Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Criterion)   A recess appointment to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court until January of next year? It might be more likely than you think   (newcriterion.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Supreme Court of the United States, President of the United States, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Bill Clinton, President Trump, such appointment, United States Senate, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

2295 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2020 at 4:53 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



89 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-21 2:26:13 PM  
Why not. Every other appointment is "Acting", why not have an Acting Supreme Court Justice as well.
 
2020-09-21 2:28:32 PM  
*shrug* that seems reasonable.  I seriously doubt whomever is picked for such an appointment would cause an uptick in votes for Trump but it could energize even more people to get out and vote for Biden.
 
2020-09-21 3:58:47 PM  
Author is writing for and works for a koch Dundee think tank.

Just saying.
 
2020-09-21 3:59:19 PM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Author is writing for and works for a koch Dundee think tank.

Just saying.


*- funded

How in the fark do you get Dundee out of funded
 
2020-09-21 4:56:18 PM  
HE NEEDS A JUSTICE TO RULE ON THE ELECTION HE'S GOING TO MAKE SURE IS CONTESTED SO THIS IS A CRAPTASTIC IDEA GOD DAMN IT HOW ARE WE LOSING THIS POINT!?
 
2020-09-21 4:57:12 PM  
How about the farker resigns and we purge all of his bullshiat appointments with qualified individuals

Then prosecute. For the next 29 years.
 
2020-09-21 4:58:24 PM  
Flood every one of their social media feeds with this for all to see.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-21 4:59:17 PM  

holyflurkingschnitt: HE NEEDS A JUSTICE TO RULE ON THE ELECTION HE'S GOING TO MAKE SURE IS CONTESTED SO THIS IS A CRAPTASTIC IDEA GOD DAMN IT HOW ARE WE LOSING THIS POINT!?


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-21 4:59:23 PM  
Many have said that President Trump cannot appoint a successor to Justice Ginsburg during an election campaign, and that any such appointment must be put on hold until the next President is inaugurated in January.

Is this the author trying to present a "fair and balanced" take on the issue? Because it should have been written:

Republicans set a precedent in 2016 by stating that a new justice should not be seated during a presidential election year and used that as a justification for denying Obama's pick to the court. Democrats are now asking them to not be hypocrites and respect the precedent they shoved down our throats for their own political gain in 2016.
 
2020-09-21 4:59:25 PM  
Oh, it's going to happen. They're already pulling names. That Justice is going to be seated within a week of the election being called one way or the other. Winner won't matter, they will seat another Justice, and you best start planning for it.
 
2020-09-21 4:59:47 PM  
No federal budget and nowhere near a Covid relief bill.  Sure, declare a recess, Mitch.  I'm sure that would go over swimmingly.
 
2020-09-21 5:00:19 PM  
i.redd.itView Full Size
 
2020-09-21 5:02:44 PM  
The president can't make a recess appointment so long as Congress is not officially recessed. I guarantee you that Pelosi is going to keep holding pro forma sessions in the House from now until January 3, 2021.
 
2020-09-21 5:04:24 PM  

THX 1138: Flood every one of their social media feeds with this for all to see.

[Fark user image 718x500]


Don't care. Got anti-Roe SC pick.

see also:

memegenerator.netView Full Size
 
2020-09-21 5:05:06 PM  
Doesn't the Senate have to, uh, recess, in order for there to be a recess appointment?
 
2020-09-21 5:05:13 PM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Author is writing for and works for a koch Dundee think tank.

Just saying.


Paul Hogan has a think tank?
 
2020-09-21 5:06:00 PM  
No. NO. NO! FARK NO!

No "interim" No "acting"

They will just say, "Well, they're already seated so..."
 
2020-09-21 5:06:22 PM  
"It might be more likely than you think"


i.pinimg.comView Full Size

(But, in actuality, there is no, repeat no, chance)
 
2020-09-21 5:06:24 PM  
I like how everyone says "until the next president is elected" - because it sounds to me like everyone wants the fat Nixon guy out of the White House.

"Everyone is saying it"
 
2020-09-21 5:09:40 PM  
House will refuse to adjourn. Senate will insist on it, because McConnell will collude with Trump to make certain there is a dispute over adjournment, allowing Trump to adjourn Congress and thus make recess appointments.

Article II, Section 3:

"and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper"
 
2020-09-21 5:10:29 PM  

NeoCortex42: No federal budget and nowhere near a Covid relief bill.  Sure, declare a recess, Mitch.  I'm sure that would go over swimmingly.


That won't stop him. Getting his judges has been numero uno priority for the bastard. Do you think a little thing like a shutdown or helping the citizens will stop him from the power grab?

It won't. Especially if he sees the SC vacancy not being filled. That is his sole reason for existence right now.
 
