Not dead a day and The Obamanation intends to nominate successor for Scalia on Supreme Court: CNN

[Camp]

]
Nothing has been shown to indicate a "tradition" or that any process has been used other than the one in the Constitution. The key component has always been the date of time the Justice passes away or resigns. There have never been any "Traditions" that were needed or were suggested except the one you are making. which of course is pretty much meaningless partisan talking point fodder.

Sure it has, no president that could serve another term has nominated a Justice in the last year of office in the last eighty years. Eighty years is a tradition. Not a soul has rebutted my reason for doing it either.

Eighty years is not a tradition if it is at the end of over a hundred year period that a different tradition was held. The only one calling it a tradition is you. See if you can find a Constitutional or even recognized historical scholar to agree with you and maybe you can have a convincing point to promote. Until then all your idea is is a delusional rw talking point idea with no merit.
I'm sorry to say I find debating you is a waste of time. I provide links and you provide personal opinions with no backup.

 

[Care4all]

]
Nothing has been shown to indicate a "tradition" or that any process has been used other than the one in the Constitution. The key component has always been the date of time the Justice passes away or resigns. There have never been any "Traditions" that were needed or were suggested except the one you are making. which of course is pretty much meaningless partisan talking point fodder.

Sure it has, no president that could serve another term has nominated a Justice in the last year of office in the last eighty years. Eighty years is a tradition. Not a soul has rebutted my reason for doing it either.

you've been misinformed.


Amy Howe Editor/Reporter

Posted Sat, February 13th, 2016 11:55 pm

Email Amy
Bio & Post Archive »
Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years
In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Lamar Rucker, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clark was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

 

[paperview]

Annnnnnnnnndd...she fucks up again.

Obama can recess appoint a SCOTUS justice.

He likely won't. But at this moment, Congress is out of session till Feb 22, and he theoretically could do it right now.

Read your fucking constitution about the power to appoint someone when congress is out of session.

That appointee serves till the next term of Congress.

You're screwing up allll over the place.

You even thought 1987 was Reagan;s first term.

SCOTUS appointments are not included in Reid's abomination of a rule.

Until now, 60 votes have been required to lift or avoid a filibuster. Under the new rules, a simple majority of 51 would suffice. The new measure would not apply to supreme court nominees. "It's an undeniable fact that the obstruction we've seen in recent years is altogether new," Reid said after the vote.


Senate approves change to filibuster rule after repeated Republican blocks

What the fuck are you talking about?

The comment was on Recess appointments, which you said didn't apply to SCOTUS justices.

Man are you ever lost.

I mean, really, really, lost.

 

[paperview]

Hey furball, you ever going to acknowledge the stupidity of you saying this?

"Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." - furliberty

 

[EriktheRed]

Annnnnnnnnndd...she fucks up again.

Obama can recess appoint a SCOTUS justice.

He likely won't. But at this moment, Congress is out of session till Feb 22, and he theoretically could do it right now.

Read your fucking constitution about the power to appoint someone when congress is out of session.

That appointee serves till the next term of Congress.

You're screwing up allll over the place.

You even thought 1987 was Reagan;s first term.

SCOTUS appointments are not included in Reid's abomination of a rule.

Until now, 60 votes have been required to lift or avoid a filibuster. Under the new rules, a simple majority of 51 would suffice. The new measure would not apply to supreme court nominees. "It's an undeniable fact that the obstruction we've seen in recent years is altogether new," Reid said after the vote.


Senate approves change to filibuster rule after repeated Republican blocks


Then there is this:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the powers of the presidency Thursday, ruling decisively that President Obama violated the Constitution by going around the Senate to name key labor relations watchdogs.

Resolving a long-standing battle between the two other branches of government, the justices declared invalid key "recess appointments" made by Obama in 2012 when the Senate was holding only pro-forma sessions every three days.


High court rules against Obama on recess appointments

Game set match.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The comment was on Recess appointments, which you said didn't apply to SCOTUS justices.

Man are you ever lost.

I mean, really, really, lost.

Actually, I think it's more that he's deliberately saying things to get us to keep arguing. You know, moving the goalposts, changing the subject, etc.
Then when we get tired of it, he can claim victory because he got the last word.

 

[saveliberty]

Hey furball, you ever going to acknowledge the stupidity of you saying this?

"Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." - furliberty

You certainly are not acknowledging why that process ended up in his last year, so no.

You also were proven totally wrong on recess appointments and the Constitutionally of Obama's recess appointments.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

President Barack Obama intends to nominate a Supreme Court justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy, CNN reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-intends-nominate-successor-scalia-supreme-court-cnn-003130180.html;_ylt=AwrC1C1Vy79WYCUAetrQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- ^

Scalia was in Texas to HUNT. Obviously mentally AND physically fit. In a very real sense, the Republic literally hangs and depends on this man. So how the hell does he die so suddenly? Not even suggesting foul play (well MAYBE!), just wondering what his doctors were doing/thinking.

