(I'm writing this on Friday)

Turns out you may have been right. There's a link in FTP to a story where the White House is pointedly NOT ruling a recess appointment out. So they've backtracked. Should be an interesting weekend, because if he does it I think he's only got until Monday...

Mopshell [19] -

Don't forget, you can post as many links as you like, but you've got to post them each in separate comments, that's all. At least that's the way it is supposed to work (yes, I know my filter is being a pain because it is slightly broken right now, sorry to all about that...).

-CW

JL

Joshua said it's ALMOST exactly the same..

Good enough for me.. :D

Remember, Mopshell.. All the GOP has done is *SAY* they will block any nominee from the President..

Which is EXACTLY what Obama and 23 other Democrat senators did. They *SAID* they would block any nominee from the President..

Michale

That is EXACTLY what Republicans are doing now...

As Joshua said, it is EXACTLY the same...

Michale

While that may or may not be accurate, ya'all disputed my claim that Democrats have done the same thing that Republicans are doing now...

That's the point..

Except, as usual, you moved the goal posts -- again -- and completely failed to prove the point! The issue at question was: had a majority Democratic Senate refuse to accept any SCOTUS nominations in the final year of a president's final term. So far, you have come up with... absolutely zero, nought, none, nada examples of Democrats doing this.

As for 2006 (not a final year of a presidential term)-- in spite of anything new senator, Barack Obama, might have said (and I have not seen your claim confirmed) -- Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and Justice John Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2006. That's quite a contrast to the Republican stance of no nominations even being considered let alone confirmed in 2016.

In addition, the US Senate in 2006 was a majority Republican Senate. So no, it is not the same, Michale. What one Democratic senator said in 2006 does not equate with what the entire Republican majority have sworn to do in 2016.

This is what's known as false equivalence.

i didn't dispute that dems have tried to kibosh republican nominees. as far as i know, this is the first time anyone has tried to stop a scotus nominee before even knowing who it was, but you're right, that's a minor distinction. historically, the bigger the partisan overreach has been, the bigger the price at the polls, so it's fortunate for obama that his filibuster of alito didn't last very long.

JL

While that may or may not be accurate, ya'all disputed my claim that Democrats have done the same thing that Republicans are doing now...

That's the point..

Michale

i would say the key commonality is not between democrats and republicans, but between legislators, and the key difference is with executives. legislators who have not functioned as executives aren't seeing the bigger picture, while executives (bush, kasich, and now obama) realize that refusal to at least have the discussion is (and was) a mistake.

JL

In other words, in this issue, the Democrats said EXACTLY what they are now howling about when the Republicans said it..

To whit, they ain't going to address the President's nominee regardless of how qualified that nominee is..

I was tasked with finding, amongst Democrats, the equivalent actions/statements that have been made by Republicans in the here and now.. ..

Mission Accomplished.. :D

Michale

no, it's almost exactly the same. obama the rookie senator with no executive experience made a dumb decision to try to gum up the works instead of having a real nomination discussion. it seems to be a flaw typical of legislators who have not been executives. what's telling to me is that neither bush nor kasich (both governors) has resorted to the posturing that their less experienced colleagues have engaged in this week.

JL

Ya'all asked for an example of Democrats acting like Republicans over the issue??

There you have it..

Cue choruses of "Well, that's different!!"

:D

Michale

Does that help?

Yes it certainly does, thank you!

I hear the GOP are getting around this by not saying which day or what time they are gaveling in and out. I'm supposing from this that no Democrat wants to hang around 24/7 for three days just to catch them at the right moment.

It all seems like a very childish form of cheating to me. Anyway, I'm rather glad that the President has no intention of making a recess appointment.

Not that it matters because the Prez has said he won't make a recess appointment anyway so it's a moot point.

I hadn't heard that.. Cite??

This brief report is in The HIll:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/269461-report-obama-wont-make-recess-appointment

There are several others but this site will only allow one. ::sigh::

I stand corrected.. :D

Michale

The reason I didn't consider a recess appointment is the fact that once it came up, Obama quickly rejected the idea (see that cite, and many others). My article, though, did have the purpopse of examining far-fetched scenarios, so maybe I should have included it anyway.

There is one "recess" the Senate can't avoid. That's the break between the outgoing Congress and the incoming Congress. Even if the old Senate stays in "pro-forma" session until the 3rd of January, they have to adjourn before the new Senate opens. Whether the time period between those two is measured in minutes or hours, the president is fully able to make a recess appointment at this time. I believe (but I haven't checked) this was pointed out in the most recent SCOTUS ruling, on Obama recess appointments.

From memory (don't hold me to this if it's wrong), SCOUTS tried to define the issue in detail. Since the Senate has developed this "work-around" of pro-forma sessions, it would seem to indicate that the Senate could just NEVER officially go into recess. The justices pointed out that one such recess always exists -- the one between Senates.

Meaning Obama might have to time his signature perfectly, but he could recess-appoint a justice on Jan. 3rd, no matter what the Senate did.

I think.

-CW

Thanx...

Michale

I am shocked!! Shocked, I tell you!!!

So much for the idea that there are no red states, no blue states, but only a UNITED States...

You can bet that if it was Ginsburg that had died, Obama would be front and center..

Michale

JL

You asked about the "quorum call thing" yesterday.

The Senate uses pro forma sessions to avoid going into an official recess in order to prevent presidents from making recess appointments.

Basically, a couple of Senators from the majority party come in, bang the gavel so that the Senate is in session. They then declare no new business and bang it out of session. They do this every three days.

In order for it to work, the Senate has to be capable of conducting business, whether or not it actually does. Part of the Senate rules states that there is an assumption that a quorum is present so long as the assumption is not challenged.

If a minority-party Senator comes in and as a point of order makes a quorum call, then the majority party has 10 days to get their people back, otherwise the Senate is in recess and the Prez can make an appt.

Given the large breaks the Senate is taking this year and that 24 GOP Senators are up for reelection, doing this repeatedly could easily lead the GOP to give up on this rather than fly back from the campaign trail over and over again. In which case, the Senate would be in recess.

Does that help?

Because it allows them to save face, it reduces the legitimacy of the pick and gives a unified GOP Congress and POTUS the pick in a year or so...

Not that it matters because the Prez has said he won't make a recess appointment anyway so it's a moot point.

I hadn't heard that.. Cite??

Michale

Not that it matters because the Prez has said he won't make a recess appointment anyway so it's a moot point.

You're probably right..

But the question is, would The White -MY-WAY-OR-THE-HIGHWAY- House negotiate with Republicans...

10,000 quatloos says not on a cold day in hell....

Michale

Ya'all might want to prepare for a Bernie candidacy and, by default, a Trump POTUS-ency... :D

Michale

But... But... But.... "The people have spoken" right??

If the American people let the GOP keep the Senate then that means that "the people have spoken" and that's the way the people want it..

And the entirety of the Left Wingery would accept that, right?? Because "the people have spoken".. :D

You didn't mention the most likely of possibilities... That a GOP Senate allows for a "recess appointment"...

Michale

The nominee I'd like to see President Obama choose is Tino Cuéllar. You can read about him in this Daily Beast article by Michael Tomasky:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/the-gop-s-worst-nightmare-scotus-nominee.html

probably not, but a pledge from both democratic candidates to choose a nominee who believes in the "living constitution" would be a good start.

JL