It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 9th Justice: Can the country get a SCOTUS nominee through the senate?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

RECESS appointments.




posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Which often are confirmed by The Senate.






posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Which often are confirmed by The Senate.





Nope. Recess appointments stand only until the Congressional session during which they were made ends.

The "recess" appointment occurs when the Senate is not in session or is ... wait for it ... "in recess."

They can be confirmed, but there's nothing anywhere that says they have to be.

Not at all the same thing ... although you guys keep wetting yourselves over it, LOL.
edit on 15-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


They can be confirmed, but there's nothing anywhere that says they have to be.


Arent you the tricky one.




Not at all the same thing ... although you guys keep wetting yourselves over it, LOL.


That was my first post on the subject. I see all of yours...so DEPENDS who is wearing them.

And since your party has Grandma and Grandpa gumming it up in charge,
that is fairly hilarious. Old people should not ride high horses.

A blast from the past.
Senator Schumer ( cough cough) Promises to do "everything in my power" to prevent another
Roberts or Alito from being confirmed to the Supreme Court


Crybabies.


edit on 15-2-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66


They can be confirmed, but there's nothing anywhere that says they have to be.


Arent you the tricky one.




Not at all the same thing ... although you guys keep wetting yourselves over it, LOL.


That was my first post on the subject. I see all of yours...so DEPENDS who is wearing them.
And since your party has Grandma and Grandpa gumming it up in charge,
that is fairly hilarious.


Ad hom on the likely Democratic nominees? LOL ... anything to turn aside from the facts of what we're actually discussing, he?

Right wingers/Republicans have been wetting themselves over that deal from 1960 ... except, it has nothing to do with what Mitch said. Perhaps he let the cat out of the bag too soon?

Anyway. Recess appointments are not the same. So the 1960 deal doesn't apply. Next?




posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Khaleesi

Chuck Schumer's opinion doesn't negate the Constitution any more than Mitch McConnell's does.

Next?


I never said it negated the Constitution. I said it's either right or wrong no matter which party is proposing it. You can't say it's wrong when a Republican proposes something like this and ignore the fact that a Democrat has proposed the exact same thing in the past. If it's wrong now, it was wrong then.


Did Schumer say "you need to wait until the next President is elected, Mr. Bush"? He did not.

Of course I can say it's wrong. I didn't happen to ... what I have said, in general, is for the Majority Leader to claim authority that he does not have and tell the President of the United States who DOES have the Constitutional authority to nominate SC replacements that he cannot do so or that he shouldn't do so and imply that rather than performing their Constitutional duty of "advise and consent" they are going to "deny, deny, deny" ... at least the SPIRIT of the Constitution is being ignored if not the letter (which I would argue is being ignored).



Watch the video I posted. He was speaking specifically about Bush nominees. Here's the video again. You are parsing words.




He says SPECIFICALLY he would push to block Bush appointees to the SC. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then. You can not finesse or spin this to say something else. He said it. Was he right or wrong? Just because he did not like the balance of the SC he proposed blocking Bush appointees. If the president has the constitutional right to appoint to the SC then what Schumer was proposing in 2007 was unconstitutional. Oh but wait, it was okay then because you did not like Bush? That's not the way it works. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: 200Plus

What about the conservative activist judges


The guy who did citizens united was an activist judge from the conservative side



What about the decision of Citizen United was "activist"? Just curious....



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

True recess appointments are not the same. This vacancy however, did not occur during a recess or even the modern day "recess".



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

I watched it. I quoted directly from it. It's been posted over and over by right-wingers.

I quoted Schumer, and I quoted McConnell. They're not saying the same thing.

I preferred to let their words speak for themselves.

And you, here, are merely restating what you think Schumer is saying.

Oddly enough, that restatement suits your argument.

The situation is quite clear. Schumer felt betrayed and lied to by Alito. And reasonably so I might add. Schumer is saying, legitimately, that the Senate should take the most careful look at any Bush appointees. Think about what that entails, logically ... it means that the Senate would actually be holding a hearing to review a nominee.

You can call that "parsing" all day long. You can pretend that you are reading my mind, and you know what I "really mean" all you want to ... but you are trying desperately to equate two things that are not the same.

McConnell is saying that the Senate should not consider anyone President Obama appoints to the Court.

Schumer is saying that the Senate should take extraordinary care with anyone President Bush appoints to the Court.

See the difference?
edit on 16-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ownbestenemy1
a reply to: Gryphon66

True recess appointments are not the same. This vacancy however, did not occur during a recess or even the modern day "recess".


What?

A recess APPOINTMENT doesn't depend on when the vacancy occurred, but when it is FILLED.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Does he say that the President should not appoint a nominee?

Does he say that the Senate will act to keep Bush from performing his Constitutional function?

The answers are "no" and "no" ... not the same thing as McConnell said.

By the way, you're the upteeth person to post that in the thread.

It's like a broken record.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join