# Obama must be allowed to nominate the next SCOTUS Justice **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2016, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061 "2016-02-13T23:23:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/101 "2016-02-14T12:06:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Obama has no understanding of constitutional law. Oh **adaher**. You’re so cute when you represent yourself as being more expert in such things than a Harvard Law graduate. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/102 "2016-02-14T12:17:26Z")
His record before the Supreme Court speaks for itself. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/103 "2016-02-14T12:21:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > His record before the Supreme Court speaks for itself. Judging someone’s understanding of constitutional law based on whether the Supreme Court agrees with them _after the fact_ is obviously highly problematic. Also, if disagreeing with the Supreme Court on some particular number of issues disqualifies one from understanding constitutional law, how many dissents should a justice be allowed on constitutional matters before they’re impeached? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/104 "2016-02-14T12:24:58Z")
When the court tends to unite against you, as happens frequently with this President, it does at least show that Obama’s views on constitutional law are… novel. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/105 "2016-02-14T12:44:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > When the court tends to unite against you, as happens frequently with this President, it does at least show that Obama’s views on constitutional law are… novel. This is total bullshit. With a slightly different court makeup, most of these would have gone in Obama’s favor. And it’s total bullshit that the rare unanimous decisions can be blamed on a lack of understanding by Obama. That’s a Hannity interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/106 "2016-02-14T13:00:13Z")
Then what is it based on? Sure, some decisions, like Citizens United, would have gone his way, but he still would have lost on Medicaid expansion, recess appointments, a couple of religious freedom cases, and oh, the other dozen or two he lost unanimously. His record before the court really is bad, even if you leave out the 5-4 cases. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/107 "2016-02-14T13:05:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then what is it based on? Sure, some decisions, like Citizens United, would have gone his way, but he still would have lost on Medicaid expansion, recess appointments, a couple of religious freedom cases, and oh, the other dozen or two he lost unanimously. > > His record before the court really is bad, even if you leave out the 5-4 cases. It’s based on absolutely nothing. For one thing, [most of the unanimous decisions](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/29/bob-goodlatte/gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/) during Obama’s terms originated for issues started under Bush, and for another, _every administration faces unanimous decisions against it occasionally_. There are over 60 cases per term – some of them will go against the administration, no matter who it is. This is just fact-free partisan bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/108 "2016-02-14T14:11:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > His record before the Supreme Court speaks for itself. Sure, because other Presidents, like Ronald Reagan, understood the Constitution so much more. That’s why he did that whole Iran-Contra thing, because he understood that anti-Communism trumps the Constitution. Right? > [@](#): > > Then what is it based on? Why don’t you cite how the Obama Administration’s record is worse than his predecessors? Let’s remind ourselves that Bush got spanked up and down the street with virtually all Guantanamo cases. You must think that Bush really understood the Constitution, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/109 "2016-02-14T14:52:04Z")
So, the Senate decides to not allow any confirmation process to initiate. What are the possible options to force their hand? Not asking for what the good ideas are, just what any options they have are. - Recess appointment? Anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/110 "2016-02-14T15:04:16Z")
Not really, no. It would be a matter for politics to decide. Can the administration bring enough political pressure - through the bully pulpit or whatever - to motivate enough voters to place enough senators in jeopardy to get them to move. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/111 "2016-02-14T15:04:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > When the court tends to unite against you, as happens frequently with this President, it does at least show that Obama’s views on constitutional law are… novel. Underlining mine. Let’s see a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/112 "2016-02-14T15:13:32Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Yes, all recess appointments are temporary and will expire unless they are made permanent by the person subsequently winning Senate approval. I don’t think anyone’s questioning that, are they? > > The point is, Obama could Constitutionally appoint a temporary Associate Justice, who could totally vote on stuff and affect the balance of power until his or her temporary appointment expired. If there’s no Constitutional limit on “temporary” that could be years … decades … ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/113 "2016-02-14T15:26:45Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Of course he’s going to nominate someone promptly - and he should. As should a Repub if he were in a similar situation. > > Obama is the president. Nominating Supremes is one of the most influential things they get to do. People in power do not readily forego exercising their authority. This is one situation in which they ought not do so. > > Will be interesting to see who he nominates. Maybe time for another Justice Warren? 😃 It doesn’t at all gladden my heart that Obama will have a large impact on yet another supreme court appointment, but it is his every right to make a nomination. He’s the sitting president, that makes it his duty to do so. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/114 "2016-02-14T15:39:14Z")
No one is talking about Ronald Reagan or GWB for the Supreme Court. SOmeone claiming to be qualified(which Obama himself is not), should have a better record than a former actor and former baseball team owner. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/115 "2016-02-14T16:05:12Z")
You said his record “speaks for itself.” Well, Dave Kingman hit 48 home runs in 1978. He surely must be a Hall of Fame power hitter! His record speaks for itself! Oh wait, his record only means something if you compare it to other players… Besides, some of the nonsense you were sure to use as examples would also be examples of his incompetence had he done the opposite of what you’re criticizing him for today. Take the unanimous decision that searching cell phones requires a warrant. Had the DOJ not argued the side of law enforcement, I’d bet you anything that there would be screeeeeeeams from conservatives that Obama wasn’t even trying to support our noble law enforcement agents. That’s why your criticisms such as this aren’t taken seriously: there’s literally nothing Obama could do in some people’s eyes that would be respectable. If he walks on water, some people say he can’t swim. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/116 "2016-02-14T16:11:54Z")
Imagine the confirmation hearings. "Sooooo, you think the states can be compelled to expand federal programs? You think that property can be taken without compensation if it’s for an environmental purpose? You think that the government can tell churches who can teach their children? " ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/117 "2016-02-14T16:38:41Z")
Like this is going to be the first time in history that a nominee was asked about Supreme Court cases. Didn’t Roberts say something like that Roe constitutes a super-precedent? In response to a question, no less? ---
**Author:** ![Me\_Billy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e480ec/32.png) [@Me\_Billy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Me_Billy)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/118 "2016-02-14T16:48:01Z")
This is great news for the Democrats… Obama simply needs to nominate someone, then let the Republicans stonewall and act like children (give them enough rope to hang themselves), then the Democrats will be assured of a Presidential victory come November. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/119 "2016-02-14T16:54:17Z")
> [@Me\_Billy](#): > > This is great news for the Democrats… > > Obama simply needs to nominate someone, then let the Republicans stonewall and act like children (give them enough rope to hang themselves), then the Democrats will be assured of a Presidential victory come November. I see some swing-state Republican Senators going down too. America does not want to contemplate a Rovie reverse. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/120 "2016-02-14T17:07:39Z")
He should appoint an African-American woman who has a background in law. I can think of one. It would make many heads asplode. I mean, if the RWers can say and do outrageous shit, why not the president? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=7)