2020-09-21 5:12:03 PM  

C18H27NO3: [i.redd.it image 850x532]


That's surely fake?
 
2020-09-21 5:12:22 PM  

Serious Black: The president can't make a recess appointment so long as Congress is not officially recessed. I guarantee you that Pelosi is going to keep holding pro forma sessions in the House from now until January 3, 2021.


Too bad the House has nothing to do with Senate confirmation.
 
2020-09-21 5:12:53 PM  
What's coming up before the SC between now and January?   Didn't I read something about an important ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare?

Sure would be nice to have that extra vote come Nov 3rd, too, in case it's needed in the aftermath of the sure-to-be shiatstorm. . . but don't worry, it's just a temporary appointment, it won't make a difference.
 
2020-09-21 5:13:02 PM  

shroom: Doesn't the Senate have to, uh, recess, in order for there to be a recess appointment?


Article I, Section 5, Clause 4, reads "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting." Not only does the Senate have to adjourn for recess appointments to be acceptable; the House of Representatives does as well. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that pro forma sessions mean there is no recess of sufficient length for a recess appointment in NLRB v. Noel Canning. Funny how the author completely skipped over that part of the decision when he said "Senator McConnell could assist in such a step by declaring the Senate to be in recess for a period in September or October, thus allowing the President an opening for a recess appointment. That would not be difficult to do, since the Senate is likely to be in recess anyway in October to permit members to campaign for re-election."

The only way this would work is if D2S took an unprecedented step and (ab)used his power under Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 to "adjourn [Congress] to such Time as he shall think proper". No president has ever closed Congress. The idea that this president would close Congress just to put into place a Supreme Court nominee is...well, it's actually quite predictable if you realize the Republicans are playing Constitutional Calvinball.
 
2020-09-21 5:14:14 PM  

Cestius_Ataturk: Serious Black: The president can't make a recess appointment so long as Congress is not officially recessed. I guarantee you that Pelosi is going to keep holding pro forma sessions in the House from now until January 3, 2021.

Too bad the House has nothing to do with Senate confirmation.


That's correct. If only this article were not talking about confirming someone to the vacancy but merely putting someone in the seat for the next 3+ months...oh, wait, it IS talking about exactly that!
 
2020-09-21 5:16:55 PM  
FTFA: "Many have said that President Trump cannot appoint a successor to Justice Ginsburg during an election campaign, and that any such appointment must be put on hold until the next President is inaugurated in January."

It doesn't matter a bit what "many have said." Thank god we're governed by a constitution, not "many people said" (i.e., mob rule).

There is absolutely no constitutional basis or law you can point to to support your statement: "...must be put on hold...."

/outrage duly noted
 
2020-09-21 5:19:27 PM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Author is writing for and works for a koch Dundee think tank.

Just saying.

*- funded

How in the fark do you get Dundee out of funded


I thought for a hot second that you meant an Australian Koch think tank. Thank you for the clarification.
 
2020-09-21 5:20:12 PM  

fernt: FTFA: "Many have said that President Trump cannot appoint a successor to Justice Ginsburg during an election campaign, and that any such appointment must be put on hold until the next President is inaugurated in January."

It doesn't matter a bit what "many have said." Thank god we're governed by a constitution, not "many people said" (i.e., mob rule).

There is absolutely no constitutional basis or law you can point to to support your statement: "...must be put on hold...."

/outrage duly noted


Outrage because we're playing governmental Calvinball, and the republican party is Calvin.
 
2020-09-21 5:23:34 PM  

brizzle365: gunga galunga: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Author is writing for and works for a koch Dundee think tank.

Just saying.

Paul Hogan has a think tank?

even worse, Scotland has a think tank?


They've almost certainly got sheep tanks.
 
2020-09-21 5:26:52 PM  

fernt: FTFA: "Many have said that President Trump cannot appoint a successor to Justice Ginsburg during an election campaign, and that any such appointment must be put on hold until the next President is inaugurated in January."

It doesn't matter a bit what "many have said." Thank god we're governed by a constitution, not "many people said" (i.e., mob rule).


Tell that to Mr. "many people are saying" President, you lump of silly putty.
 
2020-09-21 5:29:54 PM  
It really doesn't matter what Yertle or Trump do in the next few months. The stakes are the same now as they were 4 days ago. If Trump and the Republicans aren't flushed out in November, then America loses. Whatever they do to the court can be corrected through expanding the number of seats. I think the only curveball would be the new justice seated by Nov 3, and then by a 5-4 decision they rule that Trump can declare a national emergency to postpone the election until such time that Ted Nugent feels it's appropriate.

