Democrats Passed Resolution Not To Nominate Justice In Election Year (Congress, Kennedy)

[Crossfire600]

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

Ouch, this will bite them in the ass. It's pretty funny actually. Just another do as I say not as I do.. ����

Good God, this year is going to be hilarious to watch. The rich get Richer and their poor and working class voters get the royal shaft.

At least the antics of both parties are coming to the surface.. Voters seem to be finally fed up. We will see.

[cjski]

Originally Posted by Crossfire600

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

Ouch, this will bite them in the ass. It's pretty funny actually. Just another do as I say not as I do.. ����

Good God, this year is going to be hilarious to watch. The rich get Richer and their poor and working class voters get the royal shaft.

At least the antics of both parties are coming to the surface.. Voters seem to be finally fed up. We will see.

You better re-read what your link actually says...

[TheWiseWino]

You have to go back to 1960!

What a hoot!

Try 1988! (or did you lose that fight in the other threads?)

Anthony Kennedy was appointed by a vote of 97-0 on February 3, 1988 which so happened to the February of his last year as President. Which coincidently is just about the same time frame that we are in presently.

[LarsMac]

Besides, resolutions are non-binding. They are not law. They are simply as it says, "Expressing the sense of the Senate..."

[Threerun]

Originally Posted by cjski

You better re-read what your link actually says...

Lol!

[rorqual]

1960? Back then Republicans used to believe in unions and care about minorities

[Leo58]

The resolution was about recess appointments. What does that have to do with Obama and the Supreme court?

[Crossfire600]

Not my point folks. The point is Dems can't call themselves clean on blocking appointments regardless. Both parties pull this chit when it's convienent. Must you folks look at process so narrowly. They used this block block appointments period. Now they take some moral high ground?

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by Crossfire600

Not my point folks. The point is Dems can't call themselves clean on blocking appointments regardless. Both parties pull this chit when it's convienent. Must you folks look at process so narrowly. They used this block block appointments period. Now they take some moral high ground?

Has squat to do with moral high ground.

Obama is the president for almost another year. That's enough time to nominate 2 or 3 nominees, let alone one. Average confirmation time is 67 days. This is why he won the presidency.

If you've got a problem with that, go wake up Scalia and tell him to die next year.

Otherwise, you're just bumpin' ya gums.

[katzpaw]

We are in February. That was in late August 1960.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415

S.RES. 334. EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE PRES. SHOULD NOT MAKE RECESS APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT TO PREVENT OR END A BREAKDOWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT'S BUSINESS.