Posted on 02/20/2016 2:35:40 PM PST by TBP
While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.
As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as 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 – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.
Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution grants the commander in chief the power to appoint a temporary replacement while the upper chamber is not in session.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativebyte.com ...
Yes, it prevents them when there is a Republican President and a Democrat Senate.
We went round and round on this last week. It means nothing....
Frankly at this point with 0bama...does any of this even really matter.
Frankly at this point with the wimps in the Republican representation...does any of this matter.
Note, both those statements did not end in a question mark.
It doesn’t matter and 0bummer is going to make an appointment hell or high water. Now if the next President wants to pursue or prosecute the violation of the law...neither Trump or Cruz is going to do that...
The days of the United States being a nation of LAW...has ended. It is over.
A resolution does not have the weight of law behind it.
Don’t expect Obama to have any respect for that even if a Democrat Senate passed it 56 years ago.
Google "nonbinding Senate resolution" and that should answer the question for you and the author of this article as well.
... LOL .... What a stupid question .... Like there are actually any rules that exist that will stop this administration from doing anything against any rules. We all know rules are made to be broken.
Resolutions d not prevent or mandate anything.
I can remember Robert Welch's claim that Eisenhower was a conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.
So as I read this, all the fuss about odumbo appointing someone to replace Scalia is for naught? Hold onto your hats people, if odumbo does have the authority, the U.S. will be going down the drain faster than a speeding. bullet.
Appointments? Why do I keep seeing that word in relation to a Supreme Court nominee?
A resolution is not law and does not amend the Constitution.
Robert Welch was a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.
When I was in grade school, I remember being at a county fair where the JBS people had a tent with a TV playing a speech by Robert Welch. The only visual variety was sometimes they zoomed in a little closer and sometimes showed him from further away.
The professors who teach at Robert Welch University probably should be told that he was a Communist agent....but Wikipedia claims the university is no longer in operation. (It was online only. The RWU website was updated in 2016 and doesn't say anything about it no longer offering courses.)
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.