Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As I said when I made the statement... Kennedy was appointed in 1987 and confirmed in Feb 1988. Kennedy was the third nominee in a process which began in June 1987 when Powell stepped down. Is this June 2015? Has Obama already appointed two justices who were rejected and/or took their name out of contention before a third was nominated in 2015 and his confirmation hearing concluded last week? That's what you need to have an equivalent scenario.
I realize you libtards are like little puppies with a bone and you think this is the "gotchya" example but it's just fucking not. The Senate adopted a rule after Ike appointed a justice right before the 1960 election of JFK. But liberals are always this way... they want republicans to follow the rules and they get to break the rules.
As for the constitution, if you think "advise and consent" means they are obligated to approve whatever the president presents, you're an idiot. That's not what it means and everyone with half a brain knows that.... Including Obama who twice rejected Bush's appointments to the court on that very basis.
No one is claiming that is a precedent. There is a Senate RULE... do you under-fucking-stand what a RULE is? It was put in place back in 1960 following an election year appointment by Eisenhower. This RULE does not say there is a legal precedent for the president not to make an appointment.... he can make an appointment and he will. The RULE covers confirmation of his appointment (made in an election year) during an election campaign.
McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under ObamaThey say they are. Why would I believe you over them?I am indeed. Just like the Senate is obligated to advise and consent. But since the Senate is shirking their Constitutional obligations, why can't the next president should a Democrat win?Aren't you one of the ones saying that the president is obligated to offer up a nominee?
The Senate hasn't shirked anything.
Link?
There's no rule, according to McConnellThere is no legal precedent which prevents the President from appointing a Supreme Court judge in his last year of office.
No one is claiming that is a precedent. There is a Senate RULE... do you under-fucking-stand what a RULE is? It was put in place back in 1960 following an election year appointment by Eisenhower. This RULE does not say there is a legal precedent for the president not to make an appointment.... he can make an appointment and he will. The RULE covers confirmation of his appointment (made in an election year) during an election campaign.
There is no legal precedent which prevents the President from appointing a Supreme Court judge in his last year of office.
No one is claiming that is a precedent. There is a Senate RULE... do you under-fucking-stand what a RULE is?
As I said when I made the statement... Kennedy was appointed in 1987 and confirmed in Feb 1988. Kennedy was the third nominee in a process which began in June 1987 when Powell stepped down. Is this June 2015? Has Obama already appointed two justices who were rejected and/or took their name out of contention before a third was nominated in 2015 and his confirmation hearing concluded last week? That's what you need to have an equivalent scenario.
I realize you libtards are like little puppies with a bone and you think this is the "gotchya" example but it's just fucking not. The Senate adopted a rule after Ike appointed a justice right before the 1960 election of JFK. But liberals are always this way... they want republicans to follow the rules and they get to break the rules.
As for the constitution, if you think "advise and consent" means they are obligated to approve whatever the president presents, you're an idiot. That's not what it means and everyone with half a brain knows that.... Including Obama who twice rejected Bush's appointments to the court on that very basis.
Please point out this supposed rule that the Senate put into place in 1960. Thanks.
Point is, there's no reason to drag this out 300+ days. And you guys will look pretty foolish if you do it.
Not to mention the risk you are taking. What if Hillary wins and Dems take control of the Senate. Then you guys are kind of screwed, because you'll have lost any leverage you have to get a more moderate pick now.
For the curious, Boss is confused. There was a 1960 Senate resolution which said the President should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court.
See for yourselves: S.RES. 334. ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION. -- Senate Vote #416 -- Aug 29, 1960
This is not a RULE that says the Senate cannot confirm SC judges in the last year of a President's administration.
In fact, it isn't a RULE the President can't make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, either. And how do we know this?
Because of the Constitution, which I linked earlier. You should read it.
Right. Boss most likely had his RW talk radio on. It would be historically bad for Obama to make a recess apt, and Obama already said he wouldn't do that.For the curious, Boss is confused. There was a 1960 Senate resolution which said the President should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court.
See for yourselves: S.RES. 334. ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION. -- Senate Vote #416 -- Aug 29, 1960
This is not a RULE that says the Senate cannot confirm SC judges in the last year of a President's administration.
In fact, it isn't a RULE the President can't make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, either. And how do we know this?
Because of the Constitution.
The resolution was a statement of some butt hurt Senators and their opinion. Not a law.
