Rand FB (regarding SCOTUS): I Plan to Lead

[CPUd]

When I heard the news on Saturday that Justice Scalia had passed away, my heart went out to his family, friends, and to our country. Justice Scalia was a great defender of the constitution and an incredibly important conservative voice in the court. There is no doubt his voice of reason will be missed on the bench. And the vacancy will be felt in more ways than one.

President Obama and the Democrats have wasted no time making this vacancy a huge political statement, and they are calling for an immediate replacement in the court - of course a liberal one that could tilt the balance of the court for years.

President Obama thinks this is his chance to put an end to originalist interpretation of the Constitution. His last chance, in his last few months office.

I am not going to let him do it. There's too much at stake.

Will you join with me today in standing up to President Obama and the liberals in the Senate?

If you don't, it is clear what will happen.

President Obama will nominate a replacement -- a liberal replacement -- and liberals in the Senate will force the idea that it’s the job in the Senate to confirm whoever the President recommends.

This could change the entire path of our country with just a few short months until our next President takes office.

I cannot stress this enough: the Senate should not confirm a Supreme Court nomination from President Obama.

The fact of the matter is, it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year.

In fact, Democrats in the Senate held to that standard during Republican Presidencies.
Now of course they are singing a different tune.

I plan to lead the fight to stop them in the Senate.
Will you stand with me as I do everything I can to block President Obama’s attempt to silence the opinion of the American public?

The passing of Justice Scalia has made it more clear than ever that the role of the Senate is vital to maintaining liberty.

Without a strong Senate, we cannot ensure that our court is upholding the Constitution.

That’s why I am committed to another term for Kentucky and for this country.
Please stand with me today.

In Liberty,
Rand Paul

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rand-paul/i-plan-to-lead/10154061720963054

 

[ShaneEnochs]

President Obama and the Democrats have wasted no time making this vacancy a huge political statement, and they are calling for an immediate replacement in the court - of course a liberal one that could tilt the balance of the court for years.

This has nothing to do with political statements. Under Article II, it is the President's job to nominate a justice, and it is the Senate's job to provide advice and consent. Rand isn't talking about leadership, he's talking obstruction and rendering an entire branch of government crippled. Any 4-4 decision would be like the Court never even heard the case.

Senators vowing to block any appointment before one is even made are being derelict in their duties and putting important cases in jeopardy.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

This has nothing to do with political statements. Under Article II, it is the President's job to nominate a justice, and it is the Senate's job to provide advice and consent. Rand isn't talking about leadership, he's talking obstruction and rendering an entire branch of government crippled. Any 4-4 decision would be like the Court never even heard the case.

Senators vowing to block any appointment before one is even made are being derelict in their duties and putting important cases in jeopardy.

Why can the president and congress disregard all of their constitutional duties, ****ing on the constitution for years BUT for some reason everyone goes into a hissyfit when it comes to fulfilling their duties for court appointments.

They could wipe their asses with the constitution for all they care. The only times they follow it are when it suits their agendas.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Why can the president and congress disregard all of their constitutional duties, ****ing on the constitution for years BUT for some reason everyone goes into a hissyfit when it comes to fulfilling their duties for court appointments.

They could wipe their asses with the constitution for all they care. The only times they follow it are when it suits their agendas.

This is crippling the balance of power in government. It tips the power in favor of the executive and the legislative and leaves the judiciary out to dry.

 

[Kotin]

This has nothing to do with political statements. Under Article II, it is the President's job to nominate a justice, and it is the Senate's job to provide advice and consent. Rand isn't talking about leadership, he's talking obstruction and rendering an entire branch of government crippled. Any 4-4 decision would be like the Court never even heard the case.

Senators vowing to block any appointment before one is even made are being derelict in their duties and putting important cases in jeopardy.

Yeah okay maybe in a system that is still legitimate. This one is not by a long shot.

I am with Rand on this as we don't need another Obama nominee regardless of anything else.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Yeah okay maybe in a system that is still legitimate. This one is not by a long shot.

I am with Rand on this as we don't need another Obama nominee regardless of anything else.

So people who need their cases heard by SCOTUS can just go fuck themselves I guess.

 

[Kotin]

So people who need their cases heard by SCOTUS can just go fuck themselves I guess.

Do you want other judge who would get rid of the 2nd or 4th amendment and have no regard for strict constructionism??

This is a lifetime appointment ffs..

If so then I understand why you want a nominee quick.. Cmon

 

[CPUd]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Monday weighed in on the Senate’s upcoming battle with President Obama over the next Supreme Court nominee, saying he believes Obama “has a conflict of interest” in appointing somebody to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat.

Appearing on conservative Kentucky radio host Leland Conway’s show, the former Republican presidential candidate said he would likely oppose any Obama pick for the Supreme Court, because he believes Obama has too many of his own policies at stake before the high court — his executive actions on immigration and climate change regulations, for example.

