Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Rules Out Recess Appointment to Replace Justice Scalia
abc ^ | 2/14 | mallin

Posted on 02/14/2016 4:03:05 PM PST by RummyChick

As speculation swirls over whom President Obama could nominate to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, the White House is ruling out the possibility of an appointment while the Senate is out of town.

"Given that the Senate is currently in recess, we don’t expect the President to rush this through this week, but instead will do so in due time once the Senate returns from their recess," White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz told ABC News. "At that point, we expect the Senate to consider that nominee, consistent with their responsibilities laid out in the United States Constitution."

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: scalia; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 last
To: RummyChick

Not sure what I’m not understanding.
The Senate is operating under S. Con. Res. 31.
It seemed easier to go to thomas, but I’ll go to the horses mouth - congress.gov

PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL
ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF
THE SENATE AND AN ADJOURNMENT
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The conditional adjournment\recess covers the weekend.
The house gets to go home.
Senate keeps the skeleton crew.
Senate is conditionally adjourned until Monday 02/15/2016.
It will go on like that until they get back unless the house relieves them.

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2016/02/12/CREC-2016-02-12-pt1-PgS887-5.pdf

note orders section thru 02/22/2016

FreepRegards


121 posted on 02/14/2016 9:15:27 PM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

Since FDR did it, it cannot be much of a law ...


122 posted on 02/15/2016 3:14:03 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

You keep missing the part where it says UNLESS THE SENATE RECEIVES A MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

The house sent the message that it adopted the resolution.

You just are not understanding what you are reading. Go to the Congressional Research Service link I provided. It explains the process.


123 posted on 02/15/2016 5:33:40 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: AustinBill

I too expect that!!! We will see if He is a man of his word or is “fluid”. :-)

His words on it.
................................

If Sen. Ted Cruz gets his way there’s no chance that President Barack Obama will be able to fill the Supreme Court vacancy opened up by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

‘Absolutely,’ Cruz replied when asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on This Week if the Texas senator planned to filibuster an Obama nominee.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3447047/Ted-Cruz-says-ll-absolutely-filibuster-President-Obama-nominates-replace-Justice-Scalia-uses-Supreme-Court-vacancy-jab-Trump-reality-over.html
...............................

Had to go to ENGLAND to get this post. Do I get extra pay or travel expenses? :)

Take care.........pilgrim

Took a couple of extra minutes to comb all the extra ‘critters’ out.


124 posted on 02/15/2016 1:24:59 PM PST by pilgrim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

This only means he expects to do it. Liberals always headfake thinking no one gets their ways.


125 posted on 02/15/2016 1:44:15 PM PST by CodeToad (Islam should be banned and treated as a criminal enterprise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Have you calmed down, or are you still insisting that I agree with your illogical argument?

Please take a look at the Federalist Society opinion, certainly a better source of your ranting, and of anything I might say as well.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/can-senate-democrats-force-a-vote-on-obamas-supreme-court-nominee/

The key excerpt:

Although some analysts have floated the idea of a recess appointment to the Supreme Court, that is not a tenable option given the Supreme Court’s unanimous 2014 opinion restricting the ability of the president to use brief congressional recesses to bypass the Senate’s constitutional duty to advise and consent before an appointment becomes official. In NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court stated it would not look favorably upon any recess appointments that occurred when the Senate had not been formally recessed for at least 10 days, excluding Sundays (the current Senate recess will not last 10 days given the Sunday exclusion noted by the Supreme Court). As a result of that court opinion, congressional Republicans have studiously avoided any recesses that would exceed that 10-day window. Barring some sort of catastrophic error by the parliamentarians advising the Senate majority, a 2016 recess appointment is simply not a viable option.

Shouting into to anonymous internet and demanding that anyone listening agree with you is a futile exercise. Especially when you are arguably wrong. My comments are posted in the support of a free society governed by a limited Federal Administration. What's your objective?

126 posted on 02/16/2016 3:31:20 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson