Posted on 02/14/2016 12:45:02 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Independent analysis of facts is forbidden, comrade.
“How do we get rid of lifetime appointments ?
To the Supreme Court? Well, we could all move to Venezuela or some other banana republic.”
If Obama gets his way, before he leaves office, (if he leaves) we will already be a banana republic.
The term is over and any new judge would not have not had time to deliberate over the substance of the cases. He/she ought to recuse themselves anyway.
That’s a great point. You’re right.
Well, it's liberal logic, so don't expect it make any sense.
This is typical democrat fascist trash talk intended to encourage the Republican hogs to shrug their shoulders, give Barry what he wants, and go back to feeding at the trough.
Was this written by McConnel and Boehner?
“We can’t oppose Obama because he opposes us.”
BORK!!!
Nope. We win.
Excellent observation.
She makes no sense. (She works for the Compost)
She’s saying the Republicans better confirm right away whoever Obama nominates otherwise some of the 4-4 decisions this year will go in Obama’s favor?!
And what would happen if Obama’s stooge gets confirmed?
Well, w’ll see if Grassley is steadfast. If Hatch were chairman, there would be a quick cave for sure.
S.RES. 334. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PRES. SHOULD NOT MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT TO PREVENT OR END A BREAKDOWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT’S BUSINESS. KEATING MOTION TO RECOMMIT TO JUDICARY COMM.
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in 1960 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.
S.RES. 334. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PRES. SHOULD NOT MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT TO PREVENT OR END A BREAKDOWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT’S BUSINESS. KEATING MOTION TO RECOMMIT TO JUDICARY COMM.
Repubs should have been quoting that all day today!!
S.RES. 334. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PRES. SHOULD NOT MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT TO PREVENT OR END A BREAKDOWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT’S BUSINESS. KEATING MOTION TO RECOMMIT TO JUDICARY COMM.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
Oh - and there’s this cutie Schumer thing (you’ll like this one too dpo622):
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.