He was 79, idiot. And overweight, too.

 

[OnePercenter]

Roberts was got to on the Obamacare decision no doubt...
Barry does not deserve to name anyone, he's too extreme...

Imagine how much more money you would have made if extremists like Reagan and Bushes hadn't screwed your pooch.

 

[paperview]

SCOTUS didn't strike down all recess appointments. It had to do with the sham of calling pro-forma sessions - and what actually constituted a recess. Less than three days? Nope. He can't. Up to ten days in recess? Yes.

I just saw that two days ago, the Senate had filed this adjournment resolution calling them in every three days -- to strike a gavel, say two words, and walk out, denying him that option.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/
Is a recess appointment to the Court an option? (UPDATED)
By Lyle Denniston on Feb 14, 2016 at 12:24 am

UPDATED Sunday 8:48 a.m. The Senate is currently in recess until February 22. The recess began on Friday. Whether this opens an opportunity for a recess appointment depends upon how Senate leaders interpret an adjournment resolution approved last Friday. That will determine whether it will meet for brief activity during the recess, which could close that opportunity.

Analysis

The Constitution not only assigns to the president the task of making nominations to the Supreme Court, setting off Senate review that may or may not result in approval, but it also gives the Chief Executive the opportunity to fill a vacancy on the Court temporarily, bypassing the Senate initially, if a nominee languishes in the Senate without final action.

Within a few hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, it became abundantly clear that, first, President Obama will choose a possible successor and try to get the Senate to go along, and, second, the GOP leadership of the Senate say they will try to block any such nominee from final approval.

If that does result in an impasse, President Obama may ponder the possibility of putting on the Court a new Justice of his choosing, to serve temporarily. The problem, though, is that less than two years ago, the Supreme Court severely narrowed the flexibility of such temporary appointment power, and strengthened the Senate’s capacity to frustrate such a presidential maneuver.

Continue reading »

Also: Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English

Funny though -- Fox News says he could do it:

Obama has rare parliamentary window to make recess appointment to succeed Scalia | Fox News

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

President Barack Obama intends to nominate a Supreme Court justice after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia created a vacancy, CNN reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-intends-nominate-successor-scalia-supreme-court-cnn-003130180.html;_ylt=AwrC1C1Vy79WYCUAetrQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- ^

Scalia was in Texas to HUNT. Obviously mentally AND physically fit. In a very real sense, the Republic literally hangs and depends on this man. So how the hell does he die so suddenly? Not even suggesting foul play (well MAYBE!), just wondering what his doctors were doing/thinking.

that's his job, loon.

and do try to get the president's name right,

He's on the fucking GOLF COURSE you piece of shit! He's IS an obomantion!

Yeah! He could be clearing brush on his ranch in Crawford, dammit.

 

[OnePercenter]

My favorite....

 

[paperview]

Hey furball, you ever going to acknowledge the stupidity of you saying this?

"Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." - furliberty

You certainly are not acknowledging why that process ended up in his last year, so no.

"why that process ended up " has nothing to do with it.

Look furball, you were totally wrong when you said "Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." Grow some stones and admit you were wrong.

You also were proven totally wrong on recess appointments and the Constitutionally of Obama's recess appointments.

No. I wasn't proven totally wrong. Far from it.
You said the option to recess appoint SCOTUS doesn't apply. You were wrong. It has to do with whether the Senate has formally adjourned and for how long.

 

[Timmy]

I love how these Scalia-like strict constitutionalists now want to ignore the clear constitutional Supreme Court nomination process.

Hypocrites much?

 

[saveliberty]

Hey furball, you ever going to acknowledge the stupidity of you saying this?

"Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." - furliberty

You certainly are not acknowledging why that process ended up in his last year, so no.

"why that process ended up " has nothing to do with it.

Look furball, you were totally wrong when you said "Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." Grow some stones and admit you were wrong.

You also were proven totally wrong on recess appointments and the Constitutionally of Obama's recess appointments.

No. I wasn't proven totally wrong. Far from it.
You said the option to recess appoint SCOTUS doesn't apply. You were wrong. It has to do with whether the Senate has formally adjourned and for how long.

You didn't read the SCOTUS decision did you.

 

[saveliberty]

The left sure doesn't trust Hillary or Bernie much to make this decision do they?

 

[paperview]

Hey furball, you ever going to acknowledge the stupidity of you saying this?

"Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." - furliberty

You certainly are not acknowledging why that process ended up in his last year, so no.

"why that process ended up " has nothing to do with it.

Look furball, you were totally wrong when you said "Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." Grow some stones and admit you were wrong.

You also were proven totally wrong on recess appointments and the Constitutionally of Obama's recess appointments.

No. I wasn't proven totally wrong. Far from it.
You said the option to recess appoint SCOTUS doesn't apply. You were wrong. It has to do with whether the Senate has formally adjourned and for how long.

You didn't read the SCOTUS decision did you.

I *linked* to them. It's you who obviously haven't read it. I followed it closely at the time.

And you still can't admit you were wrong about when Reagan made the Kennedy appointment.

The one you though initially was John Kennedy.

 

[saveliberty]

Hey furball, you ever going to acknowledge the stupidity of you saying this?

"Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." - furliberty

You certainly are not acknowledging why that process ended up in his last year, so no.

"why that process ended up " has nothing to do with it.

Look furball, you were totally wrong when you said "Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." Grow some stones and admit you were wrong.

You also were proven totally wrong on recess appointments and the Constitutionally of Obama's recess appointments.

No. I wasn't proven totally wrong. Far from it.
You said the option to recess appoint SCOTUS doesn't apply. You were wrong. It has to do with whether the Senate has formally adjourned and for how long.

You didn't read the SCOTUS decision did you.

I *linked* to them. It's you who obviously haven't read it. I followed it closely at the time.

And you still can't admit you were wrong about when Reagan made the Kennedy appointment.

The one you though initially was John Kennedy.

Not my fault when discussing presidents appointing to the Supreme Court your dimwit thought I was talking about a Justice.

Bork was nominated prior to Reagan's last year, this drew the process out and resulted in Kennedy being nominated in the last year. Democrats caused that, not a president waiting until the last year. I see you admitted to being wrong, which was proper.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hey furball, you ever going to acknowledge the stupidity of you saying this?

"Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." - furliberty

You certainly are not acknowledging why that process ended up in his last year, so no.

"why that process ended up " has nothing to do with it.

Look furball, you were totally wrong when you said "Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." Grow some stones and admit you were wrong.

You also were proven totally wrong on recess appointments and the Constitutionally of Obama's recess appointments.

No. I wasn't proven totally wrong. Far from it.
You said the option to recess appoint SCOTUS doesn't apply. You were wrong. It has to do with whether the Senate has formally adjourned and for how long.

You didn't read the SCOTUS decision did you.

I *linked* to them. It's you who obviously haven't read it. I followed it closely at the time.

And you still can't admit you were wrong about when Reagan made the Kennedy appointment.

The one you though initially was John Kennedy.

Not my fault when discussing presidents appointing to the Supreme Court your dimwit thought I was talking about a Justice.

Bork was nominated prior to Reagan's last year, this drew the process out and resulted in Kennedy being nominated in the last year. Democrats caused that, not a president waiting until the last year. I see you admitted to being wrong, which was proper.

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT
By LINDA GREENHOUSE, Special to the New York Times
Published: November 12, 1987
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11— President Reagan, stung by the failure of two nominations to the Supreme Court in the last three weeks, today nominated Judge Anthony M. Kennedy and expressed the hope that he could be confirmed quickly in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation"
REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

 

[paperview]

Hey furball, you ever going to acknowledge the stupidity of you saying this?

"Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." - furliberty

You certainly are not acknowledging why that process ended up in his last year, so no.

"why that process ended up " has nothing to do with it.

Look furball, you were totally wrong when you said "Reagan nominated Kennedy in his first term, the appointment was confirmed in his second term." Grow some stones and admit you were wrong.

You also were proven totally wrong on recess appointments and the Constitutionally of Obama's recess appointments.

No. I wasn't proven totally wrong. Far from it.
You said the option to recess appoint SCOTUS doesn't apply. You were wrong. It has to do with whether the Senate has formally adjourned and for how long.

You didn't read the SCOTUS decision did you.

I *linked* to them. It's you who obviously haven't read it. I followed it closely at the time.

And you still can't admit you were wrong about when Reagan made the Kennedy appointment.

The one you though initially was John Kennedy.

Not my fault when discussing presidents appointing to the Supreme Court your dimwit thought I was talking about a Justice.

Bork was nominated prior to Reagan's last year, this drew the process out and resulted in Kennedy being nominated in the last year. Democrats caused that, not a president waiting until the last year. I see you admitted to being wrong, which was proper.

I'm only too happy to have everyone see what a dishonest, cowardly piece of shit you are.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm only too happy to have everyone see what a dishonest, cowardly piece of shit you are.

Most do not see it that way. You on the other hand, have done precisely that to yourself.