Scalia question

[sealybobo]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

Sorry you don't like who the president is. Rules are rules. It's Obama's pick.

If they have no real objection the court just got a lot less conservative.

he can pick away all he wants

he can pick his nose for all i care


he does not get to place one until he has consent of congress

that is just the way it is

And Ted Cruz is an American.

The GOP clown car just got a little crazier. I love it!

 

[sealybobo]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

As he picks up his football and goes home.

You're stoned already.

Took the day off for obamaday

 

[jon_berzerk]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

So did Republican obstructionists

that actually is not true

the Republicans gained votes between the two elections

59 ,9 million in 2008 and almost 60,9 million in 2012

 

[jon_berzerk]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

Sorry you don't like who the president is. Rules are rules. It's Obama's pick.

If they have no real objection the court just got a lot less conservative.

he can pick away all he wants

he can pick his nose for all i care


he does not get to place one until he has consent of congress

that is just the way it is

And Ted Cruz is an American.

The GOP clown car just got a little crazier. I love it!

your

surrender has been accepted

 

[sealybobo]

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

So did Republican obstructionists

They made up for in Nov 2014.

You sound as confident as Rove and Romney in 2012

 

[sealybobo]

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

So did Republican obstructionists

that actually is not true

the Republicans gained votes between the two elections

59 ,9 million in 2008 and almost 60,9 million in 2012

Im sure a lot of Republicans that stayed home in 2008 held their breath for Romney. He got the entire state of Utah. How many votes not in Utah?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

So did Republican obstructionists

that actually is not true

the Republicans gained votes between the two elections

59 ,9 million in 2008 and almost 60,9 million in 2012

Im sure a lot of Republicans that stayed home in 2008 held their breath for Romney. He got the entire state of Utah. How many votes not in Utah?

what

--LOL

 

[sealybobo]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

Yeah! GOP obstruction turned lots of people off. They don't think it matters.


Now I see why a smart liberal smothered the fat bastard with a pillow. I saw it on drudge. He's credible right?

 

[jon_berzerk]

You can't anull a previous recent election at your whim. This president was elected and those votes say this president should and will exercise the power THE PEOPLE gave him.

Period.

Change your Tampon if you're on your period. The people voted in the last election overwhelmingly for the right, exactly because of obama. And congress doesn't have to rubber stamp his pick. Sorry.

Obama won the last presidential election by almost 5 million votes. The people spoke then.

I get disliking Obama. But the idea that you should change the rules based on that dislike is laughable.

People rejected obama big time, the facts were in long ago. The rules can't force congress to install a liberal activist judge. So laugh until you get a hernia, your loss.

he also lost about 5 million voters between his first and second election

Yeah! GOP obstruction turned lots of people off. They don't think it matters.


Now I see why a smart liberal smothered the fat bastard with a pillow. I saw it on drudge. He's credible right?

mccain and romney obstructionists --LOL

 

[dannyboys]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

Sorry you don't like who the president is. Rules are rules. It's Obama's pick.

If they have no real objection the court just got a lot less conservative.

he can pick away all he wants

he can pick his nose for all i care


he does not get to place one until he has consent of congress

that is just the way it is

Unless he appoints one during the Senate's Recess....

So the Repubs will need to keep the Senate opened and not in recess for the next year.

All the Senate needs to do is legally notify the President and Congress and the Master-At-Arms that the Senate will remain in session until January 20th 2017.
The MAAs posts the notification in the 'Book of Record'. The President must himself sign-off on the notification showing he received the notification. It's like he's been handed a Certified letter, as well as the House Congressional leader and the MAAs
Already done. But you'll never hear about it on MSNBC or the LIB MSM.
It is not legally required that a Senator, any Senator be actually present on the Senate floor 24/7 but mark my words. The 'optics' of REP Senators literally sleeping on cots on the Senate floor will be political GOLD! for the REPs. The REP Senators have already chosen when each of them take their turns camping out on the Senate floor. Every REP Senator is going to get their faces on their local TV channels back home 'defending the Constitution!'.
Political GOLD I tell you!
Watch for some serious 'Jim Jones' moments in the DNC offices.

 

[Care4all]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

Sorry you don't like who the president is. Rules are rules. It's Obama's pick.

If they have no real objection the court just got a lot less conservative.

he can pick away all he wants

he can pick his nose for all i care


he does not get to place one until he has consent of congress

that is just the way it is

Unless he appoints one during the Senate's Recess....

So the Repubs will need to keep the Senate opened and not in recess for the next year.

there is not going to be a recess

and as for him trying to declare a recess himself

on a on a three day off week and placing someone

in 2014 the supreme court handed him his ass for trying it

and also that would be a "temporary" fill

No that's not what the SC got him for....

The Senate pretended they were opened by having 2 Senators come in every day... the SC ruled it was open as long as the two senators came in every day.....while the other 98 senators were on vacation....

It was a bad ruling....but now the SC does NOT have a Republican majority anymore, I'd like to see it challenged again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Making an appointment when the Senate is in session isn't recess appointment.

Of course Senator McConnell has said:

"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."
​

Watch what you ask for. Refusing to consider an in session nomination could result in a recess appointment.


>>>>

 

[dannyboys]

One of the duties of the current Senate majority is to block Obama at every turn. That's why they were put in there. That's what their constituents expect.

