CDZ President might have authority to simply appoint SC judge

[WorldWatcher]

get your blank together

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.

I didn't disagree with that. But that isn't what I responded to.

1. What I was doing was pointing out that Political Appointments (for cabinet members and other high Executive Branch officials) are not the same as Article III Judicial appointments to the bench. I was pointing out a lack of knowledge about the two.

2. I also pointed out that your statement on appointments expiring at the end of the presidency was also incorrect. A recess appointment to the Judaical Branch ends at the end of the next session of congress. That being a 2 year cycle while a presidents term is 4 years. For example, if a President is able to make a recess appointment over the summer Congressional break, let's say in the summer of 2017. That Congressional session started in January 2017 and ends in January 2019. Therefore that recess appointment expires in January 2019, yet the President inaugurated in January 2017 remains president until January 2021.

It's pretty easy to understand on someone understands that it's not the Presidents term that is the deciding factor, it is the congressional session.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Senate majority leader.

When there is a vote of the Senate, then the Senate will have provided its advice, and either consent, or denial of consent.

Right now the Senate just refuses to do it job according to the Constitution.

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

Nothing I said was false.

• As I said-it is up to the Senate- not the majority leader.
• He shall have Power.....,and he shall nominate and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ....Judges of the supreme Court
• One of the enumerated jobs of the Senate as shown above is to provide advice- and consent/denial of Justices- just as it is the job of the President to nominate and appoint justices.

When the Senate acts as a body, it can take many paths to act.

One such path is that the majority party leadership simply says no, bit me and the President needs to find a new nominee, as if Obama really was trying to get one passed in the Senate anyway.

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Majority leader.

Now if you want to change the Constitution so that it reads 'with the advise and consent of the Senate Majority leader'- well then the rest of the Senate would no longer have to be involved.

The Majority Leader of the Senate has the power and authority to act for the entire Senate in multiple ways and this is one of them.

I must have missed that part of the United States Constitution.

Can you tell me what section that is in?

 

[Syriusly]

[
In any case, the Senate does not have to send this nomination to the Judiciary committee not now, not ever.

Of course not.

Nothing obligates the Senate to actually do any of the things the Constitution details as the Senates responsibilities.

The GOP is doing a grand old job of not doing the Senates job.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have no doubt Obama will pursue every avenue to pack the SC with his third Leftist judge. He is all about his legacy and turning the Supreme Court into a Liberal Law rubber stamp mill would be the ultimate achievement for this anti-American subversive. He won't let trivialities like the Constitution get in his way.

Can you name the anti American decisions that the court has made besides Citizens United and gutting the voting rights act? Could it be that some folks are worried that those decision might be reversed with an Obama appointee?

 

[WorldWatcher]

In any case, the Senate does not have to send this nomination to the Judiciary committee not now, not ever.

You are correct. But that doesn't mean the Senate can sit on it's ass with no consequences.

The Dem's are going to beat the crap out of us with that stuff over the summer.


So in Janaury when it's Hillary or Bernie nominating a LWNJ into a Dem controlled Senate those who want the Senate to sit on their butts can say "Yep, we were to blame for that.".

Not only the one seat, mind you. But after Scalia's seat is filled you can bank that Ginsberg will retire - she's been hanging on for a Dem President and a Dem Senate before she voluntarily leaves (heck she's 86). Then you have Kennedy that turns 80 this year. God bless him for good health but his years are numbered.



That means McConnell's foot in mouth disease means Scalia (a conservative) replaced with a LWNJ and Kennedy (a right of center moderate) replaced with a LWNJ. Ginsberg is a bust since she's already a LWNJ. But the court possibly goes from 4-1-4 to 6-0-3 over the next couple of years.

And the nominees will be younger that Garlands 62, meaning they will be on the bench for an additional 15-20 or so years.


Good Job.



>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let the Republican's sit on their hands. On 1.21.17, President Hillary Clinton will nominate Barack Obama esq. to the high court and it will sail through the Senate that then will have a super majority of Democrats- and the Republicans will be royally screwed.

