Posted on 11/22/2016 3:39:53 AM PST by chiller
It does seem as though he can. But since this session of Congress is ending, the appointment would only last until Jan 2017 when Congress begins a new session.
Not 100% sure. The time & 1/2 overtime rule is cited as one that is targeted. I don’t believe it is law, is it ? It seems to me also, that it’s an executive action. I’ll dig.
Agreed.
check the article....statute specifies “next” session. There would be no point for anyone to install a judge for 2 months when the court is itself adjourned
"That’s why leaders are already seeking to leave town early in December, essentially stopping the clock and enabling themselves to repeal as many 2016 rules and regulations as possible. Many believe the chamber will be gone no later than Dec. 9.
If republican leaders had their heads screwed on right they would not adjourn and would keep a rotating skeleton group in session until Obama was safely removed from power.
It’s been done many times in the past.
In fact back in 2014 the Supreme Court threw out some NLRB appointments Obama claimed were recess appointments when in fact the senate had not declared a recess.
Obama himself declared that the senate was in recess when the Senate was actually in session, holding pro forma sessions every three days to deny him the ability to make recess appointments.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court, “The Senate is in session when it says it is,” stating that if the Senate is able to conduct business, it is enough to prevent the president from making recess appointments.
If Obama did in fact have the legal right to appoint a Supreme Court judge during a recess, then it would make the Supreme Court a plaything of an individual president, and not of the advice and consent of the Senate. I don’t think that is what the framers had in mind.
Sotomayor is older. Just fire them both.
I don't think that "next session" applies to the duration of the body the appointment is being made to, it applies to the duration of the body that confirms, aka the Senate, since it is the confirmation process that is being bypassed.
From the Heritage Foundation on the Recess Appointments Clause:
A recess appointment lasts until the end of the "next Session" of the Senate. Since sessions in the early twenty-first century typically last ten to twelve months, an appointment made during an intersession recess would last approximately one year, until the end of the following session. On the other hand, an intrasession appointment could last as long as two years, through the end of the succeeding session.
-PJ
I’d be very surprised to learn that a Supreme Court position is a recess appointment. The notion of a “vacancy” on the Supreme Court is unofficial, since there is no official set number of justices that should be on the Supreme Court.
Even should there be a recess appointment, that appointment would simply light a fire under the Senate to immediately replace that justice. If the Senate failed to act, he could stay on the court for a significant time period, but the Senate could simply invoke the nuclear option and immediately seat Trump’s nominee.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Leave early to enable congress to undo Obama Executive Orders, or stay on and get an Obama Supreme Court Justice for two years. Considering all of the ins and outs, pro and cons, involved in the decision to stay or go, the only thing I know for sure is to never leave anything to the idea that Obama will not do something that seems improbable. He will if he can and like the Clintons the damage will be done and there will be no consequences for their actions. I have no doubt that Trump people are on this but it certainly is a challenge and reminder of the games played by defeated democrats to hang on to power. They will stop at nothing and it is beneficial to Republicans to be constantly aware of that brutal fact.
Can someone get this to Paul Ryan...
better reduce it and retire those over 75
Why can’t they adjourn the house for the regulatory thing and keep the senate in session?
One house cannot adjourn for more than three days without the other house also in adjournment. It’s in the Constitution.
So do an off and on and prevent the clock from running out on the reg issue by 2/3rds
This choice by the usual gang of big business whores who run the “Republican” caucuses on Capitol Hill will demonstrate once and for all which is more important: The babies’ lives or Muffy’s Trust Fund and the interests.
The people from WY and ID don’t want to stay in DC through the Christmas holidays. Years ago, Alan K. Simpson of WY complained about Senator Helms as “the Grinch who stole his WY Christmas.”
Problem with service is that you have to ‘serve’. They wanted to be reps now they are - screw’em. Rank has it’s priveleges and rank has it’s responsibilities. Deal with it is what they should do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.