Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[WorldWatcher]

the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended

there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere

It does when it talks about 2/3rds vote for treaties in the first part of Article 2 Section 2. Since 2/3rds isn't specificed for the second advise and consent then it reverts to 50%(+1).

The Leadership is neither 2/3rds or 50%(+1) of the Senate.

>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended

there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere

It does when it talks about 2/3rds vote for treaties in the first part of Article 2 Section 2. Since 2/3rds isn't specificed for the second advise and consent then it reverts to 50%(+1).

The Leadership is neither 2/3rds or 50%(+1) of the Senate.

>>>>

no it does not

for judges it says with advice and consent i highlighted for you

and nowhere does the Constitution state that there needs to be 2/3 of the senate to reject a nominee







He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

[Flopper]

Not if they are willing to use the Dems play book..........they can stall 10 months using the Dems on changing rules against them.

Absolutely nothing actually REQUIRES them to move any more expeditiously than they choose to, nor does anything require them to approve anyone before they're ready. It's not like approvals for Justices move all that particularly quickly, anyway. And it would not be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy for that length of time.

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

The Dems have used the power of the Senate to block Supreme Court nominations...........and one that was appointed, Thomas, was UNCLE TOM to the Dems.........even though getting on the court. The Dems have NO HALLOWED ground to stand on in this issue...........

The Senate is a check on power and rightfully so............forcing the President to select the most qualified Judges and not selected by their ideology................Sodomayor and Kagan being in that catagory..........at least Roberts is a middle ground judge.........He and Kennedy sway from side to side on certain issues.......so no ideology has final say.

Obama nominates a REAL MODERATE Judge like Roberts and he can end the battle.

The fact is in this highly polarized political environment a sitting president, democrat or republican will select the most ideologically friendly candidate that he thinks he can get appointed by the Senate and hopefully the candidate will have some other redeeming qualities. The Senate will also try to get the most ideologically friendly candidate However, ideology will almost always trump other qualifications. The only bit of sunshine in this quagmire of political chicanery is the simple fact that some judges, much to chagrin of their masters will actually rule based on what they believe to be just and fair. This of course really screws the selection process because you just can't tell when an appointee will have an attack of conscience and do the right thing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended

there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere

It does when it talks about 2/3rds vote for treaties in the first part of Article 2 Section 2. Since 2/3rds isn't specificed for the second advise and consent then it reverts to 50%(+1).

The Leadership is neither 2/3rds or 50%(+1) of the Senate.

>>>>

no it does not

for judges it says with advice and consent i highlighted for you

and nowhere does the Constitution state that there needs to be 2/3 of the senate to reject a nominee







He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Please post where I've ever said their needs to be a 2/3rds vote to consent to a nominee? Oh wait I never have, I've always been very careful to point out that it takes a majority of the Senators present (50%+1) to approve a public official.

Oh, that's right. I've specifically pointed out that the method of consent contained in Article 2 Section 2 is be vote indicated but the 2/3rds requirement for treaties that the vote for nominees would than be 50%(+1).

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
​

The method of providing consent cited in the Constitution is by a vote of the Senators, not blocking a vote by the leadership. A couple of Senators in charge blocking the vote is not the intended method of providing consent outlined by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

But hey, those who advocate following the Constitution only when it's convenient are no better than the liberals like Harry Reid.


>>>>

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Judge Cinderela Guevara of Presidio County said on Monday that she spoke with Justice Scalia’s doctor on Saturday, shortly after he was found dead in his room at a remote Texas ranch. She said the doctor told her that Justice Scalia, 79, had a history of heart trouble and high blood pressure, and was considered too weak to undergo surgery for a recent shoulder injury.

Unlike presidents, theSupreme Court’s members do not provide regular health disclosures.

Judge Guevara said that she consulted with the physician and local and federal investigators, who said there were no signs of foul play, before concluding that he had died of natural causes. She said she spoke with a “Dr. Monahan” after 8 p.m. on Saturday to discuss Justice Scalia’s health history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/health-history-of-scalia-is-called-poor.html?_r=0

 

[Faun]

You would have to explain how the republicans exercising the constitutional power of approving or disapproving Obama's appointees is 'spitting on the constitution.'

Because the president has Constitutional authority to pick replacement justices. By declaring they will not confirm any nominee Obama names, Republicans are effectively denying the president that Constitutional authority because they want the next president, whom they hope will be a Republican, to pick.

It's one thing to deny a nominee based on the issues held by the nominee; it's another thing entirely to deny every nominee based on the issues held by the president.

Not really. the constitution does not lay down a measuring stick with which to decide if the nominee is to take the position or not. Obama does not have the constitutional authority to pick replacement judges - that is absolutely false. He shares that responsibility with the senate. Should the senate exercise THEIR authority to reject that nomination it does not suddenly become unconstitutional because the left does not like it.

The president has the authority to select a nominee. The senate can reject that nominee (and future ones) for as long as they choose - be it months or years. WE have the authority to put new senate members in place should we decide that what they are doing is unacceptable. All of it constitutional and all of it exactly how the government is supposed to operate. It is not 'broken' simply because you or others don't like the outcome.

Every Supreme Court justice was picked by a president. The Senate does have to approve, but it's false to say the president doesn't pick them.

What Republicans are doing would be no different than had Obama said he refuses to name a replacement until after the election in case Democrats take over the Senate.

That responsibility is shared.

The president does not 'pick' SCOTUS members. He nominates candidates for the senate to approve. Again, it is a shared responsibility. The president must select a nominee that can pass the senate or they are not going to become a member of the SCOTUS.

Yes, it is shared and both are required to contribute to the process. It would be no shirking of Constitutional responsibilities if a Democrat wins the presidency in November and then declares they will not nominate anyone until Democrats control the Senate.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, there goes our privilege to bear arms.

Sad, very very sad.


.

Not if they are willing to use the Dems play book..........they can stall 10 months using the Dems on changing rules against them.

Absolutely nothing actually REQUIRES them to move any more expeditiously than they choose to, nor does anything require them to approve anyone before they're ready. It's not like approvals for Justices move all that particularly quickly, anyway. And it would not be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy for that length of time.

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

 

[Seawytch]

Not if they are willing to use the Dems play book..........they can stall 10 months using the Dems on changing rules against them.

Absolutely nothing actually REQUIRES them to move any more expeditiously than they choose to, nor does anything require them to approve anyone before they're ready. It's not like approvals for Justices move all that particularly quickly, anyway. And it would not be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy for that length of time.

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

Wrong.

Sen. Schumer Called for Blocking Any Future Bush Supreme Court Nominees--IN JULY 2007

 

[Redfish]

McConnell: Senate should not confirm Scalia's replacement until after election

McConnell: After the election.

Possible outcomes if Republicans stall on confirmation

1. Republicans win presidency and hold Senate and name a Conservative Justice

2. Republicans win Presidency but Democrats win Senate and refuse to confirm a Conservative nominee

3. Democrats win Presidency but Republicans hold Senate, Republicans refuse to confirm

4. Democrats win both presidency and Senate and name a Liberal

You left out a possiblity....

Republicans win the presidency, Democrats win the Senate, pull the trigger on the nuclear option in the Senate to approve with a simple majority -- and confirm Obama's Liberal nominee before the Republican president is sworn in on January 20th.

Good one I didn't consider

They have almost two weeks before the Republican would be inaugurated
Obamas nominee would still be on the table

no recess appointments unless the senate declares itself in recess------------and it won't.

It wouldn't be a RECESS appointment, dumbass.

LOL, the dems are not going to take the senate. Dream on.

 

[Redfish]

it does january 3rd 2017

Umm ... that's when the 115th session of Congress begins. Should Democrats win the Senate this election, do you think they will or will not confirm Obama's nominee should Republicans stall until then?

FILABUSTER still on the table.

Who decides the filibuster rules?
The new Senate
The Democratic Senate has already shown they do not support filibuster of court nominees

Schumer did in 2007. hypocrisy much?

How about the hypocrisy on the right by those blasting Schumer for suggesting that; though they're shaking their pom-poms for it now?

Schumer regrets not leading an Alito filibuster ("we should not confirm a 'SCOTUS' nominee EXCEPT")

hypocrisy is alive and well in both parties, you dems just try to ignore it when your guys are doing it. YOU are the hypocrites.

 

[Redfish]

So, you want the Senate to vote, up or down then? Yes, or no?

how can i offer an opinion of such a question when the president has not nominated anyone

unlike you I am not a party loyalist

and will wait to see what I want my senators to do

But your obstructionist Leader has already said he will block anyone that the President nominates. PARTY OVER COUNTRY!

good cry me a river

you guys set the precedent for it

there has been many many times when the righties have said

wait until the tables turn

so put that in your pipe and smoke it

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”


Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks

And the right lambasted him for even suggesting it. Now the right is actually doing it.

And the left is playing the opposite card now. I don't see why this is surprising or even noteworthy - the partisans always lambaste the opposing party even if they are backing the same things they advocate for. As for it hurting the right or not, I think it largely depends. I am not so sure that denying Obama's appointees would do a damn thing to the right.

Of course I would assume that they actually denied them rather than refused to hear them in the first place. There is a rather large difference. If they hold the votes and deny the appointees they will point to Obama trying to install a 'radical liberal judge' and the left will call them obstructionists like they have been. Both bases get their red meat. If they simply refuse to hear them in general they will look rather poor.

that is exactly why most americans are fed up with the political class and its bullshit. It is exactly why Trump and Sanders are getting votes. The people have had it with liars and frauds like the Clintons and Bushes.

 

[Iceweasel]

Absolutely nothing actually REQUIRES them to move any more expeditiously than they choose to, nor does anything require them to approve anyone before they're ready. It's not like approvals for Justices move all that particularly quickly, anyway. And it would not be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy for that length of time.

