SENATE REPUBLICANS TO PREVENT SCOTUS RECESS APPOINTMENT

[cigaretteman]

This was pretty much expected:

Senate leaders ended any speculation that President Obama might try to take advantage of the many upcoming congressional recesses to bypass the Senate and directly appoint someone to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Power Post has more:

Obama has the constitutional right to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session” in what’s known as a recess appointment. It’s a controversial maneuver designed to bypass the Senate confirmation process, but Obama previously used it in 2012 to install long-delayed members of the National Labor Relations Board.

But Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Monday that he doesn’t expect the Senate to recess at all for the remainder of the year.

“I’d say it’s safe to say we’re going to do whatever it takes to make sure the president doesn’t issue any recess appointments,” Cornyn said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...equest-and-heritage-jumps-in-the-budget-fray/

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This was pretty much expected:

Senate leaders ended any speculation that President Obama might try to take advantage of the many upcoming congressional recesses to bypass the Senate and directly appoint someone to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Power Post has more:

Obama has the constitutional right to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session” in what’s known as a recess appointment. It’s a controversial maneuver designed to bypass the Senate confirmation process, but Obama previously used it in 2012 to install long-delayed members of the National Labor Relations Board.

But Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Monday that he doesn’t expect the Senate to recess at all for the remainder of the year.

“I’d say it’s safe to say we’re going to do whatever it takes to make sure the president doesn’t issue any recess appointments,” Cornyn said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...equest-and-heritage-jumps-in-the-budget-fray/

This is expected. But tricky.

In the pocket veto case it was decided that Congress isn't in recess if it has someone available to receive the returned, unsigned bill. Congress was available to do what was required (receive the paperwork).

But does the same standard apply to a presidential appointment?

I would argue that if the Congress is not operating at a level that would let it entertain that nomination, they are in recess. Merely receiving the nomination is not enough.

If McConnell only makes sure someone is present to receive the nomination, I think Obama should make the recess appointment and see what happens.

Which could result in another interesting showdown. What if SCOTUS goes to rule on whether the recess appointment should stand and it's a 4-4 decision. Who wins?

 

[86Hawkeye]

This is expected. But tricky.

In the pocket veto case it was decided that Congress isn't in recess if it has someone available to receive the returned, unsigned bill. Congress was available to do what was required (receive the paperwork).

But does the same standard apply to a presidential appointment?

I would argue that if the Congress is not operating at a level that would let it entertain that nomination, they are in recess. Merely receiving the nomination is not enough.

If McConnell only makes sure someone is present to receive the nomination, I think Obama should make the recess appointment and see what happens.

Which could result in another interesting showdown. What if SCOTUS goes to rule on whether the recess appointment should stand and it's a 4-4 decision. Who wins?

A recess appointment would make Obama look like he's trying to pack the court.

Plus, I doubt it is legal.

 

[The Tradition]

This is expected. But tricky.

In the pocket veto case it was decided that Congress isn't in recess if it has someone available to receive the returned, unsigned bill. Congress was available to do what was required (receive the paperwork).

But does the same standard apply to a presidential appointment?

I would argue that if the Congress is not operating at a level that would let it entertain that nomination, they are in recess. Merely receiving the nomination is not enough.

If McConnell only makes sure someone is present to receive the nomination, I think Obama should make the recess appointment and see what happens.

Which could result in another interesting showdown. What if SCOTUS goes to rule on whether the recess appointment should stand and it's a 4-4 decision. Who wins?

Court challenges wouldn't start at the Supreme Court. So, if there's SC tie, then the lower-court's ruling stands.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

This is expected. But tricky.

In the pocket veto case it was decided that Congress isn't in recess if it has someone available to receive the returned, unsigned bill. Congress was available to do what was required (receive the paperwork).

But does the same standard apply to a presidential appointment?

I would argue that if the Congress is not operating at a level that would let it entertain that nomination, they are in recess. Merely receiving the nomination is not enough.

If McConnell only makes sure someone is present to receive the nomination, I think Obama should make the recess appointment and see what happens.

Which could result in another interesting showdown. What if SCOTUS goes to rule on whether the recess appointment should stand and it's a 4-4 decision. Who wins?

Whoever the court of appeals said wins. The bigger question is if the recess appointed justice would recuse him/herself from the decision.

Personally I think these recess appointments need to go away or at least be severely restricted.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Whoever the court of appeals said wins. The bigger question is if the recess appointed justice would recuse him/herself from the decision.

Personally I think these recess appointments need to go away or at least be severely restricted.

I'm guessing the court will take this one up directly. Not the sort of thing the country should wait around for.

If there is a delay, does the appointee act on cases? Not on his own case, obviously, but the rest?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm guessing the court will take this one up directly. Not the sort of thing the country should wait around for.

