Antonin Scalia's death

[wdmso]

Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration when a Vacancy opened .. Technically this hasn't happen yet but the Republicans have hinted as much


Historical precedence :Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One



2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The president followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration when a Vacancy opened .. Technically this hasn't happen yet but the Republicans have hinted as much

The only times in history when a President has APPOINTED (temporarily) a Supreme Court Justice were those times when the Senate was in recess. And for those Judges to be able to retain their appointments, the Senate had to approve them when it came back in session.

You keep repeating the same mistake because you don't seem to grasp the simple notion that the President NOMINATES a potential Judge who must then be APPOINTED by the advice and consent of the Senate. Appointment is a process in which the Senate has at least as much, if not more, say as the President. The President cannot unilaterally APPOINT, except temporarily in extreme circumstance, a Supreme Court Justice. The Founders would NEVER have given one person the power to summarily and permanently APPOINT someone to such a high and fundamental position as a Supreme Court Judge. That would be outside their fundamental concept of separation of powers with its checks and balances. It would create a tyrannical power of one branch of the Federal Government over the others. It would strip The People of any say over those who would judge them. It would be a despotism which totally destroyed the Constitution they wrote.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The only times in history when a President has APPOINTED (temporarily) a Supreme Court Justice were those times when the Senate was in recess. And for those Judges to be able to retain their appointments, the Senate had to approve them when it came back in session.

You keep repeating the same mistake because you don't seem to grasp the simple notion that the President NOMINATES a potential Judge who must then be APPOINTED by the advice and consent of the Senate. Appointment is a process in which the Senate has at least as much, if not more, say as the President. The President cannot unilaterally APPOINT, except temporarily in extreme circumstance, a Supreme Court Justice. The Founders would NEVER have given one person the power to summarily and permanently APPOINT someone to such a high and fundamental position as a Supreme Court Judge. That would be outside their fundamental concept of separation of powers with its checks and balances. It would create a tyrannical power of one branch of the Federal Government over the others. It would strip The People of any say over those who would judge them. It would be a despotism which totally destroyed the Constitution they wrote.

I incorrectly used appointment rather than Nomination as you said... but it dosn't change my question > but thanks for the Civics lesson.. I in no way shape or form have I suggested what you have written I never mentioned recess appointments.. I incorrectly used a term.. you caught that but couldn't figure the context of my question?

. I have only expressed where in History? Has a Sitting president be told don't even forward a nomination ( not appointment ) for advice and consent...

you dont think this is the kinda of behavior that creates that tyrannical power of one branch which you wrote ^^^^

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election

yet historically: from the NY times The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obama’s term.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election

.

And Schumer said the same thing when there was 18 months left in Bush's second term. The same exact thing. What was your reaction to that, may I ask? As an unaffiliated independent, I presume you were equally critical of Schumer?

The left's disdain for this tactic, sure seems to be awfully selective, does it not?

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration when a Vacancy opened .. Technically this hasn't happen yet but the Republicans have hinted as much


Historical precedence :Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One



2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The president followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet

He has 2 justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...y_Barack_Obama
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration when a Vacancy opened .. Technically this hasn't happen yet but the Republicans have hinted as much


Historical precedence :Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One



2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The president followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet

"Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration "

Never, I believe, including now. Has a Republican senator said he would "take away" Obama's ability to nominate someone? Not sure the Constitution allows that. Obama is free to nominate anyone he wants, the Senate is then free to reject them, just like the Dems did when they controlled the Senate under Bush, correct, or no? What McConnell sais, is the same thing Schumer said when there was 18 months left in Bush's presidency. Were you equally appalled by that?

This is politics at its ugliest, and most hypocritical. Both sides are critical of each other, knowing full well that if the situation were reversed, they'd be doing the same thing.

Let me say this...you were very dismissive of the 2014 midterms, and the effect they should have. Seems like you only think that "elections have consequences" when your side wins? Our republic was deliberately set up so that the legislative branch was the most powerful. In the most recent federal elections, the American people voted resoundingly to give control of the Senate to the GOP. No sane person can say they are surprised when the Senators do the job they were elected to do. I doubt any of the newly-elected GOP Senators ran on the pledge to tilt the balance of the SCCOTUS to the left.


"Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One "

Reagan didn't give the Senate all the reason they needed, to hate him. This is the most insulting, dismissive President of my lifetime, in terms of how he treats those who disagree with him. Now he expects them to play ball on something of this magnitude? You reap what you sow.