Obama should do Recess Appointment

Senate Leader Mitch McConnel says he will NOT allow a vote on a new Supreme Court Justice to fill Scalia's spot, till Obama leaves office.

Not only is this highly partisan, but its damn petty.

The Supreme Court has to work. If they do rule on cases and its a 4 to 4 tie, the Appeals Court ruling stands as non-binding non-precedent.

However, I think Obama should play McConnel's game, and make a Recess Appointment until the next Congress is brought in. This is perfectly legal, and makes sense.

 

I would do one better--I would nominate a liberal replacement in very short order and use that obstruction to beat the GOP with before the end of term 4-4 decisions start getting dropped.

 

there are MANY good Appeals Court Judges that Obama could appoint.

unless McConnel agrees to let the process move forward normally.

there is no rule or precedent that a justice cannot be voted on till the next president is elected.

 

Recess appointment is not necessary. He can nominate someone tomorrow if he wishes and put the onus on the Senate to approve.

 

and senate can decide to wait till January 22, 2017, to start procedings.

be more fun to see Obama call McConnel's bluff, and make a recess appointment in a month or so.

 

The Senate refusing to consider a nominee during an election year won't favor the Republicans come fall. That is more important than who occupies the seat. This death changed the political landscape for this election.

 

and Democrats can delay that date even further if they wish

 

why would they delay the vote on a Democrat selected justice?

 

Really not too worried regardless. Hillary is going to win, so we will get a good justice regardless.

 

they wouldn't - but assuming right wingers played that game the patriots can play it as well

 

not if the senate doesn't go into recess no law states they are required to do so and if you remember Obama tried that trick once him claiming the senate was in recess when they wasn't so to make appointments.you remember what happened don't you?

 

The Senate won't go into recess. Obama already lost that battle with the Supreme Court on recess appointments, and lost bad (9-0).

It might be possible for him to do it in January when Congress changes hands, but then his appointment has to be voted on, and still requires a 60% majority to confirm.

 

Sill have to get them through the senate. Right now the GOP might hold 50 but a case for obstruction could swing that, and then Hillary could appoint some real left wingers the likes of which we have not seen out of this court. Ginsburg won't last another 4 years so that will be at least two seats. Kennedy might make the trifecta. We would end up with like 4 stark-raving lesbians on the bench.

 

Senate will go into Recess for Easter Break.

 

All of you are wrong. In conservative and Republican circles, this is one of the most feared situations - one of the true Justices dies allowing obama the opportunity to appoint another socialist patsy. If another socialist patsy is appointed, thats the end of gun rights, individual liberty, private property, voter integrity, religious freedom, and most of the Bill of Rights. There will be tremendous pressure on the Republican controlled Senate to reject every nominee obama proposes unless its a Scalia clone. If the scotus stays at 8 justices until after the election, so be it.

And this will drive masses of conservatives to the polls in November.

 

Just in case anybody forgot - Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan in his final year.

Nobody said anything about it should be the right of the next president to do so.

Therefore, McConnell has no business trying to persuade the president or the public in any way.

 

he's such an ass.

there is ZERO precedent saying no justice appointments during final year of presidency.

thats why Obama should tell McConnel that of he doesn't withdraw his threat, he'll make a recess appointment

 

Article II section 2 of the Constitution states: The president shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of the next session.

The key words is "vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate." This vacancy happened while the senate was in session. Besides the SCOTUS has already ruled the president can't perform a recess appoint while the senate is in session and the senate is in session as long as the senate says it is in session.

So if the words in the constitution means what they say, there can be no recess appointment for the SCOTUS vacancy. But nowadays, what the words in constitution says doesn't mean that is what they mean. The words only mean what the SCOTUS says they mean, not what is written in plain English.

 

Donald "I really support gun control except when I am campaigning" Trump will appreciate your support.

 

the last line for me. If you get an uber liberal there temporrily and show the people how cases will be ruled then they will go out in droves.

 

Supreme Court has already decided that the vacancy need not have begun during the actual recess, for a recess appointment to take place.

On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that President Obama overreached his executive authority in appointing members to the NLRB while the Senate was still formally in session.[10] Justice Stephen Breyer, in the majority opinion, wrote that the Constitution allows for the Congress itself to determine its sessions and recesses, that "the Senate is in session when it says it is", and that the President does not have the right to unilaterally dictate Congressional sessions and make recess appointments thus.[11]

However, the decision allows the use of recess appointments during breaks within a session for vacancies that existed prior to the break.

 

If anyone lost faith in the SCOTUS prior to this, Scalia's untimely death has to be a great scare for all of us. A seat for the most radical party in American Politics(Liberals) to possibly fill. Remember that one of their favorites(Ginsberg) wrote the dissent for KEEPING affirmative Action.

Liberalism will hold us back if it rules supreme on the court.

 

New Jersey judge William J. Brennan was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 through a recess appointment. This was done in part with an eye on the presidential campaign that year; Eisenhower was running for reelection, and his advisors thought it would be politically advantageous to place a northeastern Catholic on the court. Brennan was promptly confirmed when the Senate came back into session. President Eisenhower, in a recess appointment, designated Charles W. Yost as United States Ambassador to Syria.[12] Eisenhower made two other recess appointments, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice Potter Stewart.

George H. W. Bush appointed Lawrence Eagleburger Secretary of State during a recess in 1992; Eagleburger, as Deputy Secretary of State, had in effect filled that role after James Baker resigned.

According to the Congressional Research Service, President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and, as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment#Examples_and_use

 

If that is the case then what the constitution says is meaningless. So as written, "may happen during the recess of the senate," actually means "may happen anytime whether or not the senate is in session or on recess." This is what I meant by the constitution no longer means what is written in plain English but what ever the SCOTUS says it means.

What is written is meaningless.

 

Ike said it was the biggest mistake of his presidency