White House Rules Out Recess Appointment to Replace Justice Scalia

abc ^ | 2/14 | mallin

[RummyChick]

As speculation swirls over whom President Obama could nominate to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, the White House is ruling out the possibility of an appointment while the Senate is out of town.

"Given that the Senate is currently in recess, we don’t expect the President to rush this through this week, but instead will do so in due time once the Senate returns from their recess," White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz told ABC News. "At that point, we expect the Senate to consider that nominee, consistent with their responsibilities laid out in the United States Constitution."

[stylin19a]

Not sure what I’m not understanding.
The Senate is operating under S. Con. Res. 31.
It seemed easier to go to thomas, but I’ll go to the horses mouth - congress.gov

PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL
ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF
THE SENATE AND AN ADJOURNMENT
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The conditional adjournment\recess covers the weekend.
The house gets to go home.
Senate keeps the skeleton crew.
Senate is conditionally adjourned until Monday 02/15/2016.
It will go on like that until they get back unless the house relieves them.

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/02/12/CREC-2016-02-12-pt1-PgS887-5.pdf

note orders section thru 02/22/2016

FreepRegards

[PIF]

Since FDR did it, it cannot be much of a law ...

[RummyChick]

You keep missing the part where it says UNLESS THE SENATE RECEIVES A MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

The house sent the message that it adopted the resolution.

You just are not understanding what you are reading. Go to the Congressional Research Service link I provided. It explains the process.

[pilgrim]

I too expect that!!! We will see if He is a man of his word or is “fluid”. :-)

His words on it.
................................

If Sen. Ted Cruz gets his way there’s no chance that President Barack Obama will be able to fill the Supreme Court vacancy opened up by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

‘Absolutely,’ Cruz replied when asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on This Week if the Texas senator planned to filibuster an Obama nominee.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3447047/Ted-Cruz-says-ll-absolutely-filibuster-President-Obama-nominates-replace-Justice-Scalia-uses-Supreme-Court-vacancy-jab-Trump-reality-over.html
...............................

Had to go to ENGLAND to get this post. Do I get extra pay or travel expenses? :)

Take care.........pilgrim

Took a couple of extra minutes to comb all the extra ‘critters’ out.

[CodeToad]

This only means he expects to do it. Liberals always headfake thinking no one gets their ways.

[centurion316]

Have you calmed down, or are you still insisting that I agree with your illogical argument?

Please take a look at the Federalist Society opinion, certainly a better source of your ranting, and of anything I might say as well.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/can-senate-democrats-force-a-vote-on-obamas-supreme-court-nominee/

The key excerpt:

Although some analysts have floated the idea of a recess appointment to the Supreme Court, that is not a tenable option given the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2014 opinion restricting the ability of the president to use brief congressional recesses to bypass the Senate’s constitutional duty to advise and consent before an appointment becomes official. In NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court stated it would not look favorably upon any recess appointments that occurred when the Senate had not been formally recessed for at least 10 days, excluding Sundays (the current Senate recess will not last 10 days given the Sunday exclusion noted by the Supreme Court). As a result of that court opinion, congressional Republicans have studiously avoided any recesses that would exceed that 10-day window. Barring some sort of catastrophic error by the parliamentarians advising the Senate majority, a 2016 recess appointment is simply not a viable option.

Shouting into to anonymous internet and demanding that anyone listening agree with you is a futile exercise. Especially when you are arguably wrong. My comments are posted in the support of a free society governed by a limited Federal Administration. What's your objective?