Justice Antonin Scalia found dead

[townpete]

Your Rules, Democrats


Republicans need make no argument other than the ones Democrats such as Charles Schumer were making at the end of the Bush years. 
They need do nothing more than Senator Barack Obama did in filibustering Sam Alito. There are plenty of other examples.
The ur-example, of course, is the case of Robert Bork. The Democrats’ craven, despicable, lying campaign against Bork announced the arrival of Supreme Court confirmation hearings as bare-knuckle political brawls. There was no question that Bork was well-qualified for the position – he was one of the great legal minds of his time. Democrats simply did not like his view of the law and the Constitution.

 

[townpete]

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees
 
Historically, most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees.
 
President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!
 
Most recently, Abe Fortas resigned May 14, 1969. His replacement, Harry Blackmun, was in office starting June 9, 1970, making the gap just longer than a year.

 

[Kev3188]

 
We all know whats at stake. It will invigorate both sides, 

I think it already has.

I also think Q is on to something....

 

[delldude]

I think it already has.

I also think Q is on to something....

 
They both pretty much equally suck....so it's a Iowa coin toss.

 

[townpete]

I think it already has.

I also think Q is on to something....

 
How so, because you somehow think that the majority of americans think only one way?
 
If that's the case, then explain the return of the House and Senate to the republicans.
 
You think they are going to somehow demand they appoint a person of Obama's choosing?

 

[Kev3188]

Only TownPete would argue with someone who agrees with them...

Brilliant.

 

[townpete]

Only TownPete would argue with someone who agrees with them...

Brilliant.

 
You're being overly sensitive again.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Only TownPete would argue with someone who agrees with them...

Brilliant.

Defective programming.

 

[Kev3188]

Clearly.

 

[delldude]

Press to Test

 

[CMH_GSE]

There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees
 
Historically, most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees.
 
President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!
 
Most recently, Abe Fortas resigned May 14, 1969. His replacement, Harry Blackmun, was in office starting June 9, 1970, making the gap just longer than a year.

Good post.
To add to the history of it:
There have been a total of 160 nominations by Presidents
There have been 36 rejections by Congress
There have been 25 that did NOT receive an up or down vote.

If Republicans can keep the Congress in session , blocking a recess appointment, they can reject any nominee and be well within their rights.

 

[cltrat]

bottom line is what's the left worried about? If they are so confident they are going to win 1600 and  retake the Senate then whats to worry? you could nominate a Kennedy clone and get them passed? A little worried perhaps?

 

[CMH_GSE]

There is nothing in the Constitution saying how many justices there has to be.
If the current cases before the court end up 4-4, the decision reverts back to what it was going in.
That can certainly be tolerated until this current election cycle is over and decided.

 

[delldude]

Downsize government.

 

[delldude]

As sad as this event is, it has sealed the fate of the senate as a majority republican body with the next election.

They are in a no win situation.

I will be back here to say I was wrong, if I am.

Obama will nominate, the majority will block.

The people will punish the senators who decide to block.

 
What's the concern?  2017 is a slam dunk for the dems in the WH.
 
They win, they can finish it up.
 

February 14, 2016
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
By Thomas Lifson
 

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40LjRAJAq