 

[Lilah]

Let the Republican's sit on their hands. On 1.21.17, President Hillary Clinton will nominate Barack Obama esq. to the high court and it will sail through the Senate that then will have a super majority of Democrats- and the Republicans will be royally screwed.

Don't you mean the country will be royally screwed if that should happen?

 

[320 Years of History]

Most bills and nominees are not rejected in this way, but by simply not making it to the schedule of the Senate's calendar.

I don't approve of that either. I don't care what the topic is or whether it's one I want to see go "this" way or "that" way. I want the damn thing brought to the floor and voted on.

I'm sorry, but for the ~$180K/year they are paid, plus the perqs and power, I want Senators and Congressmen to work more.

• The 'Do-Nothing Congress' — Big Salary, Little Work, Free Trips | Fox News
  
• Here's How Much Less Congress Works Than You Do
  
• http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/208167-house-and-senate-who-works-less
  
• CNN analysis: Congress in D.C. far less than it used to be - CNNPolitics.com

One of the most visible forms of work they perform is voting "yay" or "nay" on bills and appointments. If what I'm demanding means they have to at least sit their asses in those cushy Capitol or Senate committee chamber chairs and ask the man questions and listen to his answers, then so be it.

This is not a partisan issue for me. It's actually got nothing to do with what I think about Justice Garland, his views and political persuasion, or that of the Senators and President. It's about getting my money's worth for paying for those 100 people to be seated in that august legislative body.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post presenting the case for a situation in which a President may go ahead and appoint a Supreme Court nominee.
Essentially, it says that an argument can be made that a Congress that refuses to advise and consent abandons its responsibility and, therefore, any censure.
Fascinating argument.

Why was it okay for Obama to filibuster Alito?
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme ...

Democrats started the downward spiral of the confirmation process with Bork.

That said- both Democrats and Republicans have enthusiastically embraced politicizing the confirmation process into the circus it is ever since Bork.

The current Senate's refusal to even pretend to consider confirmation is just the ultimate expression of the politicization.

What will the Senate do next?

Probably we will get to the point where regardless of the nominee, the party opposite the President will emulate McConnell and just refuse to hold any confirmation hearings until a President of their own party is elected.

Garland and Bork are entirely different matters:

The Single Worst Argument Against Confirming Merrick Garland

As Franken and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) swiftly pointed out, Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a bipartisan 58-42 vote in 1987, received both a vote and a hearing. Nevertheless, Hatch maintained that this vote was a turning point in the politics of Supreme Court nominations.

Judge Bork’s opponents made a weighty case against his nomination in 1987. Bork, a judge on the court where Garland currently serves, previously served as United States Solicitor General and was an influential scholar of antitrust law. He also had a long history of criticizing progressive Supreme Court decisions. Bork opposed the doctrine of one person/one vote, which eliminated malapportionment of state legislatures that gave rural votes far more representation than urban voters. He criticized decisions striking down racial covenants in housing and those banning voter literacy tests. He attacked a decision invalidating poll taxes. And he opposed Supreme Court decisions saying that the Constitution forbids the government from discriminating against women — arguing instead that “the Equal Protection Clause probably should be kept to things like race and ethnicity.”

Bork’s most well-known statement, however, most likely came from a 1963 article he published in the New Republic, which opposed federal bans on race discrimination by businesses.

So when Hatch and other Republicans place themselves on the side of Robert Bork, they embrace the view that vocal and strident opposition to the ban on whites-only lunch counters should not disqualify an individual from service on the Supreme Court. It’s easy to see why someone who holds this unusual viewpoint would be unwilling to accept anyone nominated by President Obama.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let the Republican's sit on their hands. On 1.21.17, President Hillary Clinton will nominate Barack Obama esq. to the high court and it will sail through the Senate that then will have a super majority of Democrats- and the Republicans will be royally screwed.

Don't you mean the country will be royally screwed if that should happen?

You know that I don't mean that at all, now don't you?

 

[there4eyeM]

Bork got what he deserved.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You know that what you posted is absolute falsehood, right? Nothing about the Constitutions description of the Senates confirmation process requires a vote of any kind at all.

