judge Garland for less than a year of Justice Garland.
Click to expand...
Obama could still force Merrick Garland onto Supreme Court during 'intersession recess' - Washington Times

There is no point unless he thinks that during the interim appointment Garland's vote would get some critical liberal issues resolved before Congress could replace him.

Moreover, would Garland think the short term goals of accepting an interim appointment worth losing his seat on the D.C. Court of Appeals.
 
Last edited:
I give this zero chance. However, that's the same chance I gave Trump so.......................
 
It sound like something Obama would try while he is on his quest to stop the Make America Great Again movement.

I doubt it will fly, though. He has lost so many times at SCOTUS, to try to implement another "go around congress to appoint a supreme court justice" will be a bridge too far. He's already had his recess appointment run around congress 9-0 out the window.

That gives future presidents another way to nullify congress's "power to approve".

But he is a big enough asshole to try.
 
I wish he would. **** 'em.
 
chuckiechan said:
It sound like something Obama would try while he is on his quest to stop the Make America Great Again movement.

I doubt it will fly, though. He has lost so many times at SCOTUS, to try to implement another "go around congress to appoint a supreme court justice" will be a bridge too far. He's already had his recess appointment run around congress 9-0 out the window.

That gives future presidents another way to nullify congress's "power to approve".

But he is a big enough asshole to try.
Click to expand...

I think the assholes were those who refused to give his appointee a fair hearing. So, the asshole threshold has already been breached.
 
Crovax said:
Lacks the stones to get embarrassed 9-0 in the SCOTUS just like last time he tried to pull the recess bull****.
Click to expand...

Worth the gamble, IMO. The 9-0 beating was procedural error in that Congress was still legally in session. 5 minutes before noon tomorrow, it will officially not be.
 
Fletch said:
That would be a typical Obama move, but as the article points out, Garland would only serve a year at most and would be out if the senate confirmed his replacement. Plus he would be out of a job entirely as he would lose his seat on the DC court. So while Obama might be up for it, I don't see how Garland benefits in any way.
Click to expand...

It's clearly a gamble, one I would take, no question. But, Obama is not a hardball player. He's kind of a *****. So, I see him doing nothing....kind of like what he has done over the last two years.
 
calamity said:
It's clearly a gamble, one I would take, no question. But, Obama is not a hardball player. He's kind of a *****. So, I see him doing nothing....kind of like what he has done over the last two years.
Click to expand...

I always thought Obama had some pretty big cajones when it came to killing terrorists, among some other issues, but when it come's to doing what he was elected to do, he should have done that when he had the congress instead of "negotiating" and extending olive branches. Hindsite being 20/20, he should have rammed the will of the people down the obstructionist's throats. But he didn't. So that's one ***** point he earned, IMO.
 
Captain America said:
I always thought Obama had some pretty big cajones when it came to killing terrorists, among some other issues, but when it come's to doing what he was elected to do, he should have done that when he had the congress instead of "negotiating" and extending olive branches. Hindsite being 20/20, he should have rammed the will of the people down the obstructionist's throats. But he didn't. So that's one ***** point he earned, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yep. Hardball politics to give his millions what they elected him to do was not his strong suit. He was elected as a progressive; he governed as a Centrist.

My wife says it is because he was bought and paid for by the bankers and corporations, like Monsanto and Citibank. Evidence suggests she is not too far off base.
 
calamity said:
Yep. Hardball politics to give his millions what they elected him to do was not his strong suit. He was elected as a progressive; he governed as a Centrist.

My wife says it is because he was bought and paid for by the bankers and corporations, like Monsanto and Citibank. Evidence suggests she is not too far off base.
Click to expand...

She was at least once before.
 
Sure, he could set an example, but at what cost? What goes around comes around, and what seems cool at first glance can come and bite you in the ass.
 
why stop there?
fill EVERY open judicial opening with an Obama appointee
 
calamity said:
I say give it a go, Obama. What have ya got to lose?

Obama could still force Merrick Garland onto Supreme Court during 'intersession recess' - Washington Times
Click to expand...

Interesting, but as the article pointed out "Perhaps most problematic for Mr. Obama is that recess appointments have a shelf life. Even if he succeeds in putting Judge Garland on the bench, the appointment would expire at the close of 2017 — and could end even earlier if the Senate confirms a full-fledged replacement named by Mr. Trump."

As for the politicization of the SCOTUS, it has been seen that way ever since Bork was Borked. The SCOTUS has become a political football with each judge having his or hers own political agenda with in the most part, little attention given to original intent or the exact wording of the constitution itself.

In that aspect, the politicization, I wouldn't worry about. Anyone who is a bit political active knows the SCOTUS is already politicized. Whether Obama does or doesn't, the first few months of Trump will be most interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom