Skip to comments.
Justices Let Stand Bush's Appointment of Judge
Reuters ^
| Mar. 21, 2005
Posted on 03/21/2005 8:16:47 AM PST by Crackingham
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: Crackingham
2
posted on
03/21/2005 8:17:41 AM PST
by
OXENinFLA
To: OXENinFLA
Get on the ball,Senate..bump!!!!
3
posted on
03/21/2005 8:19:43 AM PST
by
GregB
(Senate republicans have no ^%$#!!!)
To: Crackingham
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clinton make some recess appointments?
4
posted on
03/21/2005 8:21:04 AM PST
by
Not A Snowbird
(Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Pajama Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
To: Crackingham
"Attorneys for several criminal defendants had argued the president can only make such an appointment during..."
and just who are these criminal defendants and why would they have to approve of Bush's appointments?
5
posted on
03/21/2005 8:21:44 AM PST
by
Liberty Valance
(Grateful Heart Tour 2005)
To: SandyInSeattle
Yes he did. The most obnoxious one was Eric Holder to be Assistant Attorney General.
6
posted on
03/21/2005 8:25:48 AM PST
by
anoldafvet
(Every time a child is born, it reaffirms God's faith in humanity.)
To: Crackingham
Stevens said it would be a mistake to assume the move constituted a decision on the merits of whether Bush has the constitutional authority to fill future judicial vacancies, including Supreme Court vacancies, with appointments made during such short recesses. hmmm... Things that make you go hmmm...
7
posted on
03/21/2005 8:28:07 AM PST
by
DBeers
To: SandyInSeattle
Clinton certainly did make some recess appointments. One was a lefty Chinese-American ACLU type. And I believe that none of Clinton's appointments got out of Committee. They were not filibustered.
8
posted on
03/21/2005 8:29:10 AM PST
by
Inwoodian
To: SandyInSeattle
Yes, lots of them. Besides, when this was put into the Constitution, it was never envisioned that Congress would stay in secession year round.
9
posted on
03/21/2005 8:29:49 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: Crackingham
Stevens said it would be a mistake to assume the move constituted a decision on the merits of whether Bush has the constitutional authority to fill future judicial vacancies, including Supreme Court vacancies, with appointments made during such short recesses.What part of the following excerpt from Article II of the Constitution (emphasis supplied) is so hard for the robe-wearers to understand?
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.
Next from the Supremes (with homage to Clinton): 'all' does not mean 'all'.
Give me a break....
To: Crackingham
Recess appointments ARE constitutional and have been used periodically since the founding of this Nation.
Seems like the Federal Courts need a refresher in American history.
11
posted on
03/21/2005 8:31:10 AM PST
by
clee1
(We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
To: Blood of Tyrants; Inwoodian; anoldafvet
So... why is Reuters reacting with shock and dismay that President Bush exercised the same authority?
Oh, never mind... it's Reuters.
12
posted on
03/21/2005 8:46:33 AM PST
by
Not A Snowbird
(Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Pajama Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
To: aposiopetic
Stevens said it would be a mistake to assume the move constituted a decision on the merits of whether Bush has the constitutional authority to fill future judicial vacancies, including Supreme Court vacancies, with appointments made during such short recesses.Basically, Stevens is telling these guys that their brief isn't good enough to convince O'Connor and/or Kennedy to side with them and rule that Presdient Bush cannot make recess appointments, and that they should try again. IOW, they got a mulligan.
To: Crackingham
14
posted on
03/21/2005 8:46:48 AM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(last updated my FreeRepublic profile on Sunday, March 13, 2005.)
To: aposiopetic
Exactly, this is getting carried away
To: CFC__VRWC
Basically, Stevens is telling these guys that their brief isn't good enough to convince O'Connor and/or Kennedy to side with them and rule that Presdient Bush cannot make recess appointments, and that they should try again. IOW, they got a mulligan.I guess they have to wait till Sandy Berger removes the Constitution from the National Archives and makes the following (28th?) amendment:
The President shall have Power to fill up allsome Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
To: SandyInSeattle
Clinton's entire White House hitch was a recess.
17
posted on
03/21/2005 8:54:51 AM PST
by
JesseHousman
(Execute Mumia Abu-Jamal Today)
To: anoldafvet
Holder comes second on the obnoxious scale of appointments. THE most obnoxious one was the appointment of Bill Lann Lee after the Senate had voted (not filibustered) him down already.
18
posted on
03/21/2005 9:06:53 AM PST
by
SAJ
To: Blood of Tyrants
Would that we could ever
get the Regress into 'secession' (sic). They could stay there forever, with my blessings.
:^)
19
posted on
03/21/2005 9:08:33 AM PST
by
SAJ
To: Crackingham
I'll take two Rehnquists in his present state over one low life Stevens any day.
20
posted on
03/21/2005 9:12:01 AM PST
by
OldFriend
("If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child might have peace." Thomas Paine)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 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