Nothing I said was false.

• As I said-it is up to the Senate- not the majority leader.
• He shall have Power.....,and he shall nominate and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ....Judges of the supreme Court
• One of the enumerated jobs of the Senate as shown above is to provide advice- and consent/denial of Justices- just as it is the job of the President to nominate and appoint justices.

When the Senate acts as a body, it can take many paths to act.

One such path is that the majority party leadership simply says no, bit me and the President needs to find a new nominee, as if Obama really was trying to get one passed in the Senate anyway.

The Constitution says with the advise and consent of the Senate- not the Majority leader.

Now if you want to change the Constitution so that it reads 'with the advise and consent of the Senate Majority leader'- well then the rest of the Senate would no longer have to be involved.

The Majority Leader of the Senate has the power and authority to act for the entire Senate in multiple ways and this is one of them.

I must have missed that part of the United States Constitution.

Can you tell me what section that is in?

The same part of the Constitution where it tells the Senate how to run its business; Article 42.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Most bills and nominees are not rejected in this way, but by simply not making it to the schedule of the Senate's calendar.

I don't approve of that either. I don't care what the topic is or whether it's one I want to see go "this" way or "that" way. I want the damn thing brought to the floor and voted on.

I'm sorry, but for the ~$180K/year they are paid, plus the perqs and power, I want Senators and Congressmen to work more.

• The 'Do-Nothing Congress' — Big Salary, Little Work, Free Trips | Fox News
  
• Here's How Much Less Congress Works Than You Do
  
• http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/208167-house-and-senate-who-works-less
  
• CNN analysis: Congress in D.C. far less than it used to be - CNNPolitics.com

One of the most visible forms of work they perform is voting "yay" or "nay" on bills and appointments. If what I'm demanding means they have to at least sit their asses in those cushy Capitol or Senate committee chamber chairs and ask the man questions and listen to his answers, then so be it.

This is not a partisan issue for me. It's actually got nothing to do with what I think about Justice Garland, his views and political persuasion, or that of the Senators and President. It's about getting my money's worth for paying for those 100 people to be seated in that august legislative body.

Well that is great for your personal opinion, but the Constitution does not make it a requirement and that is all Obama is going to get until the GOP leaders cave in and hand Obama a free gift again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In any case, the Senate does not have to send this nomination to the Judiciary committee not now, not ever.

You are correct. But that doesn't mean the Senate can sit on it's ass with no consequences.

The Senate is not sitting on its hands; The Senate Majority Leader has said No! and that is all it is required to do even if Obama and every Democrat on the planet holds their breath til they turn blue..

The Dem's are going to beat the crap out of us with that stuff over the summer.
>>>>

lol, when will Republicans find some nerve?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Senate is not sitting on its hands; The Senate Majority Leader has said No! and that is all it is required to do even if Obama and every Democrat on the planet holds their breath til they turn blue..

Of course they can.

But they will only have to hold their breath's for a little bit as we help put Hillary in the Oval Office with a Dem Senate.

The problem is thinking tactically (short term) and not seeing the impact strategically (post election).

McConnell might win the battle (not holding hearings on 1 Justice) but end up helping the Dem's put 3 Justices on the court over the next 4 years.

Good Job.


>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Proof that holding up the nomination of Garland is partisan crap:

Courting Extremism: Chuck Grassley Gives Away The Game And Donald Trump Outlines His Judicial Strategy Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 4/8/2016 3:15 pm Courting Extremism is a weekly feature on conservative responses to the Supreme Court vacancy. Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of voters want the Senate to hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans continue to refuse to even let Garland answer questions. In doing so, they are taking orders from — and sometimes directly repeating the talking points of — the conservative interest groups that are desperately trying to keep the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat open in the hopes that a Republican president will nominate a conservative ideologue to fill it. The Republican Party’s presidential frontrunner has even gone so far as to say that he would outsource the selection of the next justice to these groups. Here are five ways the GOP has tried to support its Supreme Court blockade this week: - See more at: Courting Extremism: Chuck Grassley Gives Away The Game And Donald Trump Outlines His Judicial Strategy

 

[320 Years of History]

Why do you think that they are compelled to waste the Senates time with an already rejected nomination?

