Posted on 02/14/2016 7:18:44 PM PST by Daniel Clark
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson
Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:
Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.†Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.
The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.
As it should this time.
I like what Cruz said this morning.... constitution says President will nominate and Senate is responsible for advice and consent. He said the senate’s advice to obammy is not to nominate anyone...
Flashback: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3397050/posts
Bork the appointee.
Daniel is full of crap. Jug Ears can’t do anything. Period. Only Congress can appoint.
Scalia:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/a-view-from-the-court-some-surprises-in-penultimate-session/
On the first question, he says, ‘the majority has to invent new rules for how long a recess can be before the President is allowed to make recess appointments: A three-day break is too short. A four-to-nine day break is probably too short, unless the President can persuade a court that the situation was really urgent. And ten days is probably long enough most of the time, although the majority isn’t really clear about that.†“These new rules have no basis whatsoever in the Constitution,†Scalia continues. “They are just made up.â€
Speaking of Democrats in 1960.
Reason? Here it is:
“Congress Can Deny Barack Obama the Power to Replace Justice Scalia”
http://www.cato.org/blog/constitution-allows-congress-deny-barack-obama-power-replace-justice-scalia A Reasoned Winning Argument.
Obama and the ComDems can pound sand.
Suddenly the left is interested in the Constitution.
I honestly don’t know. He asked for Kagan on the Court apparently. He was a strict constitutionalist so who knows what his opinion would be. Ginsberg said she wouldn’t leave the bench until she wanted to and doesn’t matter if it is a Republican or Democrat. I don’t think the Court is as political as we are.
Perfectly Constitutional.
Congress has the authority to change the number of members on the Supreme Court from the current 9 to 8. Then there would be no vacancy to fill.
FACT.
I agree - No reason Obama shouldn’t appoint a conservative justice to replace a conservative justice. Anything other than that is DOA.
I don’t think it makes any difference whether he appoints a judge or not. The choice will never make it out of the house. And any person thinking two socialists like Clinton or Sanders have the capacity to appoint a judge that best contours the populous of the US, is certifiable. Obama’s a lame duck president and there isn’t a conservative on the planet that would give any of his thoughts a second look or the time of day when they don’t have to. There are a lot of liberals that don’t trust him either. He’s burned a lot of bridges. So, it’s a non-entity.
“Suddenly the left is interested in the Constitution.”
Hahahahaha...yeah. Funny how this is all working out. I thought they might try to keep things quiet while we were engaged in re-litigaating the war and bashing Bush and screaming about what crap the GOP is. They were happy as little clams. This must have actually come at a bad time for them.
The Senate is free to do as it pleases with any nominee for the Court, including nothing. It could simply drag its feet until the new Senate is sworn in.
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.