Posted on 02/14/2016 2:53:16 PM PST by CaptainK
COULD OBAMA MAKE A RECESS APPOINTMENT TO REPLACE SCALIA?:
The answer appears to be yes because (once again), the GOP-controlled Senate voluntarily has left itself vulnerable to the exercise of such presidential power. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives the President power to fill vacancies “during the recess of the Senateâ€:
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 their next Session.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
This will not happen. Obama wants a third confirmation and if he does a recess appointment he knows the possibility of that is 0
The king in the Rainbow House will do as he pleases.
The millennials are obviously in need of tough love. They believe garbage and I fear just talking nice to them won’t work (maybe nothing will).
We need to be hoping that Obama does make a recess appointment. Because if his nominee ever gets a floor vote, we’re stuck with him/her for life.
One way you can tell if it reported events are not as they are reported is when they announce conclusions immediately.
No testing, no autopsies, just an immediate “he died of natural causes”, and the subsequent unfolding of events.
Another way to tell if things are not as they are reported is when security is removed right before an “event”, like the JFK “event”. Remember the Secret Service guy in the video that’s shrugging his shoulders as if to ask “Hey, what do you mean telling me to come away from the car?” He was Mrs. K’s SS protection and was not in the “loop”, and didn’t get the “memo”. Countless times I watched that video and it just never occurred to me, until I saw some documentary where they were explaining how to tell if things are gov’t. orchestrated.
We live in interesting times, for sure.
>>This is critical because of the republicans failure to “Bork” Sotomayor and Kagan thereby forcing Obama to name more moderate nominees.
That’s because they’re working TOGETHER, like Good Cop/Bad Cop, for their own benefit, to the detriment of the People. They are ALL BOUGHT. What we see is kabuki theatre.
No, talking nice to them will only earn their utter contempt. Remember, these are the infants who could do no wrong, who were given awards just for showing up to games, etc. Not much in the way of correction or "no" in their little hothouse lives. Thus, they are IGNORANT about communism, about what stuff costs, etc. If the parental tap were shut off, a whole lot of them would be utterly clueless as to what to do next. They are hardly prepared to support themselves let alone vote for a President. A lot of them will simply follow their media siren, if the candidate uses catchy music, well-done videos for their ads, etc. As I said, NO critical thinking going into their decision. Just the same type of "thinking" which might go in to picking an iTune or something of that nature and importance.
>>Nothing can wake up the American people: they are too uninformed “about politics”.
That’s because they’ve been drugged up and dumbed down. So very sad, for our country, but unfortunately true.
Tough love is working to help them, but not necessarily taking nice to them.
The Constitution appears clear that the Senate must consent to the President’s Supreme Court appointee. Imagine Obama defying the Constitution and making a recess appointment who then gets rejected by the Senate when they are back in session. Would any decisions by this rump Justice then be made void?
I’m going to ponder your point.
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.
BORK! BORK! BORK! BORK! BORK! BORK!
BORK! BORK! BORK! BORK! BORK! BORK!
You’re right. Turn about’s fair play...
“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
Good history and very timely. Thanks.
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.