Justice Antonin Scalia found dead

  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #152
700UW said:
Dont let the facts get in your way.
 
You are wrong, so give it up already, you just make yourself look even more foolish, your own article prove you wrong, and apparently you arent smart enough to figure that out, its not the first time you have done this and wont be the last.
 
Oh yeah thats right the SCOTUS explicitly ruled against Obama, and you all claim just the opposite.
 
Only in liberal la la land...
 
townpete said:
 
Oh yeah thats right the SCOTUS explicitly ruled against Obama, and you all claim just the opposite.
 
Only in liberal la la land...
Really, how stupid are you?
 
Learn to read what is the truth, not your lies.
 
http://www.scotusblo...ourt-an-option/

 
It is true that one of the Justices regarded as a giant on the Court’s history, William J. Brennan, Jr., actually began his lengthy career with just such a short-term appointment.  The chances of that happening again today seem to have diminished markedly.
 
The presidential authority at issue in this possible scenario exists, according to Article II, when the Senate has gone into recess and the vacancy a president seeks to fill remains.  Such an appointment requires no action at all by the Senate, but the appointee can only serve until the end of the following Senate session.  The president (if still in office) can then try again during a new Senate session, by making a new nomination, and that must be reviewed by the Senate.
 
The Supreme Court had never clarified that power until its decision in June 2014 in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.
 
The decision was something of a compromise.  The Court expanded the concept of when the Senate would be in recess so that the president could make a temporary appointment, but it also gave the Senate more control over when it does recess and how long the recesses last.  The gesture toward the Senate’s choices was probably the more important result.
Here, specifically, is what the Court decided:
 
First, on the president’s side, the Court ruled that the recess appointment power applies when the Senate leaves town for a break in the middle of an annual sitting, or a break at the end of each annual session.
 
Second, also on the president’s side, the decision declared that the president during a recess can fill a vacancy even if the opening occurred well before the recess began.
 
Third, on the Senate’s side, the ruling made clear that it has to last more than three days, without saying how much more time must pass without the Senate out of town and doing nothing.
 
Fourth, strongly on the Senate’s side, the decision left it largely up to the Senate to decide when it does take a recess, allowing it to avoid the formality of a recess by taking some legislative action, however minor or inconsequential and however few senators actually take part in some action.
 
Suppose President Obama goes ahead with a nomination to the open seat on the Court, and suppose that the Republican-controlled Senate chooses not to allow that nominee.  The GOP has enough seats in the Senate to control that scenario.
Suppose, then, that the Senate goes into recess to allow its members who are running for reelection to spend some more time campaigning back home.
 
Could President Obama make a nominee during that recess?  Only if the Senate is taking a recess lasting longer than three days, and does not come in from time to time during that recess to take some minimal legislative action.  Both of those circumstances would be entirely within the Senate’s authority.
 
In that circumstance, a recess appointment to the Court would not be within the terms of the Constitution, as spelled out in Article II.
 
The same situation would likely apply when this year’s Senate session comes to an end, and the senators take a recess before the next Congress assembles.
 
The bottom line is that, if President Obama is to successfully name a new Supreme Court Justice, he will have to run the gauntlet of the Republican-controlled Senate, and prevail there.  The only real chance of that: if he picks a nominee so universally admired that it would be too embarrassing for the Senate not to respond.
 
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #155
700UW said:
Really, how stupid are you?
 
Learn to read what is the truth, not your lies.
 
http://www.scotusblo...ourt-an-option/
 
What was also said:
 
"In our view, however, the pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. The Senate met that standard here.."
 
Game over...
 
That was not the same as that.
 
Hey Dell, want to explain to your GF petey, that Obama can appoint a recess appointment as long as he follows the conditions and restrictions?
 
Can you actually comprehend anything petey?
 
The Court stated he can make a recess appointment as long as the Senate is out for 10 days.
 
When you get your J.D. in Constitutional law, I will believe the experts, not you who is a pathological misinformation poster.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #157
700UW said:
That was not the same as that.
 
Hey Dell, want to explain to your GF petey, that Obama can appoint a recess appointment as long as he follows the conditions and restrictions?
 
Can you actually comprehend anything petey?
 
The Court stated he can make a recess appointment as long as the Senate is out for 10 days.
 
When you get your J.D. in Constitutional law, I will believe the experts, not you who is a pathological misinformation poster.
 
What was said. explicitly in the ruling:
 
"In our view, however, the pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. The Senate met that standard here.."
 
Game over...
 
Did Leonard Nimoy Have Antonin Scalia Killed to Give Obama Enough Supreme Court Votes to Cancel the 2016 Election?
 
The news wires are heating up with the very polished press release about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s tragically untimely death. The man, considered one of the greatest heroes of Constitutional law in both the 20th and 21st centuries, could not have left America at a more crucial moment. Yet there are already rumors that this passing is a bit too convenient for the Obama White House just as Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stumbling.
One major issue for Clinton is that her email scandal threatens to completely derail her candidacy. According to numerous insiders, the Republicans are holding back the most damning information until she is actually chosen as the Democratic nominee. At that point, they will release reams of documents implicating her in a host of federal crimes. In such a scenario, the FBI would be forced to indict the former Secretary of State. These complications would assuredly give the Republican presidential candidate the inside track on taking back the Oval Office.
 
http://harddawn.com/nimoy-and-obama-killed-scalia/
 
Kev3188 said:
Of course!
This thing had Spock's fingerprints all over it from the get go...
I think it was one of Cruz’s hitmen. He needed to get the spotlight on the Senate and let him sing green egs and ham on the floor.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top