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

Wrong.

Sen. Schumer Called for Blocking Any Future Bush Supreme Court Nominees--IN JULY 2007

Wrong? You didn't post anything but a link. Are you too stupid to find what you want?

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, it probably would be the first time the Supreme Court had a vacancy this long. The record is 339 days, from May 14, 1969 to June 9,1970. If this Senate does not act, it will over a year before this seat is filled, possibly a lot longer.

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

Wrong.

Sen. Schumer Called for Blocking Any Future Bush Supreme Court Nominees--IN JULY 2007

Wrong? You didn't post anything but a link. Are you too stupid to find what you want?

I posted a link to a rebuttal to your misinformation. Are you too stupid to click on the link?

 

[Iceweasel]

No, 339 days would not be the record. That would be less than a year, and as I've said in another post, there was another vacancy that lasted two years, there was another that was a year and a half.

I may have transposed the numbers. I think it was 393. However, regardless of whether it was 339 or 393 or whether a democrat or republican senate refused to do their job, it shouldn't happen. This kind of thinking by the party leadership is why we have such a dysfunctional government. No matter how outrageous the act, as long as the opposition has done it, it's ok. So if the democrats gets control of the Senate and we have a republican president, then the democrat senate can hold up a nomination for years. Following this line of reasoning we could just not fill Supreme Court positions and do away with court.
.

No, that's not what has happened. But it is interesting that liberals expect Republicans to follow the rules the way they see them and expect Republicans to accept the Democrat's games without protest. Chuckie Schumer shows us how the game is played. He wanted to stonewall Bush's nominations until the republicans can prove they are mainstream (lol) and now it's wrong to block anyone. We only hear about playing fair from the left when Republicans have some power.

Wrong.

Sen. Schumer Called for Blocking Any Future Bush Supreme Court Nominees--IN JULY 2007

Wrong? You didn't post anything but a link. Are you too stupid to find what you want?

I posted a link to a rebuttal to your misinformation. Are you too stupid to click on the link?

I pointed out that you are too stupid to post any content. I don't do others research for them.

Plus, I heard Chuckie's own words. No sale!

 

[JimH52]

February 14, 2016
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.

Update: Don't forget Chuck Schumer (do a search libertards.., if you do not know how, i'll help you if you ask nicely!!)

as the worms turn, squiggle and squirm..,

We are not talking recess appointment. The GOP controlled Senate needs to do its job or be elected out.

 

[Redfish]

February 14, 2016
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.

Update: Don't forget Chuck Schumer (do a search libertards.., if you do not know how, i'll help you if you ask nicely!!)

as the worms turn, squiggle and squirm..,

We are not talking recess appointment. The GOP controlled Senate needs to do its job or be elected out.

the job of the senate is to confirm or deny SCOTUS appointments sent to it by the president. Kissing Obama's ass is not its job. If they kiss his ass they will be elected out. If they do their job the GOP will retain control and President Trump will appoint the next SCOTUS judge.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the Constitution would have said full senate if that was intended

there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere

It does when it talks about 2/3rds vote for treaties in the first part of Article 2 Section 2. Since 2/3rds isn't specificed for the second advise and consent then it reverts to 50%(+1).

The Leadership is neither 2/3rds or 50%(+1) of the Senate.

>>>>

no it does not

for judges it says with advice and consent i highlighted for you

and nowhere does the Constitution state that there needs to be 2/3 of the senate to reject a nominee







He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Please post where I've ever said their needs to be a 2/3rds vote to consent to a nominee? Oh wait I never have, I've always been very careful to point out that it takes a majority of the Senators present (50%+1) to approve a public official.

Oh, that's right. I've specifically pointed out that the method of consent contained in Article 2 Section 2 is be vote indicated but the 2/3rds requirement for treaties that the vote for nominees would than be 50%(+1).

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
​

The method of providing consent cited in the Constitution is by a vote of the Senators, not blocking a vote by the leadership. A couple of Senators in charge blocking the vote is not the intended method of providing consent outlined by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

But hey, those who advocate following the Constitution only when it's convenient are no better than the liberals like Harry Reid.


>>>>

what the hell does this mean then

your words

The Leadership is neither 2/3rds or 50%(+1) of the Senate.

in response to my post

there is no where it says there has to be a vote nowhere



The method of providing consent cited in the Constitution is by a vote of the Senators

no that is not true

the constitution simply says by advice and consent of congress

in order to give consent there needs to be whatever the law says

in other words however congress chooses that is why there such a thing

as the nuclear option

 

[jon_berzerk]

February 14, 2016
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.

Update: Don't forget Chuck Schumer (do a search libertards.., if you do not know how, i'll help you if you ask nicely!!)

as the worms turn, squiggle and squirm..,

We are not talking recess appointment. The GOP controlled Senate needs to do its job or be elected out.

it is doing its job

 

[TyroneSlothrop]