This feels like the last chance Democrats will ever have to make changes to correct the imbalances in Senate representation (see the 538 article on the rural advantages). There's a reason why the House isn't even in contention this year, and Republicans can see the writing on the wall, too. Relying on having more people agree with their philosophy isn't working. So don't fark it up. DC statehood immediately, PR if they are willing. Worried about GOP backlash? Why? Unless we go annex an island full of incestuous Bible-thumping assholes, they aren't going to get any more power by adding more people to the country. Flip enough state legislatures to complete the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and there goes the Electoral College handicap.

I'm not saying it will be easy. In fact, getting past the baked-in rural Senate advantages, Electoral College, USPS shenanigans, Russian interference, rabid Bernie Bros, voter suppression, "but her emails" types, etc. is going to be like beating Dragon's Lair on your first try. But it can be done.
 
2020-09-21 5:30:02 PM  

Serious Black: The only way this would work is if D2S took an unprecedented step and (ab)used his power under Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 to "adjourn [Congress] to such Time as he shall think proper". No president has ever closed Congress. The idea that this president would close Congress just to put into place a Supreme Court nominee is...well, it's actually quite predictable if you realize the Republicans are playing Constitutional Calvinball.


Well I was about to respond, but then you seemed to come back to reality at the end there.
 
2020-09-21 5:33:06 PM  

BMFPitt: Serious Black: The only way this would work is if D2S took an unprecedented step and (ab)used his power under Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 to "adjourn [Congress] to such Time as he shall think proper". No president has ever closed Congress. The idea that this president would close Congress just to put into place a Supreme Court nominee is...well, it's actually quite predictable if you realize the Republicans are playing Constitutional Calvinball.

Well I was about to respond, but then you seemed to come back to reality at the end there.


I've been hardcore on the "Democrats need to play hardball" bandwagon since roughly the time Richard Cordray was blocked from running the CFPB by the GOP for the sole reason that they thought NOBODY should run the CFPB.
 
2020-09-21 5:34:08 PM  
I'm beginning to notice a direct correlation between how crazy the world around me has gotten and how much I know about Constitutional law. I wish I could go back to a saner time, when I had no idea about how the government works.
 
2020-09-21 5:39:45 PM  
The author of that piece doesn't understand what's happening. RBG's death means Democrats will have less time to attack Trump for the next 6 weeks because they'll be too busy attacking Barrett. And Trump enjoys having any RINOS show their true colors so they can be voted out.

This is win/win for Trump any way you look at it.
 
2020-09-21 5:42:56 PM  

THX 1138: Flood every one of their social media feeds with this for all to see.

[Fark user image 718x500]


THEY.
DON'T.
CARE.
 
2020-09-21 5:43:31 PM  

THX 1138: Flood every one of their social media feeds with this for all to see.

[Fark user image 718x500]


Every Republican Senator: Yes. You think considering all we've done, and all we've tolerated, that being called a hypocrite for life is worrisome to me? Not on your life. I am a bad person and proud of it!
 
2020-09-21 5:45:22 PM  

Pincy: Republicans set a precedent in 2016 by stating that a new justice should not be seated during a presidential election year and used that as a justification for denying Obama's pick to the court. Democrats are now asking them to not be hypocrites and respect the precedent they shoved down our throats for their own political gain in 2016.


That's not true. Republicans followed a precedent from the 1800's regarding filling a SC vacancy the opened during an election year where the Senate and White House are controlled by separate parties.

n an earlier interview with Mr. Wallace, in March 2016, Mr. McConnell argued that the Senate should refrain from considering nominees both in a presidential election year and when different parties control the White House and the Senate. "

Chris Wallace:
"Maybe I have this wrong, but when you blocked Merrick Garland's nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don't do this in a presidential election year and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose, they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee.

But what you just said now was it's a question of whether or not it's the party in control of the Senate is different than the president. The question I guess I'm getting to here is, if Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?"

Mr. McConnell: "Well, I understand your question. And what I told you is what the history of the Senate has been. You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year on the Supreme Court was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/us​/​politics/fact-check-mcconnell-supreme-​court-nominations-.html

It's really amazing how many times I have to point this out. It's almost like people's media choices didn't do you any favors by only showing what they wanted shown to drive a narrative.
 
2020-09-21 5:45:40 PM  

fernt: Thank god we're governed by a constitution single senator.


ftfy
 
2020-09-21 5:46:11 PM  
Scalia's dying wish was that Ginsburg be replaced with a conservative.
 
2020-09-21 5:46:13 PM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: The author of that piece doesn't understand what's happening. RBG's death means Democrats will have less time to attack Trump for the next 6 weeks because they'll be too busy attacking Barrett. And Trump enjoys having any RINOS show their true colors so they can be voted out.

This is win/win for Trump any way you look at it.


