TexasCHLforum.com

SewTexas wrote:

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Obama will not attend Scalia funeral....sends Biden instead: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/o ... ral-219384

Not too surprising. That duty is frequently delegated to the Vice President.

Bush went to and spoke at Renquist's funeral. It's not surprising in that Obama couldn't be bothered to go to his own aunt's funeral.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Any person nominated by Obama must first get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee before the Senate debates and votes. Chairman Grassley has given a strong indication his committee will not act on any nomination.

Chas.

On top of that, have we already forgotten that SCOTUS struck down recess appointments in 2014 when it ruled that the administration had violated the Constitution in 2012 with recess appointments?

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court ... n-english/

Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English

With only four decisions remaining when the Justices took the bench today, we knew we would have to get something good: all four decisions had the potential to be blockbusters. And we did indeed, starting with a unanimous declaration by the Supreme Court that the president violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed three commissioners to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief recess of the Senate. Let’s talk about the decision and what it means in Plain English.

As unlikely as it sounds, the Court’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning was its first pronouncement on the scope of the president’s power to make recess appointments. And the Court’s opinion was a mixed bag for both sides. Noel Canning, the soft-drink bottling company challenging the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB, and the conservative and business groups that supported it certainly regarded it as a victory in the sense that the specific recess appointments at issue were deemed invalid. But the president and his supporters could also declare victory, at least to a point: the Court upheld his power to make other recess appointments – as long as they are made during recesses that last at least ten days.

So, if the Senate keeps its recesses to less than 10 days, Obama won't be able to make a recess appointment........ and THAT raises the specter of what Democrats did in Texas and Minnesota when they left the state so that they couldn't be compelled to vote on something. Wouldn't it be surpassing strange if Senate democrats "ran away from home" for 12 days, effectively paralyzing the Judiciary Committee, giving Obama a chance to claim it as a recess, and appoint a "recess" SCOTUS justice? I doubt it could ever happen, but still......... kind of a creepy thought, isn't it?

Solaris wrote:We can stall and reject all we want, but Obama can make a recess appt when the current session ends.

The fact is, we cannot stop him. Elections have consequences.

If it is any consolation, no Republican was going to nominate a more conservative jurist either, so it was a losing situation no matter what. The man had no equal, though Thomas is trying.