[Magdalen] R.I.P. Justice Scalia

[Lynn Ronkainen]

The president spoke plainly of both the executive and legislative responsibilities this void presents. If he presents a reasonable candidate the Republican naysayers will have a lot of negative juju going on heading into the election if they are stonewalling the budget, the nominee and who knows what else. They will have to "give" on something and that could be SCOTUS. God forbid another justice retires or "passes" this year - the appointment would be a necessity. 
Lynn

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 14, 2016, at 11:46 PM, Mahoney, W. Michael <wmmah at stoneledge.net> wrote:

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Eleanor Braun <eleanor.braun at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Of course it's the concept.  President Obama swore to "faithfully execute
> the office of President of the United States..."  The President is charged
> to nominate the judges of the supreme court.  There is no time limit, nor
> party definition on that responsibility, nor suggestion that he should
> refrain from doing his job because he might not get a confirmation.  Do you
> have a different interpretation of his duty?  What would the reaction be if
> he just threw up his hands and said, I don't think I can get anybody
> confirmed so I'm not even going to try?  That would be called dereliction
> of duty.

But take the number to the ridiculous extreme and suppose an opening
develops a few days before the inauguration of a new president.  It would
be ridiculous to think the President should then immediately submit a
nomination.  What if it were a few weeks rather than a few days?  A few
months rather than a few weeks?

Moreover, under some plausible scenarios a more desirable nominee in the
view of the liberal left might actually be confirmed by the next Senate,
If that scenario were more than merely plausible, say highly likely, would
not a wait be worth it?

Mike M