Is It Unusual For A Lame Duck Prez To Make SC Nomination?

Not at all. In fact it happens whenever a vacancy occurs

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/

 

Obama will nominate a Judge ASAP.

There is no doubt about this.

AboveAlpha

 

Of course he will.

But nomination, and confirmation are two entirely different things.

- - - Updated - - -

Nomination and confirmation are two entirely different things.

Obama can nominate all he wants until blue in the face, but it takes the Senate to confirm.

 

I would say he will most likely nominate a Moderate.

A Judge Souter type.

Quick nomination.

AboveAlpha

 

Not at all. Actually it's more uncommon for a President to not nominate a replacement in an election year than to do so.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

 

Not in this case.

It's still early.

AboveAlpha

 

Quick nomination? Or did you mean quick confirmation?

 

Video: Schumer insists that lame-duck president should not get Supreme Court pick

Sounds like pretty good advice, huh? Thankfully, Chuck Schumer has gone on record on this issue, insisting to the American Constitution Society that the Senate not only has the right but the duty to block Supreme Court nominees from a lame-duck President. Only with an extraordinary nominee should the Senate confirm such an appointment, Schumer insists.

Of course Schumer aimed this at George W. Bush, but note that this speech took place in mid-2007, when Bush still had 18 months left in his presidency.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/...-president-should-not-get-supreme-court-pick/

 

I think this is likely. He will name a moderate. Someone that will make it difficult for the GOP to oppose without seeming like they are just obstructing. And the GOP should consider confirming. If Bernie or Hilary were to win, their nominee will very likely not be a Centrist. Obama is playing chess. Republicans are playing checkers.

 

The issue is not whether Obama nominates a replacement or not. The GOP is not going to approve such, for reasons that even Chuckie Shumer approved of just 9 years ago !!

The Democrats made this bed. Now they will sleep in it.

- - - Updated - - -

"Obama is playing chess ............" ........ Bwahahahahahahahahahaha, now that is funny !!!!

Watch and learn grasshopper.

 

Both! LOL!!!

AA

 

Well.....I think both Parties are playing stupidity.

The VAST MAJORITY of American's are MODERATES.

Swing Voters control who win's or loses the White House.

It might be entirely possible Sanders makes out in this.

AboveAlpha

 

All I'm saying is I don't think the GOP are thinking this through. They are banking on someone other than Clinton, Sanders or Trump winning the election. And maybe that happens. But it's a gamble. If a Democrat wins, the new Justice will likely be very liberal. If Trump wins, who the hell knows. It may be smart to just take the Centrist and not run the risk. Obama knows that. Which is why he will force them to make the decision.

 

Thank God nobody on the right ever said that the President's role is to nominate, the Senate is simply to give advice and consent. Oh wait. That was Mitch McConnell. So confusing. Surely it is not the same Mitch McConnell who is now saying that the Senate needs to obstruct for a year. Obviously, it is a different Mitch McConnell.

“The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.”
Mitch McConnell, 2005.

 

Did you read your own link?

It mentioned five instances where they HAD nominated...and only two where they didn't.

And of those two they said this?

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

 

What ? They aren't "banking" on such. What they know is that it is better to block an Obama appointment when they have a chance of winning the WH this year than not. If Clinton etc wins, this doesn't matter. It is a smart move for them regardless. Obama can't force them to do (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Well...one thing it WILL do is make this election about this nomination...and that means the Senate election as well.

Not sure if that's good strategy for Republicans

 

The GOP should adopt this strategy.

STOP BACKING ULTRA-RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS IDIOTS!!!

After all....does the GOP think they will vote Democrat????

AA

 

It's always been that way regardless of who is President.

 

Well sure. But by picking a moderate nominee he "forces" them to make a decision; block the nominee and risk looking like they are obstructing or approving them and taking the loss. The only way they win in this scenario is to win the white house and name a conservative to the court. This is very possible. But it's a risk. They would be banking everything on winning the white house. If they don't, Clinton or Sanders will flip the court to the left for the next generation possibly. They seriously need to consider the risk.

 

skkkuzzwad cons can play all the partisan games they want, there's no winning this one
advise and consent is all these pukers can do as they watch O stuff it up their filthy asses
nice how the planet turns left, eh? heh heh heh

 

Well...yeah. That's kind of what I was saying...

 

There's not going to be any confirmation this session.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't want a damn "moderate" judge. We want a true conservative judge like Scalia.

Do you understand?

 

LOL I understand that's what you want. But this isn't the GOP's nomination to make. It's obamas. You need to really consider all the outcomes of this. It could go a lot worse for you than a "damn moderate judge". That's all I'm saying.

 

You keep saying the same thing over and over, based on a false premise. The GOP is fine with the risk. Losing the WH again entails far more concern than any potential SCOTUS nomination now. The GOP does not need to hedge its bets on this.

- - - Updated - - -

You are assigning priorities to the GOP that do not exist in our minds.