The Republican Senate has done away with recess appointments. Yet another example where they shit on the Constitution. So no, Obama will not get a recess appointment.McConnell throws down the gauntlet: No Scalia replacement under ObamaThey say they are. Why would I believe you over them?I am indeed. Just like the Senate is obligated to advise and consent. But since the Senate is shirking their Constitutional obligations, why can't the next president should a Democrat win?
The Senate hasn't shirked anything.
Link?
I really want to kick McConnell in the face right about now. If this is the game he's going to play, Obama could end up making a recess appointment immediately, and then renew it in January. That would get us someone in there for two whole years, which at that point becomes alot more difficult to not be willing to confirm without blatantly acknowledging you're doing it for purely partisan reasons. But the even bigger risk is that right now there is a very real chance that we have a President Sanders come next January 21. And I really shudder to think who he might nominate.
Link or piss off.For the curious, Boss is confused. There was a 1960 Senate resolution which said the President should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court.
See for yourselves: S.RES. 334. ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION. -- Senate Vote #416 -- Aug 29, 1960
This is not a RULE that says the Senate cannot confirm SC judges in the last year of a President's administration.
In fact, it isn't a RULE the President can't make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, either. And how do we know this?
Because of the Constitution, which I linked earlier. You should read it.
Again, Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year. No one is saying that can't happen or that there is any rule against it. The long-standing rule is against appointments made during an election year... specifically, during recess. Not confirmation of appointments made before... as was the case with Kennedy.
Oh? When was that "long standing" rule ever used?For the curious, Boss is confused. There was a 1960 Senate resolution which said the President should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court.
See for yourselves: S.RES. 334. ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION. -- Senate Vote #416 -- Aug 29, 1960
This is not a RULE that says the Senate cannot confirm SC judges in the last year of a President's administration.
In fact, it isn't a RULE the President can't make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, either. And how do we know this?
Because of the Constitution, which I linked earlier. You should read it.
Again, Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year. No one is saying that can't happen or that there is any rule against it. The long-standing rule is against appointments made during an election year... specifically, during recess. Not confirmation of appointments made before... as was the case with Kennedy.
Obama has his constitutional right to appoint someone, and he will. The GOP should be very careful on what they do. The trick here is to block the nomination while not being hated by the public. Judging by the competence of our dear republican senators, we can at most get one out the two, and possibly none...First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.
But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.
Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.
Obama has his constitutional right to appoint someone, and he will. The GOP should be very careful on what they do. The trick here is to block the nomination while not being hated by the public. Judging by the competence of our dear republican senators, we can at most get one out the two, and possibly none...First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.
But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.
Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.
The executive could nominate and the senate could ignore (advise and consent NOT advise and capitulate)
Not towards you in particular, Fang, but it is pretty damned stupid to refuse, on principal, to approve a nominee before one has even been named. Okay, I'll not place any bets that Obama will nominate an ultra conservative like Scalia, but it shows pig headed obstinacy to take the current Republican stance.We know how this will play out...
1. Obama will nominate a new justice soon. It'll be the one of the few things he gets done quickly.
2. The Republican Senate will not approve of the nominee (as they shouldn't)
3. Democrats will accuse Republicans of playing politics and holding up progress. (they would do the same thing) They'll make up slogans like "GOP war on America". They'll ride this all the way to the November election.
4. America will decide the next justice with the election. (as it should be)
Well, no. There's no similarity. No one in the dem camp has said the gop should not hold hearings on an Obama nominee, and if the gop doesn't like the nominee's answers, they can vote the nominee down, and if they lack the votes, they can filibuster. McConnell is saying there wont' even be hearings.Flashback: Obama Tried to Filibuster Bush’s Supreme Court Pick
Yep Obama loves the process when he gets to make the rules...
If the Senate does the work to review the nominee, I don't think they should be penalized for saying no. If McConnell had kept his fat mouth shut, they could have effectively shut down a liberal appointment without any fuss, bother or hard feelings. Just by doing their jobs.The executive could nominate and the senate could ignore (advise and consent NOT advise and capitulate)
Obama WILL nominate and the lack of "consent" is the albatross that senate republicans will have on their backs with those 24 seats they must defend this Nov.
Well, no. There's no similarity. No one in the dem camp has said the gop should not hold hearings on an Obama nominee, and if the gop doesn't like the nominee's answers, they can vote the nominee down, and if they lack the votes, they can filibuster. McConnell is saying there wont' even be hearings.Flashback: Obama Tried to Filibuster Bush’s Supreme Court Pick
Yep Obama loves the process when he gets to make the rules...
There is NO historical precedent for that.
