Dems-passed-resolution-in-1960-to-prevent-Supreme-Court-appointment-ahead-of-election.

In the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, President Barack Obama said he plans on nominating a successor despite Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ‘s vow not to fill the seat until the election is over.

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

Should Senate Republicans Filibuster Obama's Supreme Court Appointment?

Yes or No

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution grants the commander in chief the power to appoint a temporary replacement while the upper chamber is not in session. “The President shall have Power 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,” it reads.

dailycaller.com... WXzuvDH

So, ATS do you all think Obama should appoint a new successor before the election?

a reply to: Informer1958

Didn't Senator Obama fillabuster a Supreme Court nominee in 06?

a reply to: Informer1958

BOTH parties, at convenient times for themselves, have been ALL FOR appointments in the last year of a presidency. They have also both been VERY MUCH AGAINST it. It all depends on the letter behind the person who died and the letter behind the person who's the president at the time. It's complete politics.

My view is that the Supreme Court is too important to play politics with. Scalia died, so nominate a new justice. And the senate should advise and consent, unless they have a good reason. And no, an upcoming election is NOT a good reason.

a reply to: Informer1958

This is what I found:

This vote was to kill a nonbinding resolution proposed by the Democrats who hoped to pressure President Eisenhower to not use the recess appointment power to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court. (This vote failed, and the resolution was subsequently passed.)

Although the vote occurred in an election year, there is no indication that this vote was about election year appointments specifically. Eisenhower had used the special recess appointment power to make previous appointments to the Supreme Court, and Democrats objected to further use of the recess appointment power. No President has used the recess appointment power to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court since then.

www.govtrack.us...

It seems that President Eisenhower had filled the supreme court via recess appointments, which were then later confirmed by congress. This was what the democrats were trying to avoid, not him going through the normal channels of appointing one.

Obama has already said that he won't use the recess appointment power to fill the empty chair.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Informer1958

Didn't Senator Obama fillabuster a Supreme Court nominee in 06?

Yes....Yes he did. Now he says he regrets doing that (big surprise).

I think the Republicans should get it over with. While they still have control.

Another election cycle that equation could change. For the worse.

They have 24 seats up compared to Democrats' 10, including seven in states President Obama carried twice. Democrats won't have any red-state senators facing reelection and could be buoyed by a favorable presidential-year electorate.

thehill.com...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Informer1958

Didn't Senator Obama fillabuster a Supreme Court nominee in 06?

That is correct. Obama has participated in an action that he now finds onerous that the shoe is on the other foot. In point of fact, in the 20th and 21st centuries ONLY Democrats have voted to not confirm a justice nominated by a President. You can read about them here. There also have been several times a Democrat President's nominee has been withdrawn prior to a vote when it was obvious there was going to be difficulty. The ones that were actually declined by a vote were:

* On May 7, 1930, Herbert Hoover's nomination of John J. Parker for the Supreme Court was rejected by a vote of 39–41.

* Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth. His nomination was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 45–55 on November 21, 1969.

* Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell, which the Senate rejected his nomination 45 to 51 on April 8, 1970.

* Reagan nominated Robert Bork. Bork lost confirmation by a Senate vote of 42 to 58.

There have been several "withdrawn" nomination as well.

* Reagan was going to nominate Douglas H. Ginsburg to the court, but he withdrew when it was revealed that he had smoked pot.

* Bush nominated Harriet Miers, who was considered by many to be unqualified and she withdrew herself from nomination.

* You may also remember the harassment Clarence Thomas was put through with the Anita Hill hearings.

Now some of these folks ought to have been rejected, in my opinion. I remember the Carswell nomination when a Senator from Nebraska got up to say he thought Carswell should be selected because the Supreme Court should have the mediocre represented as well as the intelligent. Plus Carswell was a segregationist and against women's rights. Ironically, many years later he was caught soliciting sex in a men's bathroom.

So the point is that in every modern incidence of the Senate rejecting a nominee and voting against him, it has been by Democrats against Republican Presidents' nominations. So for the Democrats to now cry "foul" over the Republicans even mentioning they might not concur with an appointment is the height of hypocrisy given what they have done in the past.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Informer1958

BOTH parties, at convenient times for themselves, have been ALL FOR appointments in the last year of a presidency. They have also both been VERY MUCH AGAINST it. It all depends on the letter behind the person who died and the letter behind the person who's the president at the time. It's complete politics.