In addition to the general reasons i noted in my earlier reply to your question, I have my own personal reason as well.

I and some ~500K other folks like me, more folks than live in Wyoming, pay our share of taxes to seat Senators, must live under whatever laws and treaties they pass, must live with whomever they confirm to the SCOTUS, and don't have a single Senator to stand for us.

People in the U.S .have the nerve to talk about representative government and democracy. How many of them realize that within the contiguous 48 states, there live some 500K natural born citizens who are annually taxed and who have no representation at all? Of them, how many would be even more ticked off to see plainly that they are paying for Senators to be seated and getting not even a damn vote on the matters that are given to the Senate to consider?

Some one last week on this forum mocked me as seeming as though I may be someone who "has people." Well, let me tell you this. If one lives in D.C., one had better be the sort of person who "has people" because short of using one's financial means to influence policy, or at least be heard, one has no other avenue of doing so in Congress.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well folks, after all of these 130+ posts, it is all still pretty murky. The best source of information that may elucidate the issue is SCOTUS BLOG... right from the horse's mouth sort of speak.: Is a recess appointment to the Court an option? (UPDATED)

Selected excerpts:

UPDATED Sunday 8:48 a.m. The Senate is currently in recess until February 22. The recess began on Friday. Whether this opens an opportunity for a recess appointment depends upon how Senate leaders interpret an adjournment resolution approved last Friday. That will determine whether it will meet for brief activity during the recess, which could close that opportunity.

The Constitution not only assigns to the president the task of making nominations to the Supreme Court, setting off Senate review that may or may not result in approval, but it also gives the Chief Executive the opportunity to fill a vacancy on the Court temporarily, bypassing the Senate initially, if a nominee languishes in the Senate without final action.

If that does result in an impasse, President Obama may ponder the possibility of putting on the Court a new Justice of his choosing, to serve temporarily. The problem, though, is that less than two years ago, the Supreme Court severely narrowed the flexibility of such temporary appointment power, and strengthened the Senate’s capacity to frustrate such a presidential maneuver.

The presidential authority at issue in this possible scenario exists, according to Article II, when the Senate has gone into recess and the vacancy a president seeks to fill remains. Such an appointment requires no action at all by the Senate, but the appointee can only serve until the end of the following Senate session. The president (if still in office) can then try again during a new Senate session, by making a new nomination, and that must be reviewed by the Senate.

The Supreme Court had never clarified that power until its decision in June 2014 in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.

The decision was something of a compromise. The Court expanded the concept of when the Senate would be in recess so that the president could make a temporary appointment, but it also gave the Senate more control over when it does recess and how long the recesses last. The gesture toward the Senate’s choices was probably the more important result.

Here, specifically, is what the Court decided:

First, on the president’s side, the Court ruled that the recess appointment power applies when the Senate leaves town for a break in the middle of an annual sitting, or a break at the end of each annual session.

Second, also on the president’s side, the decision declared that the president during a recess can fill a vacancy even if the opening occurred well before the recess began.

Third, on the Senate’s side, the ruling made clear that it has to last more than three days, without saying how much more time must pass without the Senate out of town and doing nothing.

Fourth, strongly on the Senate’s side, the decision left it largely up to the Senate to decide when it does take a recess, allowing it to avoid the formality of a recess by taking some legislative action, however minor or inconsequential and however few senators actually take part in some action.

So hell, I don't know and neither does anyone here. What I do know is that the Republicans are being partisan jerks and that it is likely to come back to bite them

 

[blackhawk]

I seriously doubt any President would want to open that can of worms if they did a President could nominate someone they knew would never be confirmed then claim congress was not doing its job and then appoint them to the court. The hell that would unleash would be off the charts the day we see any President try that would be the beginning of the end of democracy as we know it.

 

[HenryBHough]

I remain disappointed that Republican leadership has not begun hearings and a good, old-fashioned borking of this poor bastard so cruelly set up by Our Kenyan Emperor.