Interesting that your first instinct is to look at how this will play out for the president as opposed to the entire country.
 
2020-09-21 5:47:46 PM  

Serious Black: The president can't make a recess appointment so long as Congress is not officially recessed. I guarantee you that Pelosi is going to keep holding pro forma sessions in the House from now until January 3, 2021.


Recess of the Senate is all that is required. You might want to read up on the subject before advertising your ignorance.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Recess Appointment Clause, provides that, 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.
 
2020-09-21 5:49:14 PM  

chrismurphy: House will refuse to adjourn.


House remains irrelevant in the subject of Recess Appointments. The Recess in question is of the Senate.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Recess Appointment Clause, provides that, 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.
 
2020-09-21 5:49:37 PM  

Avigdore: Mr. McConnell: "Well, I understand your question. And what I told you is what the history of the Senate has been. You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year on the Supreme Court was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president."


Yes, this is nothing new.
 
2020-09-21 5:50:26 PM  

SpocksEars: THX 1138: Flood every one of their social media feeds with this for all to see.

[Fark user image 718x500]

THEY.
DON'T.
CARE.


Well whichever one of their interns handles the social media accounts will be mildly annoyed or entertained, so there's that.
 
2020-09-21 5:50:41 PM  

Avigdore: Pincy: Republicans set a precedent in 2016 by stating that a new justice should not be seated during a presidential election year and used that as a justification for denying Obama's pick to the court. Democrats are now asking them to not be hypocrites and respect the precedent they shoved down our throats for their own political gain in 2016.

That's not true. Republicans followed a precedent from the 1800's regarding filling a SC vacancy the opened during an election year where the Senate and White House are controlled by separate parties.

n an earlier interview with Mr. Wallace, in March 2016, Mr. McConnell argued that the Senate should refrain from considering nominees both in a presidential election year and when different parties control the White House and the Senate. "

Chris Wallace: "Maybe I have this wrong, but when you blocked Merrick Garland's nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don't do this in a presidential election year and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose, they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee.

But what you just said now was it's a question of whether or not it's the party in control of the Senate is different than the president. The question I guess I'm getting to here is, if Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?"

Mr. McConnell: "Well, I understand your question. And what I told you is what the history of the Senate has been. You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year on the Supreme Court was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/us/​politics/fact-check-mcconnell-supreme-​court-nominations-.html

It's really amazing how many times I have to point this out. It's almost like people's media choices didn't do you any favors by only showing what they wanted shown to dr ...


You mean like when John Quincy Adams nominated Trimble on Dec 17, 1828 ?

/please stop
//you're trying too hard
 
2020-09-21 5:50:44 PM  
I've always said this is the smartest thing for Republicans. It takes the pressure off the Senate candidates in close contests who may lose votes and hence lose the chamber. It disarms the shiatstorm that would be unleashed if the Dems win and demand Supreme Court reform.

Of course, being the smart choice and the one with the least stigginit, I have no doubt they'll Ignore it and try to ram through a permanent nominee,
 
2020-09-21 5:51:55 PM  

rohar: Avigdore: Pincy: Republicans set a precedent in 2016 by stating that a new justice should not be seated during a presidential election year and used that as a justification for denying Obama's pick to the court. Democrats are now asking them to not be hypocrites and respect the precedent they shoved down our throats for their own political gain in 2016.

That's not true. Republicans followed a precedent from the 1800's regarding filling a SC vacancy the opened during an election year where the Senate and White House are controlled by separate parties.

n an earlier interview with Mr. Wallace, in March 2016, Mr. McConnell argued that the Senate should refrain from considering nominees both in a presidential election year and when different parties control the White House and the Senate. "

Chris Wallace: "Maybe I have this wrong, but when you blocked Merrick Garland's nomination from President Obama, you basically said that we don't do this in a presidential election year and that we wait until the election and then whoever the people choose, they get to pick the Supreme Court nominee.

But what you just said now was it's a question of whether or not it's the party in control of the Senate is different than the president. The question I guess I'm getting to here is, if Donald Trump were to name somebody in the final year of his first term in 2020, are you saying that you would go ahead with that nomination?"

Mr. McConnell: "Well, I understand your question. And what I told you is what the history of the Senate has been. You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential election year on the Supreme Court was confirmed by a Senate of a different party than the president."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/us/​politics/fact-check-mcconnell-supreme-​court-nominations-.html

It's really amazing how many times I have to point this out. It's almost like people's media choices didn't do you any favors by only showing what they wanted sh ...


Sorry, that should have read "nominated Crittenden"
 
2020-09-21 5:52:17 PM  

Serious Black: Not only does the Senate have to adjourn for recess appointments to be acceptable; the House of Representatives does as well.


This remains untrue.

From the document:

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.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.