Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Long story short.. It's up to the president to nominate and congress to confirm a judge.
There is nothing in the constitution or precedence, that a sitting president should not nominate someone to the SC during his last year in office.
Now.. I think there should be a precedence set that a LAME DUCK president not make a nomination. This would be, for those who like to spout without knowledge.. A sitting president who was not re-elected for the timeframe between election day and inauguration day.
FYI.. Whoever mentioned Reagan's nomination of Kennedy... He was nominated on November 11, 1987. Prior to Reagan's last year in office. He just wasn't confirmed until February of 1988. So, that argument is invalid.
The 1960 thing was for recess appointments, as others have covered.. But.. It seems some people don't understand what that means, so.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment Congress is not in recess.. So, that argument is invalid.
What Schumer said.. Well, hell.. Find me a politician who hasn't stuck his foot in his mouth. What he proposed didn't come about.. So, regardless, there is no precedence set. not should there be, in this case. Now, if he opens his mouth and says something in polar opposite to what he said before.. Then it shows that he's a complete idiot. Which is probably why he's keeping his mouth shut. THAT is something rare from a politician.
Now.. It gets drug out to November.. I would agree, Obama should not make a nomination between election day and inauguration day. Regardless of who wins the election. That's not just Obama.. As I said, any lame duck president should defer on all but the most critical or constitutionally required actions.. ie - The VP dies on December 1st.. The president must nominate someone to fill his place until January 20th.
If precedence gets set that in his last YEAR in office, a president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone.. Then someone will say "Oh, a year and a month.." then "oh, two years".. Nothing will ever happen.
I doubt I want to see Obama's nominee, but.. It's BS to say he can't/shouldn't make the nomination because it's his last year in office.
You better re-read what your link actually says...
You mean this part?
“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.”
Yeah, big different than actually passing a resolution to actually block.
In case no one (Dems) were paying attention-Obama himself supported blocking Alito's appointment under W. Pot, kettle. Lying hypocrite.
And.. let's go through the problems with this one..
Yes, Obama joined Kerry's attempted filibuster, which ultimately failed, over the nomination of Alito.
The difference here.. That was an attempt to block a specific nominee. Which, I am fine with, in moderation.. Senators just blocking ALL nominations for the purpose of blocking all nominations.. Not so much.
Cruz is saying no matter who the nominee is, he'll block it. No. Obama makes the nomination, he doesn't like the nominee and he filibusters.. That's fine. But just blanket not going to confirm anyone he submits.. No.
He was never in the position that could control floor votes.
Never said he was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
And there were NO vacancies in 2007 for them to block even if they wanted to.
Does not matter, he said it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
I can say that I am going to fly to Paris tonight, but if I don't have a ticket I'm not going anywhere.
I can say that mcconell said he would not vote on anything the current president will nominate for the SC.....
Oh, wait, nobody can show me that quote from mcconnell? Why is that, seems to be a bunch of BS to me....maybe you can show me jjrose, just exactly where he said this? Because if you and the left are playing words, you maybe wrong, right?
I can say that mcconell said he would not vote on anything the current president will nominate for the SC.....
Oh, wait, nobody can show me that quote from mcconnell? Why is that, seems to be a bunch of BS to me....maybe you can show me jjrose, just exactly where he said this? Because if you and the left are playing words, you maybe wrong, right?
I never claimed that he DID say it, so you are barking up the wrong tree.
In case no one (Dems) were paying attention-Obama himself supported blocking Alito's appointment w. Pot, kettle. Lying hypocrite.
So glad you pointed this out Toyman...This mere FACTOID alone shows the Democrats at least considered/vetted the nominee...WHAT is happening since minutes post announcement of death ..ANNOUNCED from Senate leader..NO WAY will any nominee get even past the nomination stage.."DON'T Bother" It's once thing to at least how thru the motions..and have the process move forward..QUITE another thing when Senate minutes after death..SAY NO WAY Jose..Nuttin, Nadda... followed by lockstep agreement by GOP'ers....
BTW~~ ALL Court nominee's when put forth got blacked by Congress..thus causing actual shortages..thus finally Reid changed the rules (Nuclear Option) that forced the senate to do their flipped job..NOT including SCOTUS appointments...SO back to 60 vote requirement for that one!!
LOL Talk about one single motion by the Majority Congress..Showing Clearly..just why GOP are dysfunctional..collect full pay from taxpayers, to fund raise thru lobbyists!! How many employees get full pay to spend 95% of the time personally raising $$$$ to run their next race...I was under the illusion..pay checks for in return of doing their JOB!!
This will not reflect well on Majority at all..Electorate are fed up with Politicians that are well paid but don't do their job..save waste money doing stuff that benefits them personally.. There's like about 25 Senators with (R) beside their name...Lets see how they get thru an electorate looking for FUNCTION!!
In case no one (Dems) were paying attention-Obama himself supported blocking Alito's appointment under W. Pot, kettle. Lying hypocrite.
Sen. Barack Obama said he would vote Monday to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, but he conceded the effort would be futile and criticized Democrats for failing to persuade Americans to take notice of the court's changing ideological face.
"The Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," Obama (D-Ill.) said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week." "These last-minute efforts--using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway--I think has been the wrong way of going about it."
Obama criticized the merits of a filibuster. The senator has worked to avoid being portrayed as walking in lock step with Democratic partisans, but at the same time he is seeking to be responsive to a core constituency.
"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Obama said. "And frankly, I'm not sure that we've successfully done that."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has argued against a filibuster. Other Democrats said the effort could allow Republicans to portray Democrats as obstructionist.
A filibuster, a procedural move to keep debate alive, could delay a final vote on Alito. If the filibuster attempt fails Monday, a vote on Alito's confirmation is scheduled for Tuesday, hours before President Bush delivers his State of the Union address. At least three Democrats and virtually all Republicans have pledged to support Alito, making his confirmation all but certain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