My view is that the Supreme Court is too important to play politics with. Scalia died, so nominate a new justice. And the senate should advise and consent, unless they have a good reason. And no, an upcoming election is NOT a good reason.

Why should they consent?

They have the majority, so Obama better offer them what they want, or not consent.

It was set up that way for a reason.

originally posted by: neo96
I think the Republicans should get it over with. While they still have control.

Another election cycle that equation could change. For the worse.

They have 24 seats up compared to Democrats' 10, including seven in states President Obama carried twice. Democrats won't have any red-state senators facing reelection and could be buoyed by a favorable presidential-year electorate.

thehill.com...

This is what I have been saying. Right now they have the power to force a deal on a moderate. If they force this wait for what would be the longest time in US history without replacement they are going end up with as liberal of a Justice as the new President wants because the GOP is not taking the White House with Trump or Cruz and they are very likely losing the Senate as well. They should take the hand they have and do the best they can. They can also sell this as proof they are not the Congress of no that does nothing but, bloc stuff and that they do compromise. That will sell to the center who of course will decide the election. That would be the smart move politically and what is best for the nation. So I am sure it will not happen.

a reply to: Informer1958

The Republicans should want Obama to nominate someone they would be willing to confirm - essentially a moderate (whether center-left or center-right.) If Obama nominates a hard-line left-winger, they won't confirm him/her, simple as that.

However, if they refuse to even consider confirming a nomination, they will be left with the gamble/possibility of either Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders serving up a full-liberal Justice to a potentially Democrat-controlled congress in the new term. I think it is likely that Obama nominates a moderate who is then confirmed (and the current rhetoric is merely bad-form negotiating.)

Your thread title and content don't match. An election year appointment is not the same as a recess appointment.

Could you clarify on why you think the resolution from 1960 matters now? I haven't seen any indication that Obama is going to make a SCOTUS recess appointment.

What the GOP should do is wait and see who Obama nominates. Obama has said this his nominee would be eminently qualified. Well, give him a chance to show that and no, it's not the AG. If the person REALLY IS qualified, then confirm the nomination. If the person is marginal, hold it until after the election. If the Dems win, confirm Obama's nominee to prevent a worse nominee by the new Dem Prez. If the GOP wins, hold off some more until the GOP Prez is in office.

originally posted by: Informer1958

So, ATS do you all think Obama should appoint a new successor before the election?

Yup! It's his Constitutional duty to do so.

It would appear that your source article and the actions taken in the past were in response to "recess appointments" and that's not what we're talking about here.

There's no reason for Obama to make a recess appointment to the court because the Senate will be back in session soon and there's plenty of time for them to do their constitutional duty as well.

Then again, doing their constitutional duty may be too much to expect from a Republican Senate hell bent on obstructionism.

originally posted by: Flatfish

Then again, doing their constitutional duty may be too much to expect from a Republican Senate hell bent on obstructionism.

History would suggest the Dems are well-versed in this tactic, as they are the only party to have done so in over 100 years. But go ahead and blame the Republican Senate--despite the evidence. That's how Dems roll.

It's not fair when it happens to them, but it's okay when it happens to the rest of us!

Don't you know how the system works yet?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The Supreme Court is everything about politics and precious little about justice.

Your article states the dems passed the resolution to prevent Eisenhower filling the position last minute. There is nothing last minute about the current situation. Obama has almost a year left of his term, and the longest nomination process in history took 150 days or so.

a reply to: WhateverYouSay

not only that but they were trying to stop him from doing a recess appointment, something that obama has already said he would do. so, this doesn't justify them not at least considering who ever his sends their way. if they have valid reasons to reject the person, then fine reject them, but by what some of the republicans were saying they want to just ignore anyone that was presented, not even consider them. there is no justification for that outside they want to use the empty seat as political leverage, to encourage the american voters to get out the vote for the republican candidate in the presidential race. and that is not a valid reason!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

My view is that the Supreme Court is too important to play politics with.

The other side of that coin is it's too important not to.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Informer1958
And no, an upcoming election is NOT a good reason.

Based on what measure? Yours? The media's? The Democrat's?