There’s ample precedent for rejecting lame duck supreme court nominees

[American_Jihad]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

 

[Agit8r]

Are Republicans good at weighing public opinion? Not lately.

 

[American_Jihad]

In 2007 Chuck Schumer Urged Democrats To BLOCK BUSH SCOTUS NOMINEES (VIDEO)
February 15, 2016 by Aleister

As usual, when the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats sing a different tune. Today, they want Obama to pick Scalia’s replacement. Back in 2007, things were different.

CNS News reports:

Schumer in ’07: ‘We Should Not Confirm Any Bush Nominee to the Supreme Court’

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is describing current GOP calls to let the next president make a Supreme Court nomination “obstructionism”, but in 2007 Schumer said, “I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito,” and recommended the Senate, “should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”


...

In 2007 Chuck Schumer Urged Democrats To BLOCK BUSH SCOTUS NOMINEES (VIDEO) - Progressives Today

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

 

[PaintMyHouse]

 

[American_Jihad]

...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...

So, no nominees in an election year, and none as a lame duck? Well, out of an eight-year run, Obama could have nominated someone in three out of eight years.

 

[g5000]

Yes, please save that Supreme Court appointment for me! Thanks!

 

[g5000]

Elect me, and I will appoint Sarah Palin.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sure is. In fact the precedent favors not approving a nominee out of respect for the people so that they might have a say in it

 

[g5000]

Elect me, and I will appoint Jesus Christ to the Supreme Court, where he belongs.

 

[g5000]

If Sarah won't do it, I will appoint Putin.

 

[g5000]

There's no one other than Saul Alinsky who would be acceptable on the Court.

 

[Skylar]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

 

[Camp]

Sure is. In fact the precedent favors not approving a nominee out of respect for the people so that they might have a say in it

Nonsense, the people are being disrespected by blocking Obama's nomination. He was elected in 2012 to a four-year term.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Sure is. In fact the precedent favors not approving a nominee out of respect for the people so that they might have a say in it

Nonsense, the people are being disrespected by blocking Obama's nomination. He was elected in 2012 to a four-year term.

bs

 

[American_Jihad]

There's no one other than Saul Alinsky who would be acceptable on the Court.

Why not Mao Zedong the obongo's like him...

 

[American_Jihad]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

I thank the repubs for their obstructionism other wise we would be a socialist/commie country already...

Sanders/Clinton win will be another 8 yrs of obstructionism...

 

[American_Jihad]

Sure is. In fact the precedent favors not approving a nominee out of respect for the people so that they might have a say in it

Nonsense, the people are being disrespected by blocking Obama's nomination. He was elected in 2012 to a four-year term.

It was a pity vote for color...

 

[Skylar]

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia...

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees

February 13, 2016 By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

...

There's Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees

There's a difference between rejecting A nominee. And rejecting ANY nominee. No senate in our nation's history has ever insisted that they will reject any nominee. This is an unprecedented level of obstructionism and belligerence. And it will define the GOP.

I thank the repubs for their obstructionism other wise we would be a socialist/commie country already...

Sanders/Clinton win will be another 8 yrs of obstructionism...

The GOP has defined its legacy. The Obama presidency will be remembered for the President helping hold the country together through a difficult time. And the republicans putting party above the welfare of the nation for nearly a decade.