Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

[Vigilante]

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.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Auld Phart]

So, that's 3 times the dems wanted to block.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Harry Reid/Democrats used the nuclear option on the Republicans in the past and the Democratic Socialist Party members cheered.

Now it's comeuppance time..

 

[mamooth]

It was a resolution against recess appointments, not against regular election year appointments.

Those who aren't pathlogical liars will acknowledge the difference between recess appointments and regular appointments.

That clearly excludes Vag and his blog sources.

Vag, did you know that you were repeating a lie, or were you just duped again?

Anways, republicans are still scoring a big zero on democrats blocking election year picks. Impressive, their complete failure is, and how they still don't give up trying to lie about it, all so they can justify their own blatantly anti-Constitutional behavior.

 

[mamooth]

Harry Reid/Democrats used the nuclear option on the Republicans in the past and the Democratic Socialist Party members cheered.

No, they didn't. They hinted at it, but never came close to actually doing it.

Now it's comeuppance time..

It's time for you to lie bigger, you mean. After all, the party commands, right? And the Republican Bible says "Thou mayest lie, if thou doest it to helpeth TheParty."

 

[TheOldSchool]

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.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Poor Vig, reduced to begging

 

[Lumpy 1]

It was a resolution against recess appointments, not against regular election year appointments.

Those who aren't pathlogical liars will acknowledge the difference between recess appointments and regular appointments.

That clearly excludes Vag and his blog sources.

Vag, did you know that you were repeating a lie, or were you just duped again?

Anways, republicans are still scoring a big zero on democrats blocking election year picks. Impressive, their complete failure is, and how they still don't give up trying to lie about it, all so they can justify their own blatantly anti-Constitutional behavior.

Eh, screw over that lying sack of shit Obama the Democrat Socialist Party as often as possible is my opinion. Fair .. unfair, I could care less.

 

[Vigilante]

Harry Reid/Democrats used the nuclear option on the Republicans in the past and the Democratic Socialist Party members cheered.

No, they didn't. They hinted at it, but never came close to actually doing it.

Now it's comeuppance time..

It's time for you to lie bigger, you mean. After all, the party commands, right? And the Republican Bible says "Thou mayest lie, if thou doest it to helpeth TheParty."

In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Indeed. It's been 82 years since a president, in the final year of his term, appointed a Supreme Court Nominee that was affirmed by the Senate. 82 years. And it will soon be 83 years.

 

[mamooth]

In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.

And what are we talking about now?

The Supreme Court.

You still following? That means the nuclear option was never invoked for this topic.

Do I need to dumb it down further for you?

It won't matter, of course. You know you're lying, but you're going to do it anyways. The dishonesty is kind of what defines you.

 

[Vigilante]

In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.

And what are we talking about now?

The Supreme Court.

You still following? That means the nuclear option was never invoked for this topic.

Do I need to dumb it down further for you?

It won't matter, of course. You know you're lying, but you're going to do it anyways. The dishonesty is kind of what defines you.

 

[Silhouette]

Harry Reid/Democrats used the nuclear option on the Republicans in the past and the Democratic Socialist Party members cheered.

Now it's comeuppance time..

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

 

[Faun]

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.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

And Obama is not looking to make a recess appointment for the Supreme Court. You're a moronic on this thread as you were on the other thread you tried passing this nonsense on.

 

[Lumpy 1]

In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.

And what are we talking about now?

The Supreme Court.

You still following? That means the nuclear option was never invoked for this topic.

Do I need to dumb it down further for you?

It won't matter, of course. You know you're lying, but you're going to do it anyways. The dishonesty is kind of what defines you.

You may appreciate this link...the Obama/Democrat Socialist legacy.

1,063 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, Hypocrisy, Waste, Etc. - Freedom Outpost

 

[Faun]

In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.

And what are we talking about now?

The Supreme Court.

You still following? That means the nuclear option was never invoked for this topic.

Do I need to dumb it down further for you?

It won't matter, of course. You know you're lying, but you're going to do it anyways. The dishonesty is kind of what defines you.

You may appreciate this link...

1,063 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, Hypocrisy, Waste, Etc. - Freedom Outpost

So cries Dan, from Squirrel Hill.

 

[Vigilante]

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.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

And Obama is not looking to make a recess appointment for the Supreme Court. You're a moronic on this thread as you were on the other thread you tried passing this nonsense on.

Weekly Standard ^ | February 14, 2016 | Adam J. White
Senator Schumer appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and responded to suggestions that the Senate might not confirm the lame-duck President's nomination to replace the late Justice Scalia: "show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president's only president for three years." True, Presidents serve four-year terms. But here's a question for Senator Schumer: Can you show me the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee? I'll save him the effort: There is no such clause in the Constitution

 

[Lumpy 1]

In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.

And what are we talking about now?

The Supreme Court.

You still following? That means the nuclear option was never invoked for this topic.

Do I need to dumb it down further for you?

It won't matter, of course. You know you're lying, but you're going to do it anyways. The dishonesty is kind of what defines you.

You may appreciate this link...

1,063 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, Hypocrisy, Waste, Etc. - Freedom Outpost

So cries Dan, from Squirrel Hill.

Yup, you're screwed and laughing, good times..

 

[Faun]

In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate filibusters on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court.

And what are we talking about now?

The Supreme Court.

You still following? That means the nuclear option was never invoked for this topic.

Do I need to dumb it down further for you?

It won't matter, of course. You know you're lying, but you're going to do it anyways. The dishonesty is kind of what defines you.

You may appreciate this link...

1,063 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Lawbreaking, Corruption, Cronyism, Hypocrisy, Waste, Etc. - Freedom Outpost

So cries Dan, from Squirrel Hill.

Yup, you're screwed and laughing, good times..

Sure, uh-huh.

Dan from Squirrel Hill tell you that too?

 

[Faun]

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.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

And Obama is not looking to make a recess appointment for the Supreme Court. You're a moronic on this thread as you were on the other thread you tried passing this nonsense on.

Weekly Standard ^ | February 14, 2016 | Adam J. White
Senator Schumer appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and responded to suggestions that the Senate might not confirm the lame-duck President's nomination to replace the late Justice Scalia: "show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president's only president for three years." True, Presidents serve four-year terms. But here's a question for Senator Schumer: Can you show me the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee? I'll save him the effort: There is no such clause in the Constitution

Their job is to advise and consent. That's in the Constitution. There are Republicans saying they will not do that for Obama.

 

[Vigilante]

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.

Hat tip: Instapundit


Read more: Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

And Obama is not looking to make a recess appointment for the Supreme Court. You're a moronic on this thread as you were on the other thread you tried passing this nonsense on.

Weekly Standard ^ | February 14, 2016 | Adam J. White
Senator Schumer appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and responded to suggestions that the Senate might not confirm the lame-duck President's nomination to replace the late Justice Scalia: "show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president's only president for three years." True, Presidents serve four-year terms. But here's a question for Senator Schumer: Can you show me the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee? I'll save him the effort: There is no such clause in the Constitution

Their job is to advise and consent. That's in the Constitution. There are Republicans saying they will not do that for Obama.