TexasCHLforum.com

SIRIT wrote:This is sad to hear. While I am not a conservative I feel the balance the court is in now is more beneficial to the nation than if it were to be heavy on the liberal side. I do side with the liberal side of politics's especially on social issues (except @2A) I fear what will happen when cases of financial matters and obviously 2A come before the Supreme Court.

A year is a long time and I doubt the republicans can postpone it that long. I don't think it would be good for Obama to pick but it might be worse if Hillary gets elected.

She would appoint Obama in repayment for getting her out of the prison term for her reckless acts involving national security.

mojo84 wrote:Obama is about to discuss this. I'm anxious to see how her handles this. I hope he surprises me.

No surprises. He will be ruthless in pushing a nominee.

Texas_Blaze wrote:

SIRIT wrote:This is sad to hear. While I am not a conservative I feel the balance the court is in now is more beneficial to the nation than if it were to be heavy on the liberal side. I do side with the liberal side of politics's especially on social issues (except @2A) I fear what will happen when cases of financial matters and obviously 2A come before the Supreme Court.

A year is a long time and I doubt the republicans can postpone it that long. I don't think it would be good for Obama to pick but it might be worse if Hillary gets elected.

She would appoint Obama in repayment for getting her out of the prison term for her reckless acts involving national security.

Unfortunately she won't be going to prison either way. But I wouldn't shed a tear if her campaign is sunk if she in fact is indicted.

Well, he didn't surprise me. He said he will nominate a replacement and he expects the Senate to give the nominee a fair hearing. He believes it's his and the Senate's constitutional responsibility.

It will be up to the Senate and that makes me nervous. He's used recess appointments before.

mojo84 wrote:Well, he didn't surprise me. He said he will nominate a replacement and he expects the Senate to give the nominee a fair hearing. He believes it's his and the Senate's constitutional responsibility.

It will be up to the Senate and that makes me nervous. He's used recess appointments before.

They will stall for 2 weeks and then give in like they always do when Obama wants something. Although I'm sure Senator Cruz can't wait for his time in the spotlight on this one.

SIRIT wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Well, he didn't surprise me. He said he will nominate a replacement and he expects the Senate to give the nominee a fair hearing. He believes it's his and the Senate's constitutional responsibility.

It will be up to the Senate and that makes me nervous. He's used recess appointments before.

They will stall for 2 weeks and then give in like they always do when Obama wants something. Although I'm sure Senator Cruz can't wait for his time in the spotlight on this one.

I hope Senator Cruz does everything he can slow roll and stall any senate action.

mojo84 wrote:

SIRIT wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Well, he didn't surprise me. He said he will nominate a replacement and he expects the Senate to give the nominee a fair hearing. He believes it's his and the Senate's constitutional responsibility.

It will be up to the Senate and that makes me nervous. He's used recess appointments before.

They will stall for 2 weeks and then give in like they always do when Obama wants something. Although I'm sure Senator Cruz can't wait for his time in the spotlight on this one.

I hope Senator Cruz does everything he can slow roll and stall any senate action.

As much as he drive's me insane I agree.

Hope everyone stocked up. I bet we are about to see an incredible run on firearms and ammo.

jmra wrote:Hope everyone stocked up. I bet we are about to see an incredible run on firearms and ammo.

I had that same thought .....and also to buy for stock in firearm companies as those sales skyrocket in the panic

January 3, 2017 Obama could make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court. 17 days before leaving office. Eisenhower even did this.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-w ... _click=rss

hold on to your hats, it's gonna be a bumpy ride

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am deeply saddened by the news of Justice Scalia's death. It is certainly not good news for the cause of 2nd amendment rights. I have faith that President Obama will appoint a person with a deep moral conviction in justice, as much as I have faith that the person will be a liberal. I do not think he will appoint an extreme liberal though that is always a possibility.

But I am also sure that our country will survive even an extreme liberal who could never get approved by the Senate if the president uses a recess appointment. After all, we have survived liberal and conservative presidents for over 225 years. We have survived their Supreme Court appointments as well as other lower level appointments. We survived courts that ruled that slavery was legal, that social security was legal, that the police stopping people without a warrant or probable cause was legal, and even that the Affordable Care Act was legal. There will be no need for a secession or a civil war simply because of this. We will survive.

The other thing to consider is our next election. I have not yet decided if this will make a difference in my vote, but I fully expect the next president to make more appointments than this. After all, Scalia was not the oldest of the justices, nor the one in the worst health. This does make appointments a bigger issue for the next election and should help motivate voters on both sides. For those who are hoping for a delay, I will point out that a delay will only help us IF the right person wins the next presidency. And a long delay will almost force the president to make a recess appointment in January before he leaves. At that point he would know who had been elected and how they would probably choose to fill the vacancy. And yes, if Hillary wins, Justice Obama is a real possibility. Of course, that is a possibility now. Could you see a recess appointment of Justice Michelle Obama?

srothstein wrote:Ladies and Gentlemen, I am deeply saddened by the news of Justice Scalia's death. It is certainly not good news for the cause of 2nd amendment rights. I have faith that President Obama will appoint a person with a deep moral conviction in justice, as much as I have faith that the person will be a liberal. I do not think he will appoint an extreme liberal though that is always a possibility.

But I am also sure that our country will survive even an extreme liberal who could never get approved by the Senate if the president uses a recess appointment. After all, we have survived liberal and conservative presidents for over 225 years. We have survived their Supreme Court appointments as well as other lower level appointments. We survived courts that ruled that slavery was legal, that social security was legal, that the police stopping people without a warrant or probable cause was legal, and even that the Affordable Care Act was legal. There will be no need for a secession or a civil war simply because of this. We will survive.

The other thing to consider is our next election. I have not yet decided if this will make a difference in my vote, but I fully expect the next president to make more appointments than this. After all, Scalia was not the oldest of the justices, nor the one in the worst health. This does make appointments a bigger issue for the next election and should help motivate voters on both sides. For those who are hoping for a delay, I will point out that a delay will only help us IF the right person wins the next presidency. And a long delay will almost force the president to make a recess appointment in January before he leaves. At that point he would know who had been elected and how they would probably choose to fill the vacancy. And yes, if Hillary wins, Justice Obama is a real possibility. Of course, that is a possibility now. Could you see a recess appointment of Justice Michelle Obama?

As bad as it is, it can always get worse.

Now, we'll get a real opportunity to see who/what we've elected (you did vote, yes?) to represent us are made of and where they stand and who/what they fear.

TERM LIMITS NOW1

Any person nominated by Obama must first get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee before the Senate debates and votes. Chairman Grassley has given a strong indication his committee will not act on any nomination.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Any person nominated by Obama must first get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee before the Senate debates and votes. Chairman Grassley has given a strong indication his committee will not act on any nomination.

Chas.

That's similar to what I was thinking about. Hopefully, any nominee of BO's will be as successful as any of his budget proposals at getting confirmed.