“The president has said he has the power basically to create immigration law out of nothing,” Paul said. “He says he has the power to basically cripple entire industries like coal without ever having been given that power by Congress. So see, we have a Constitutional debate on whose powers is it, the president or Congress? And I think the president sort of has a conflict of interest here in appointing somebody while we’re trying to decide whether or not he’s usurped power.”

Under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, presidents have the power to appoint Supreme Court justices with the “advice and consent” of the U.S. Senate. Paul clarified that he agrees the president has the power to appoint someone to replace Scalia, but that he likely would not give his consent to do so.

“It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a presidential nomination from this president,” he said. “I will look at it if it comes down, but my threshold for voting for somebody is going to be very, very high.”

Paul also said because of this “emotional time with the president trying to usurp so many of Congress’s powers,” it would be “difficult to believe that there wont be a filibuster over this.” Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has already said he plans to filibuster any Obama-led Supreme Court nominee.

“Were not going to take it lying down and let the president have his way without one heck of a fight,” Paul said.

audio of full interview at: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/15/3749689/rand-paul-scalia-supreme-court-obama-nominee/

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Do you want other judge who would get rid of the 2nd or 4th amendment and have no regard for strict constructionism??

This is a lifetime appointment ffs..

If so then I understand why you want a nominee quick.. Cmon

The Senate has a Republican majority. Their job is to question the appointment on their decisions in cases prior. They would obviously not consent a justice that has that kind of judicial background.

So what they're going to do is leave the Judiciary crippled for an entire year in the hopes that somehow all of the polls are wrong and a Republican beats Hillary/Bernie. What if they don't? Are they just going to not allow a branch of government to work indefinitely?

It's childish and political. They need to do their job. I'm not saying they need to pass whoever Obama nominates, but they need to at least review the nominee and then vote. Otherwise, it's obstruction for obstructions sake.

 

[specsaregood]

So people who need their cases heard by SCOTUS can just go fuck themselves I guess.

The fact that you assume so many cases would be decided 4-4 simply demonstrates why Randal has to do this. The court isn't ruling based on any type of constitutional basis; but rather party lines.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

The fact that you assume so many cases would be decided 4-4 simply demonstrates why Randal has to do this. The court isn't ruling based on any type of constitutional basis; but rather party lines.

That's bullshit. In a conservative majority court, they ruled in favor of marriage equality and have upheld Obamacare.

 

[fedupinmo]

This is crippling the balance of power in government. It tips the power in favor of the executive and the legislative and leaves the judiciary out to dry.

Not so much... We are stuck with the choice for life... chosen by someone who we can't wait to be rid of next year. It seems the balance of power should always be shifted towards the Constitution, not away from it.

 

[specsaregood]

That's bullshit. In a conservative majority court, they ruled in favor of marriage equality and have upheld Obamacare.

Then what are you so worried about, let it be heard and if its 4-4, then that's how it stands.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Then what are you so worried about, let it be heard and if its 4-4, then that's how it stands.

That's not how it stands. A per curing decision, which is what happens in a split decision, doesn't set precedence. It's no different than them kicking it back down to a lower court.

 

[Indy Vidual]

This is crippling the balance of power in government. It tips the power in favor of the executive and the legislative and leaves the judiciary out to dry.

The "the balance of power in government" still exists?
I'm going to log into myspace.com and ask my friends.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[specsaregood]

That's not how it stands. A per curing decision, which is what happens in a split decision, doesn't set precedence. It's no different than them kicking it back down to a lower court.

exactly. So let the lower courts ruling stand.

 

[Rudeman]

So a liberal 5-4 decision is better than a 4-4 decision? Sorry but I agree with Rand on this one.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

You can't say that you want the government to more closely follow the Constitution and then support this action which is them openly defying it and doing the exact opposite. No amount of mental gymnastics can hold those two beliefs at the same time. Regardless of who Obama may nominate, that is his duty as defined by Article II. In the same article, it defines the Senate's duty to advise and consent. For the Senate to say "we are going to hold up any nominations for an entire year in the unlikely chance that a Republican gets in the White House" is absolutely politicizing it. It's complete hypocrisy, and if you can't see that, then there's honestly no hope for you.

 

[Kotin]

You can't say that you want the government to more closely follow the Constitution and then support this action which is them openly defying it and doing the exact opposite. No amount of mental gymnastics can hold those two beliefs at the same time. Regardless of who Obama may nominate, that is his duty as defined by Article II. In the same article, it defines the Senate's duty to advise and consent. For the Senate to say "we are going to hold up any nominations for an entire year in the unlikely chance that a Republican gets in the White House" is absolutely politicizing it. It's complete hypocrisy, and if you can't see that, then there's honestly no hope for you.

obama can and will probably nominate. the senate just wont confirm.. both doing their jobs.