They have not done a good job of it. Here's their chance to redeem themselves.

This is the sort of crap that has screwed the American people at every turn.

If you disagree with a specific thing Obama has done, I respect that. I don't care for much of what he has done.

But this idea that every action must be opposed, regardless of whether it is good for the people or not, is insanity.

This is EXACTLY why Trump and Sanders are hijacking the presidential race. People don't like it--watch out, super conservatives. I have been entirely open, up to now, in considering a Republican as my vote for president in November. I absolutely, positively will NOT vote for any candidate who opposes even considering the president's nomination. I'm only one, but I'm not alone. I DO NOT SEE why a nominee can't be considered and voted down, if not acceptable.

Luckily Republicans can't win. Voters will see them for what they are. We welcome scalias timing.

Right now the DNC is plotting away

As long as the Senate stays in session the ******* DNC can 'plot' all they want. There is ZERO they can do to circumvent the US CONSTITUTION. ZERO!
You really believe the REP voters waiting to elect a REP President are going to somehow have a problem with the REP controlled Senate upholding the Constitution?
Wise up.
Don't forget the number of declared LIB voters in the 18-35 demographic will NEVER turn out to vote for Cankles the female enabler for Bill Clinton's years of sexual predation against innocent females. When Clinton gets handed the nomination 95% of this demographic are going to stay home. A small percent of them will vote for Trump.
The DNC is totally fucked now.
They are going to have to watch President Trump put 3 of 4 radical young Conservatives on the SC. The REP controlled Senate will gleefully rubber stamp Trump's nominees.
Aside: I hear Debbie's days are now numbered. BTW. I give her one month left from today before she jumps instead of being publicly pushed.
SHE was the MAIN driving force behind doing whatever was necessary to get Hillary the nomination. She fucked up big-time in the opinion of a LOT of very powerful DNC backroom boys and girls.
They wanted Biden. He was willing privately. It was Debbie who basically told him to back off.
The original ticket was going to be Biden with 'Pocahontas' Warren as running mate.
Trump will be President for two terms. The Senate and Congress and SC will be ******* wall-to-wall REPS for at least a decade.
By then the LIBs will have changed their name as often as a crack whore changes her panties.

We will nominate a justice who is a moderate and if your side objects you'll have to explain why. I welcome the conversation.

The stakes have never been higher and I feel confident.

HAAA HAAAA! The Senate will be far too busy between now and next January to be able to even put the nomination on a schedule for discussion. BUSY BUSY BUSY.
You can take that to the bank!
The entire REP voter base is having a big celebration! Watch hundreds of thousands of them dancing for joy!
Independants who comprehend what Obama will attempt aren't going to be bullshitted by the LIBs.

 

[dannyboys]

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

Making an appointment when the Senate is in session isn't recess appointment.

Of course Senator McConnell has said:

"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."
​

Watch what you ask for. Refusing to consider an in session nomination could result in a recess appointment.


>>>>

There can be no recess appointment when the Senate is not in recess.
The Senate will be formally/legally in session until after Trump is inaugurated.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court NomineesThe Federalist‎

The question isn't whether the Senate can vote to reject a nominee, of course they can.

The question is should the Senate sit on it's ass for a year and do nothing with nominiees. Giving the Dem's political fodder to blast GOP candidates helping put Hillary in the White House and posibilty sifting control of the Senate to the Dems. Then you have Hillary making both nomination with a friendly liberal Senate.

You can bet if Hillary wins, the Ginsburg will send in her notice of retirement and then Hillary gets to make two back to back appointments.


>>>>

 

[Votto]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

Sorry you don't like who the president is. Rules are rules. It's Obama's pick.

If they have no real objection the court just got a lot less conservative.

Rules are rules? Obamacare was passed with Reconciliation. Likewise, the GOP could filibuster as long as they so desire.

We live in a post Constitutional era with no checks and balances, so anything can happen now.

 

[Care4all]

It's a real shame that the SC is not thought of as unbiased any more, and we the people have a SC that is considered partisan on all of their critical rulings....


And boy oh boy have the Republicans made sure of that this past decade....

Precisely NOT what our Founders wanted, and the OPPOSITE of what it should be with our Justices.

You are a hateful group of people.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Can Republican's prevent Obama from making new appointment? I think appointment should be made by the new President. Obama lame duck, USSC lifetime position, so if new Justice is say 46 years old to 50 years old, he or she can be on bench for 30 years or even 40 years. Obama choose Leftist of course, so your First and Second Amendments might be at risk.

The new President should make this appointment IMHO.

Sorry you don't like who the president is. Rules are rules. It's Obama's pick.

If they have no real objection the court just got a lot less conservative.

he can pick away all he wants

he can pick his nose for all i care


he does not get to place one until he has consent of congress

that is just the way it is

Unless he appoints one during the Senate's Recess....

So the Repubs will need to keep the Senate opened and not in recess for the next year.

duh

 

[dannyboys]

Obama has since day one refused to work with the Senate. He has been very openly dismissive of the REP Congressmen and women and to the REP Senators.
WHAT ******* GOES AROUND COMES AROUND OBAMA!

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to reject Presidential appointments. Anyone who wants to whine about how unfair this is can take it up with James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and/or George Washington.

Rejecting a nominee is different than sitting on our ass for a year.


>>>>