Hoisted on their own petards? An originalist would know that it was not the framers' intent for the Senate to delay providing its advice and consent on a Supreme Court nominee to allow for the public to weigh in through votes in a presidential election. Frankly, a layperson reading the Constitution should be able to come easily to the same conclusion. Scalia's famed acerbic wit would be on full display if he were around to issue a rebuke of those clamoring for a public referendum on who should get to nominate his replacement.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 18, 2016 - 6:30am
Hoisted on their own petards? An originalist would know that it was not the framers' intent for the Senate to delay providing its advice and consent on a Supreme Court nominee to allow for the public to weigh in through votes in a presidential election. Frankly, a layperson reading the Constitution should be able to come easily to the same conclusion. Scalia's famed acerbic wit would be on full display if he were around to issue a rebuke of those clamoring for a public referendum on who should get to nominate his replacement.
I know. Why is everyone worried about this? It's the GOP's best case scenario except for where they all just take their balls and go home. If they claim to want to let the next President choose, well there you go... recess appointment is the way they want it to go.
Besides, they can always have confirmation hearings when they come back into session. But Obama said he wasn't going to go that route for some reason.
I know. Why is everyone worried about this? It's the GOP's best case scenario except for where they all just take their balls and go home. If they claim to want to let the next President choose, well there you go... recess appointment is the way they want it to go.
I think you can look forward to a selection based on how many minority boxes they can tick. A black female transgender muslim refugee in a wheelchair perhaps.
Not that you can be expected to follow along from your remote location, but Obama's two appointments so far have been replacing "liberal" justices so it's a wash.
I guess that is why the Republicans are up in arms then. No chance of a non-liberal appointment from Obama.
Tipping the 5/4 balance to Democrat when Obama has already installed two people. Not the same as Reagan.
Not that you can be expected to follow along from your remote location, but Obama's two appointments so far have been replacing "liberal" justices so it's a wash.
You saved me the job. I honestly was thinking of posting this.
Speaking of ol' Ronnie...he nominated someone with just over a year left in office, in November of '87. It took a Democratic Congress only three months to confirm his nomination. Of course, Justice Kennedy was Reagan's third attempt at filling the seat, as his two previous nominations were rejected by Congress. Even using 7/1/87 as the beginning of the timeline, which was when Reagan nominated his first nominee, it still only took seven months for he and Congress to come to an agreement.
Now, all of the sudden, the Republicans are having a fit that Obama would have the audacity to try and do the same thing. If he nominated someone by 3/1/16, following the same timeline as what happened with Reagan, a new Justice would be chosen almost four months before Obama's second term ended.