If there is a delay, does the appointee act on cases? Not on his own case, obviously, but the rest?

I don't believe there is a process by which the SCOTUS can directly rule on an issue without it going through lower courts.

In a sense I think there should be. Not sure what that process should be but it seems pointless to have a case waste it's time in the lower courts when everyone knows the SCOTUS is gonna have to make a final ruling on this.

Obviously those sorts of cases are very few in number but when they do happen it seems like a waste of time to have the lower courts make rulings.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I don't believe there is a process by which the SCOTUS can directly rule on an issue without it going through lower courts.

In a sense I think there should be. Not sure what that process should be but it seems pointless to have a case waste it's time in the lower courts when everyone knows the SCOTUS is gonna have to make a final ruling on this.

Obviously those sorts of cases are very few in number but when they do happen it seems like a waste of time to have the lower courts make rulings.

There are cases that the Supreme Court has primary jurisdiction. Isn't one of them where one states sues another? Not a lawyer but I think so.

 

[aflachawk]

This was pretty much expected:

Senate leaders ended any speculation that President Obama might try to take advantage of the many upcoming congressional recesses to bypass the Senate and directly appoint someone to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Power Post has more:

Obama has the constitutional right to “fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session” in what’s known as a recess appointment. It’s a controversial maneuver designed to bypass the Senate confirmation process, but Obama previously used it in 2012 to install long-delayed members of the National Labor Relations Board.

But Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Monday that he doesn’t expect the Senate to recess at all for the remainder of the year.

“I’d say it’s safe to say we’re going to do whatever it takes to make sure the president doesn’t issue any recess appointments,” Cornyn said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...equest-and-heritage-jumps-in-the-budget-fray/

They are fully enforcing the "Biden rule". That is the POTUS should not name one but if he does the Senate should not have a hearing on the nomination. I wish they would be a little less strident but they are taking it directly from "Uncle Joe's" play book

 

[theiacowtipper]

They are fully enforcing the "Biden rule". That is the POTUS should not name one but if he does the Senate should not have a hearing on the nomination. I wish they would be a little less strident but they are taking it directly from "Uncle Joe's" play book

Wrong so wrong. There was a thread on this and it was proven that's not what Biden said. Typical right wing propaganda.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

Wrong so wrong. There was a thread on this and it was proven that's not what Biden said. Typical right wing propaganda.

And you believe the left? There is not a single liberal on the planet that can be trusted.

 

[The Tradition]

Wrong so wrong. There was a thread on this and it was proven that's not what Biden said. Typical right wing propaganda.

There's a freaking video of what Biden said. What he said is not debatable.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Wrong so wrong. There was a thread on this and it was proven that's not what Biden said. Typical right wing propaganda.

you were saying?

 

[theiacowtipper]

And you believe the left? There is not a single liberal on the planet that can be trusted.

Did you read the thread? He specifically said that they would hold a vote on a concensus candidate. That is not the same as saying no to any candidate, regardless of the qualifications.

 

[The Tradition]

Did you read the thread? He specifically said that they would hold a vote on a concensus candidate. That is not the same as saying no to any candidate, regardless of the qualifications.

Did you watch the video?

 

[theiacowtipper]

Did you watch the video?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635

 

[The Tradition]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/joe-biden-supreme-court-nominee-1992-219635

LOL, Biden can backtrack all he wants, now. The video says otherwise.

 

[theiacowtipper]

LOL, Biden can backtrack all he wants, now. The video says otherwise.

Typical you didn't read the article. He said at the time that a partisan nominee would be blocked. A concensus nominee wouldn't be blocked.

 

[The Tradition]

Typical you didn't read the article. He said at the time that a partisan nominee would be blocked. A concensus nominee wouldn't be blocked.

Did you watch the video?

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Biden in summary:
1.) The POTUS should not make a nomination.
2.) If the POTUS nominates, the Senate should consider not scheduling hearings on the nominee.
3.) Some may accuse us of doing this for purely political reasons, but we are not really doing this for political reasons.
4.) The nomination process should not proceed until the election is over.

Well my job here is done. Even Ciggy and Huey aren't dumb enough to not understand this.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Typical you didn't read the article. He said at the time that a partisan nominee would be blocked. A concensus nominee wouldn't be blocked.

that is not what the source actually said. deny it all you want. we can all hear it straight from the horses mouth there bud.

 

[Gimmered]

There's a freaking video of what Biden said. What he said is not debatable.

I'm a Democrat and that was exactly what Biden said. There is really no debate to that, I'm not sure where these guys are coming from.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

And you believe the left? There is not a single liberal on the planet that can be trusted.

The same could be said about cons.