RIP Scalia

Quote: Nareed

Quote: Dalex64

I thought the recess appointment would start in 2017, at the time of the next senate recess, and last until 2019.

I think it means an appointment made during a Senate recess. Not that it goes into effect when the Senate is on recess.

The strategy I heard put forth is:

Sometime in late December 2016/ early January 2017, the current session of the senate ends and goes into recess, until late January when the new senators and new president are sworn into office.

It is during that recess, after the end of the current senate session, that Obama would make his appointment, and the duration of the appointment could be until the end of the next senate session, which lasts for two years.

I haven't seen anyone else in the news with that idea, and I don't know if the person who thought of it is right.

The idea in the news that I have seen is that Obama could appoint someone during the recess that apparently is happening right now, and that appointment would last until the end of the current session in jan 2017.

Quote: Dalex64

Quote: Nareed

Quote: Dalex64

I thought the recess appointment would start in 2017, at the time of the next senate recess, and last until 2019.

I think it means an appointment made during a Senate recess. Not that it goes into effect when the Senate is on recess.

The strategy I heard put forth is:

Sometime in late December 2016/ early January 2017, the current session of the senate ends and goes into recess, until late January when the new senators and new president are sworn into office.

It is during that recess, after the end of the current senate session, that Obama would make his appointment, and the duration of the appointment could be until the end of the next senate session, which lasts for two years.

I haven't seen anyone else in the news with that idea, and I don't know if the person who thought of it is right.

I have heard this strategy elsewhere, and I believe it's technically correct. That justice would be in position for nearly 2 years without going through a confirmation.

According to the Congressional Research Service,
President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments (average 30 per year),
President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments (average 19 per year),
President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments (average of 17 per year),
President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments (average of 21 per year),
President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments (average of 4.5 per year) as of January 5, 2012.

Quote: Dalex64

Quote: Nareed

Quote: Dalex64

I thought the recess appointment would start in 2017, at the time of the next senate recess, and last until 2019.

I think it means an appointment made during a Senate recess. Not that it goes into effect when the Senate is on recess.

The strategy I heard put forth is:

Sometime in late December 2016/ early January 2017, the current session of the senate ends and goes into recess, until late January when the new senators and new president are sworn into office.

It is during that recess, after the end of the current senate session, that Obama would make his appointment, and the duration of the appointment could be until the end of the next senate session, which lasts for two years.

I haven't seen anyone else in the news with that idea, and I don't know if the person who thought of it is right.

The idea in the news that I have seen is that Obama could appoint someone during the recess that apparently is happening right now, and that appointment would last until the end of the current session in jan 2017.

I suppose this could be done. I kind of figure that that a POTUS Trump could request, publicly, the resignation of the justice so he could appoint his own person. The Supremes might not stand for this as they do take some things seriously, such as when they all boycotted the SOTU while Bill Clinton was being impeached.

If he pulls such a stunt it is one more sign we have lost the Constitution in all but name and are just another banana republic just with colder weather.

They have 10-11 months to work something out. A threat of this sort of recess appointment is leverage for Obama to get hearings for his appointees.

I disagree with the opinion that the current president, with 11 months left in his term, should not appoint a justice. After november, when another president has been elected but has not yet taken office, then I think it would be appropriate for the current president to not make an appointment.

It seems clear to me that the motivation for this don't-appoint opinion is the desire to have a chance to have a more favorable appointer in office.

I think the senate would be disregarding their own constitutional duty by refusing to hold hearings. Same thing if they hold hearings but decide ahead of time that they won't confirm anyone no matter who it is.

The mess that the appointees usually have to go through when opposite parties are in charge of the presidency and the senate is another issue.

In 1945, eight of the nine sitting Justices had been appointed by President Roosevelt, the sole exception being Owen Roberts. Under Truman's appointment for Robert's successor for Robert's (appointed September 22, 1945) the entire court was appointed by two Democratic presidents.

Republican Presidents got to appoint 10 justices in a row from Thurgood Marshall (1967) to Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993) and for two years had all 9 positions. Inevitably the pendulum had to swing, and after having the majority of the Court for most of the post WWII era, Republicans are facing the fact that 5 of 9 justices will have been nominated by Democratic Presidents.

Obviously David Souter felt strongly enough that he did not retire under President Bush Jr, despite being appointed by President Bush Sr. He has a profound drift towards liberal rulings during his 18 years in office.

You would think there would be a little grace in acceptance that the swing would be inevitable.

Quote: Dalex64

It seems clear to me that the motivation for this don't-appoint opinion is the desire to have a chance to have a more favorable appointer in office.

It is. Also as you note the timing is terrible for such maneuvers. Were we in October, I'd say Obama should leave the appointment to the next president. But it's February. Also:

Quote:

I think the senate would be disregarding their own constitutional duty by refusing to hold hearings. Same thing if they hold hearings but decide ahead of time that they won't confirm anyone no matter who it is.

True on both counts. Particularly as the GOP would come off as obstructionist and opportunistic, like a parasite. But as I said before, do not underestimate the compulsion of the GOP to shoot itself in the foot (or the Democrats', too, though they seem to have learned something lately).

Quote: Dalex64

I disagree with the opinion that the current president, with 11 months left in his term, should not appoint a justice. After november, when another president has been elected but has not yet taken office, then I think it would be appropriate for the current president to not make an appointment.

At least Donald Trump was honest when asked if he was in Obama's position would he make an appointment. He said , of course he would.

If I was a lame duck president, and the President elect was from an opposite party, and the Senate had a majority with my party, I would try to get a candidate through in those two months.

To heck with "appropriate"! None of this stuff is appropriate or inappropriate. It is all about power.

So a certain Señor Cruz of Canada is too busy to attend Scalia's funeral?

Quote: Nareed

So a certain Señor Cruz of Canada is too busy to attend Scalia's funeral?

Yeah, that was a laugh, given that he criticized Obama so strongly for not attending. But oh, no, Cruz has campaigning to do, couldn't possibly be there. Much more important than duties any random President might have that day, doncha know....