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


1 posted on 02/14/2016 7:18:44 PM PST by Daniel Clark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
To: Daniel Clark

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 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.


2 posted on 02/14/2016 7:19:25 PM PST by GOPJ (Hillary has 416 'superdelegates'... Bernie has 14... Wake up democrats - the election's rigged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html


3 posted on 02/14/2016 7:20:04 PM PST by GOPJ (Hillary has 416 'superdelegates'... Bernie has 14... Wake up democrats - the election's rigged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

I like what Cruz said this morning.... constitution says President will nominate and Senate is responsible for advice and consent. He said the senate’s advice to obammy is not to nominate anyone...


4 posted on 02/14/2016 7:20:40 PM PST by kjam22 (America needs forgiveness from God..... even if Donald Trump doesn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

Flashback: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3397050/posts


5 posted on 02/14/2016 7:21:40 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("The goal of socialism is communism... Hatred is the basis of communism" --Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

Bork the appointee.


6 posted on 02/14/2016 7:21:54 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


7 posted on 02/14/2016 7:22:02 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Facing Trump nomination inevitability, folks are now openly trying to help Hillary destroy him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

Daniel is full of crap. Jug Ears can’t do anything. Period. Only Congress can appoint.


8 posted on 02/14/2016 7:23:28 PM PST by jessduntno (The mind of a liberal...deceit, desire for control, greed, contradiction and fueled by hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

Scalia:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/a-view-from-the-court-some-surprises-in-penultimate-session/

On the first question, he says, ‘the majority has to invent new rules for how long a recess can be before the President is allowed to make recess appointments: A three-day break is too short. A four-to-nine day break is probably too short, unless the President can persuade a court that the situation was really urgent. And ten days is probably long enough most of the time, although the majority isn’t really clear about that.” “These new rules have no basis whatsoever in the Constitution,” Scalia continues. “They are just made up.”


9 posted on 02/14/2016 7:23:42 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


11 posted on 02/14/2016 7:26:22 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Facing Trump nomination inevitability, folks are now openly trying to help Hillary destroy him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

Reason? Here it is:

“Congress Can Deny Barack Obama the Power to Replace Justice Scalia”

http://www.cato.org/blog/constitution-allows-congress-deny-barack-obama-power-replace-justice-scalia A Reasoned Winning Argument.

Obama and the ComDems can pound sand.


12 posted on 02/14/2016 7:26:45 PM PST by Texas Fossil ((Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

I honestly don’t know. He asked for Kagan on the Court apparently. He was a strict constitutionalist so who knows what his opinion would be. Ginsberg said she wouldn’t leave the bench until she wanted to and doesn’t matter if it is a Republican or Democrat. I don’t think the Court is as political as we are.


14 posted on 02/14/2016 7:28:30 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark
Go ahead and advise & consent. Just reject anyone who isn't an originalist.

Perfectly Constitutional.

15 posted on 02/14/2016 7:29:20 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

I agree - No reason Obama shouldn’t appoint a conservative justice to replace a conservative justice. Anything other than that is DOA.


17 posted on 02/14/2016 7:31:47 PM PST by rockrr (quamquat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

I don’t think it makes any difference whether he appoints a judge or not. The choice will never make it out of the house. And any person thinking two socialists like Clinton or Sanders have the capacity to appoint a judge that best contours the populous of the US, is certifiable. Obama’s a lame duck president and there isn’t a conservative on the planet that would give any of his thoughts a second look or the time of day when they don’t have to. There are a lot of liberals that don’t trust him either. He’s burned a lot of bridges. So, it’s a non-entity.


18 posted on 02/14/2016 7:32:07 PM PST by Redwood71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

The Senate is free to do as it pleases with any nominee for the Court, including nothing. It could simply drag its feet until the new Senate is sworn in.


20 posted on 02/14/2016 7:34:21 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

Your opinion piece should have been posted in Blogs, not News.

btw - I disagree


24 posted on 02/14/2016 7:42:42 PM PST by nuconvert ( Khomeini promised change too // Hail, Chairman O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

It’s all spelled out in the, “penumbras and emanations” clause of the constitution. Right there after the, “phone and pen” section.


25 posted on 02/14/2016 7:46:38 PM PST by outofsalt ( If history teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

Obama can nominate anyone he wants. There is no reason that the GOP has to roll over and confirm him/her.


28 posted on 02/14/2016 7:48:52 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Liberals are the Taliban of America, trying to tear down any symbol that they don't like.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark

It sure is fun putting words into the mouth of a dead man!


29 posted on 02/14/2016 7:50:38 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("The goal of socialism is communism... Hatred is the basis of communism" --Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Daniel Clark
Scalia's entire focus was on what the Constitution said, and the powers and limitations it bestowed upon each branch. Whether the other branches exercisd the powers they were given wisely or well, is not the business of the Court. You could probably find plenty of quotations from Scalia to that effect as easily as I could.

The Constitution gave to the Senate the power of advise and consent. It does not specify in any manner how that power should be exercised. I suspect as a matter of policy, he might have opined that the Senate refusing to confirm judicial nominees is a perfectly valid -- and completely Constitutional -- means of opposition to executive overreach, including the failure of the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

32 posted on 02/14/2016 7:55:49 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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