Posted on 02/14/2016 7:54:29 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper
Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Resolutions don’t mean anything.
However, should 0bama put someone in, the Senate can reject that person.
It’s meaningless.
In 2007 Schumer said no more appointments for Bush in his last year.
Precedent isn’t meaningless.
From a legal perspective, it’s meaningless.
From a psychological one, it’s relevant. Tack this onto past Dem bad behavior on appointments (Nuclear Option, 9-0 SCOTUS ruling on recess appointments) and the GOP has all the ammo it needs to hold consideration of a nominee until after the election.
“However, should 0bama put someone in, the Senate can reject that person.”
Any nominee should NEVER get out of the Judiciary Committee. We can’t trust the Linda Grahams, Kelly Ayottes and a few others not to vote with the RATS “because it’s the collegial thing to do” if a nominee were ever to get to the Senate floor.
Is there a vote tally on this? List of cosponsors?
JFK was still a Senator throughout 1960. His name being associated with this would be powerful.
Well, it does appear a recess appointment of a Supreme can be done, sadly.
It’s also relevant given that Democrats are pressuring the GOP not to block any of Obama’s nominees.
Except we are the magic 10 day number on recess appointments. Canning may or may not allow that. 9 days - probably not. 10 days maybe. I keep posting Scalia’s comment about this...it’s a made up number.
Is this great or what?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
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
“Well, it does appear a recess appointment of a Supreme can be done, sadly.”
Not if The Congress preemptively changes the number of the justices!
Read This:
http://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supreme-court-justices.html
The Congress has SOLE Authority to set the number of justices and they have made changes in the past.
Coming back to bite them. LOL!
As far as I know, the only one that was ever made was John Rutledge. Appointed June 30, 1795; rejected by the Senate December 15, 1795.
Congress had veto-proof majorities then. Are you sure it wouldn’t require consent of the President?
It would require only majority vote to defeat any nominee.
There you go! That settles it. It would be the worst sort of partisan rancor to defy that Democratic wisdom.
â€As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process.
There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view.
I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent.’
http://obamaspeeches.com/046-Confirmation-of-Judge-Samuel-Alito-Jr-Obama-Speech.htm
“Congress had veto-proof majorities then. Are you sure it wouldn’t require consent of the President?”
From the article I read the number of SCOTUS Justices is the EXCLUSIVE province of the two houses of Congress. the President has no role and there isn’t anything in the Constitution that mandates a number (it was originally five and it was increased as the country grew westward and added Appelate Courts). If you find something that says that’s not the case I’d like to see it. The article went into all the times that the number has changed and one was when FDR tried to pack the court so that he could get the New Deal passed. Then, even some of his RAT Party members voted against what he wanted to do ( add three justices ).
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.