Skip to comments.
There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees
The Federalist ^
| February 13, 2016
| Gabriel Malor
Posted on 02/13/2016 5:03:12 PM PST by AJFavish
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
The U.S. Senate is presently not in session. It better get into session FAST and stay in session so Obama does not make a recess appointment. Also, the Senate session ends on January 3, 2017 and the new Senate takes over. I don't know if there is a recess at that time, and if there is, whether it can be prevented without interfering with the change to the new Senate. Perhaps Obama will be able to do a recess appointment at that time since he will be President until January 20, 2017. If he do make such a recess appointment around January 3, 2017, I am not sure how long that appointment can last. The author of the article below states that a recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate's next session. If anybody finds an article nailing down these potential situations, please share. Thanks.
1
posted on
02/13/2016 5:03:13 PM PST
by
AJFavish
To: AJFavish
They might not be able to hold the line against Obama with weak sisters like Lindsey Graham ready to vote for an Obama nominee.
2
posted on
02/13/2016 5:07:41 PM PST
by
Iron Munro
(The wise have stores of choice food and oil but a foolish man devours all he has. Proverbs 21:20)
To: AJFavish
...there is a five-day recess this week...Uh-oh.
3
posted on
02/13/2016 5:09:12 PM PST
by
Publius
("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
To: AJFavish
They need to stay in session until January 3rd 2017
4
posted on
02/13/2016 5:09:12 PM PST
by
scooby321
To: AJFavish
Is it true that a recess appointment can be made for the Supreme Court?
That’s not a Cabinet position.
5
posted on
02/13/2016 5:09:15 PM PST
by
ifinnegan
(Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
To: AJFavish
I don’t believe this Senate of Cowards will hold up a nomination for the better part of a year. As soon as someone accuses them of obstructing the government, they’ll fold like a cheap suit.
To: AJFavish
Looks like I picked the wrong year to stop drinking.
But, I may just have to take up glue-sniffing until 12:01 PM on Jan. 20, 2017
7
posted on
02/13/2016 5:10:45 PM PST
by
digger48
To: Publius
F*ck!
This could be over before he is even in the ground!
8
posted on
02/13/2016 5:11:38 PM PST
by
VanDeKoik
To: AJFavish
Obama will nominate a moderate, RINOS will confirm.Another Breyer or Ginsburg.
9
posted on
02/13/2016 5:12:25 PM PST
by
TornadoAlley3
( I'm Proud To Be An Okie From Muskogee)
To: VanDeKoik
Correct. McConnell needs to bring the Senate into session tonight.
10
posted on
02/13/2016 5:12:36 PM PST
by
Publius
("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
To: AJFavish
The Constitution says (Art. II, Sec. 2):
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of the next Session."
What was envisioned was that there would be long intervals between sessions and the President could fill vacancies in the periods when the Senate was not in session. Presumably by the end of the session was meant when they adjourned, since they would have had the opportunity to act on any nominations while in session. Presidents of both parties have abused this power in recent years (the Democrats more egregiously, of course). Obama used it to put radicals who could not be confirmed on the NLRB during periods when the Senate was meeting pro forma but not conducting any business.
To: digger48
Move to Colorado, Washington, or Oregon.
12
posted on
02/13/2016 5:13:31 PM PST
by
TruthWillWin
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
To: ifinnegan
- -
Is it true that a recess appointment can be made for the Supreme Court? --
Yes. Frowned on, but no constitutional impediment. It has happened.
13
posted on
02/13/2016 5:13:53 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: TornadoAlley3
14
posted on
02/13/2016 5:14:42 PM PST
by
TruthWillWin
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
To: Iron Munro
The Senate rejected a Supreme Court nomination by George Washington, the Father of our country. Don’t expect such courage nowadays.
To: AJFavish
IMO even this batch of quislings will see that its in their best interest to wait til Trump takes office.
16
posted on
02/13/2016 5:16:24 PM PST
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
To: Iron Munro
Grahamnesty is ready to confirm whoever he nominates and will be joined by McCain, Kirk, Corker, Alexander, Ayotte, Collins, Coats and a few others whose names escape me at the moment. The usual reach across the aisle Democrats in R jerseys.
17
posted on
02/13/2016 5:17:16 PM PST
by
Lurkinanloomin
(Know Islam, No peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
To: digger48
18
posted on
02/13/2016 5:17:31 PM PST
by
DannyTN
To: Publius
Correct. McConnell needs to bring the Senate into session tonight. The WH is probably already typing up the appointment paperwork. I'm sure presidents always have a list of names for just such a situation.
To: Publius
20
posted on
02/13/2016 5:18:52 PM PST
by
BlueNgold
(May I suggest a very nice 1788 Article V with your supper...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson