Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: R.I.P. Scalia

  1. #1
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,657

    R.I.P. Scalia

    79 years old.

  2. #2
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    892

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    I am saddened for our country.

  3. #3
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Always seemed younger... shame. So here comes the nomination process...

    COULD OBAMA MAKE A RECESS APPOINTMENT TO REPLACE SCALIA?:

    February 14, 2016



    COULD OBAMA MAKE A RECESS APPOINTMENT TO REPLACE SCALIA?: The answer appears to be “yes,” because (once again), the GOP-controlled Senate voluntarily has left itself vulnerable to the exercise of such presidential power. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives the President power to fill vacancies “during the recess of the Senate”:

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
    There’s a lot of misinformation out there. For example, a report by Fox News mistakenly focuses on the Adjournment Clause of Article I, section 5, which merely states that neither House of Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. The Fox News reporter wrongly concludes:

    [S]o long as both the House and Senate haven’t jointly agreed to “adjourn” for a stretch longer than three days, then there appears to be no way the president could make a recess appointment.

    But the House and Senate are not operating under those circumstances right now. Both bodies of have adjourned until later this month for the President’s Day recess.

    The Senate last met on Thursday. When doing so, it approved a “conditional adjournment resolution” for the Senate not to meet again until Monday, Feb. 22. The House met on Friday and at the close of business adopted the same adjournment resolution to get in sync with the Senate. The House is out until Tuesday, Feb. 23.
    So, the House and Senate will not be meeting in the coming days. This is an adjournment and is not challengeable in court the way the NLRB recess appointments were because both bodies have agreed with each other to adjourn.
    Whether the House of Representatives is in adjournment is irrelevant to the Recess Appointments Clause power. The only salience of the Adjournment Clause is that, in NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014), the Supreme Court looked to the Adjournment Clause as relevant evidence in its quest to ascertain a minimum period of time for determining the meaning of a “Recess of the Senate” in the Recess Appointments Clause. Specifically, the Court concluded:

    The Adjournments Clause reflects the fact that a 3-day break is not a significant interruption of legislative business. As the Solicitor General says, it is constitutionally de minimis. A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House is not long enough to trigger the President’s recess-appointment power. . . .

    If a Senate recess is so short that it does not require the consent of the House, it is too short to trigger the Recess Appointments Clause. And a recess lasting less than 10 days is presumptively too short as well.
    Thus, a Senate recess of fewer than 3 days is not enough to trigger the President’s recess appointment power; the Senate’s recess must be at least ten days in duration.

    So how long is the Senate’s present recess? It began on Friday, February 12, with the passage of S. Con. Res. 31 which states:

    That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, February 11, 2016, through Saturday, February 20, 2016, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, February 22, 2016, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; . . .

    Sec. 2. (A) The Majority Leader of the Senate or his designee, after concurrence with the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the Senate to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
    A Senate recess from February 12 (at noon) until February 22 (at noon) is a recess of exactly 10 days. Thus, under Noel Canning, the Senate is potentially in recess, and President Obama’s recess appointments power may be exercised.
    Under S. Con. Res. 31, the only way to recall the Senate back into business before February 22 is with the “concurrence [of] the Minority Leader of the Senate,” Harry Reid (D-NV). Somehow I doubt Sen. Reid will grant such concurrence to reconvene, should President Obama decide to use this 10-day recess to make a recess appointment and replace Justice Scalia. But should President Obama try use this particular 10-day recess to replace Justice Scalia, the replacement would only be constitutionally permitted to serve until the end of the next session– i.e., until the end of the 114th Congress, which occurs on January 3, 2017.

    But there is another potential wrinkle. Specifically, the Congressional Record of February 12 shows that Senate declared that it would be in pro forma session (where a member of the Senate gavels in and gavels out every few days), declaring:

    A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that when the Senate completes its business on Friday, February 12, 2016, it adjourn, to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Monday, February 15, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., and Thursday, February 18, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.; and that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, February 18, 2016, it next convene at 3:00 p.m., on Monday, February 22, 2016, unless the Senate receives a message from the House of Representatives that it has adopted S. Con. Res. 31; and that if the Senate receives such a message, it stand adjourned until 3:00 p.m., on Monday, February 22, 2016.

    Notice, however, that the pro forma status of the Senate’s recess is made conditional: “unless the Senate receives a message from the House of Representatives that it has adopted S. Con. Res. 31; and that if the Senate receives such a message, it stand [sic] adjourned until 3:00 p.m., on Monday, February 22, 2016.”
    This matters because if the Senate is in pro forma session, the Noel Canning majority agreed that such pro forma sessions will block the president’s recess appointment power:

    We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.
    Unfortunately for the GOP Senate, however, the GOP-controlled House agreed to S. Con. Res. 31 on February 12 without objection. This means that under the plain language of S. Con. Res 31, the Senate is “in recess”–and not in pro forma session.

    If this is indeed the case, the Senate is presently in the midst of a 10-day recess (not a pro forma session), and under Noel Canning, President Obama currently possesses the power to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court until noon on February 22, when the Senate comes back in session.


    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #4
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,616

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.


  5. #5
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,785

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Oh crap it sounds like a typical leftist hit job!
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,097

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Always seemed younger... shame. So here comes the nomination process...

    COULD OBAMA MAKE A RECESS APPOINTMENT TO REPLACE SCALIA?:



    Considering how this "partisan" congress is voting, we should see Obama get his replacement(s) in after we are given some theatric noise and Mitch gets a phone call.

    One can only hope that Scalia would get a better send off than that.
    American Public Education Made Me Ignorant and MSM Keeps Me Stupid.

  7. #7
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,785

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Yep old weak knees himself. He will fold like a cheap wallet...
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

  8. #8
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,331

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Well there's that...


    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #9
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,616

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Well there's that...


    There's what? Tough to tell with your pinhead c&p sock puppet cartoons.

    Alito was considered by the dems and confirmed. The GOP says it won't consider anyone.

    For hypocrisy on the actual subject just look at Mitch quotes over time.

    Cue skippy.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.


  10. #10
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,785

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    The Senate and the people have constitutional rights too. They don't have to confirm a radical leftist like the previous two Obambi nitwit appointees.
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,657

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    The Senate and the people have constitutional rights too. They don't have to confirm a radical leftist like the previous two Obambi nitwit appointees.
    The Senate should simply say no, not gonna hear anything this year. But they'll likely fold like cheap suits.

  12. #12
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,616

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    The Senate and the people have constitutional rights too. They don't have to confirm a radical leftist like the previous two Obambi nitwit appointees.
    The people had their vote with the president and the senate.
    The senate had their confirmation votes for both scotus nominees and they passed with easy margins across party lines.

    Just because you don't agree there's no need to whine foul.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.


  13. #13
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,785

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    The Senate should simply say no, not gonna hear anything this year. But they'll likely fold like cheap suits.
    No doubt about that.

    Up there^^ sweetpea talking about dems confirming Alito. Does he mean the same Alito Obambi criticized in a State of the Union Address just knowing he couldn't respond. Obambi is a typical Democratic Party radical leftist cheap-shot chicken shi t.
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,097

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    The people had their vote with the president and the senate.
    The senate had their confirmation votes for both scotus nominees and they passed with easy margins across party lines.

    Just because you don't agree there's no need to whine foul.
    Wrong. A head of state is dead without an autopsy. Something is wrong with this picture and anyone with a brain should smell a rat. Had it been one of yours, you'd be whining foul like the hypocrite you are.

    http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/detecti...-scalia-death/
    Veteran homicide investigators in New York and Washington, DC, on Monday questioned the way local and federal authorities in Texas handled the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

    “It’s not unreasonable to ask for an autopsy in this case, particularly knowing who he is,” retired Brooklyn homicide Detective Patricia Tufo told The Post.

    “He’s not at home. There are no witnesses to his death, and there was no reported explanation for why a pillow is over his head,” Tufo said. “So I think under the circumstances it’s not unreasonable to request an autopsy. Despite the fact that he has pre-existing ailments and the fact that he’s almost 80 years old, you want to be sure that it’s not something other than natural causes.”

    Bill Ritchie, a retired deputy chief and former head of criminal investigations for the DC police, said he was dumbstruck when he learned that no autopsy would be performed.

    “I took a look at the report and I almost fell out of my chair,” Ritchie told The Post from his home in Maryland.

    “I used to be an instructor in the homicide school. Every death investigation you are handling, you consider it a homicide until the investigation proves otherwise,” Ritchie said.

    “How do you know that person wasn’t smothered? How do you know it’s not a homicide until you conduct an investigation? You have to do your job. Once you go through that process, you can conclude that this is a naturally occurring death.”

    Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara said she declared Scalia dead via telephone based on what cops and marshals at the scene told her — that there were no signs of foul play.

    “How in the world can that Texas judge, not even seeing the body, say that this is a heart attack?” Ritchie wondered. “A US marshal can’t tell you. You need a medical professional. If this was Joe Blow, you say OK, 79 years of age, health problems, maybe natural causes. But this is a sitting justice of the Supreme Court!”
    American Public Education Made Me Ignorant and MSM Keeps Me Stupid.

  15. #15
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    14,785

    Re: R.I.P. Scalia

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    The people had their vote with the president and the senate.
    The senate had their confirmation votes for both scotus nominees and they passed with easy margins across party lines.

    Just because you don't agree there's no need to whine foul.
    All you need to know about that is Mitch McConnell and the republican establishment senators getting their way. Heaven forbid the establishment should defy Obambi's wishes. Another thing to consider is two females that played a role too.
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •