Posted on 11/14/2016 5:16:51 AM PST by chiller
But there's no reason that the Judiciary Act of 2017 can't set the number at 11, or 15, or 7.
Great analysis.
I’m would prefer something much more dramatic. I’ll post more details later.
That is correct. As soon as Congress goes back into session, he’s gone.
I am still amazed that the leftists passed up their opportunity to do that between 2008 and 2010. We maybe very lucky that their hubris pushed them to put all their political capital in that period into the Obamacare law.
Appointments are interim and under a new administration the White House can look to the Senate for “Advise & Consent”
An appointment would be a waste of time for anyone considering the position...
Recess appointments expire at the end of the term; SCOTUS appointments are lifetime. I don’t believe he can do this nor should he try.
” If it’s worth having it, then the Constitution should be amended to require a 60% vote in the Senate for any Federal law to be passed.”
I would be all in favor of requiring a super majority to pass any law, since laws by definition restrict freedom, thus I want the vast majority of people to agree on having their freedom restricted.
That article is about recess appointments to the federal or lower courts as they are known.
FROM THE ARTICLE: John Rutledge, appointed by George Washington was the first recess appointment to be rejected by the Senate, and the only recess appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States to be rejected.
The article doesn’t speak to any SCOTUS recess appointments that were ultimately successful.
Unfortunately, this upcoming recess is "THE" recess as cited in the Constitution. That is, it is the recess between Congresses.
With the NLRB recess, that was simply a break between adjournments where the House and Senate did not agree to recess for more than three days, keeping pro forma sessions going. This time, the Congress actually ends and a new Congress is formed, so there cannot be a continuing pro forma session to avoid the recess.
-PJ
That's not possible this time.
This is when the 114th Congress ends and the 115th Congress begins. There is no Congress to keep in pro forma session.
-PJ
The Court’s opinion in the NLRB ruling was that only the Senate can legally determine when it is in recess. That gives McConnelll a lot of latitude here.
But this time, the Congress is not in recess, it is ended. The 114th Congress ends and the 115th Congress begins, so there is no Congress for a period of time.
That is the "recess" that was originally referenced when Congress would only sit in session for six months in the early years.
-PJ
That's because the article is focused on and dedicated to the unsuccessful ones.
The list of recess appointments also includes those who were not rejected by the Senate. Those appointments are not listed in the article.
Eisenhower's AppointmentsPresident Dwight D. Eisenhower placed three men on the Supreme Court after recesses by the Senate: Earl Warren, William J. Brennan, Jr., and Potter Stewart. Warren was appointed on a recess basis on October 2, 1953, Brennan on October 15, 1956, and Stewart on October 14, 1958. All three joined the Court and participated in decisions before the Senate had an opportunity to review their credentials. In each case the Senate later gave its advice and consent, but the experience convinced a number of Senators that the procedure was defective for the Senate as well as for the Court.
An article in the Stanford Law Review in 1957 reviewed previous recess appointments to the Supreme Court. Although nine such appointments occurred from 1791 to 1862, 91 years elapsed before the recess appointment of Earl Warren. Moreover, of the nine appointments, only two nominees (John Rutledge in 1795 and Benjamin Curtis in 1851) sat on the Court and participated in decisions before being nominated for a life term.
Recess Appointments of Federal Judges - CRS RL31112
Reports indicate that the 115th Congress will begin on January 3, 2017.
-PJ
Clearly, the role that the Supreme Court has acquired, or rather usurped, must be changed.
I’m very interested in your thoughts. To me, the big problem is that Congress actually LIKES offloading controversial decisions to the Court, so Members and Senators can get re-elected denouncing whatever Court decision without ever having to take responsibility for fixing it.
“....Warren, Brennan and Stewart ...” Two horrific choices that the country is still paying for.
“President Eisenhower ... has been reputed to have said in 1958, “I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court.” He was referring to Brennan and Chief Justice Earl Warren, whom he appointed in 1953.”
Recess appointments are temporary. When the new Congress is seated, the recess appt. ends unless the Senate decides to keep the appt. in place. Had the Dems won the Senate, that would have been a real possibility.
Really ticked off Aunt Bee, but that was another episode. lmao
I know, right? Darned autocorrect!
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.