Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court ap

[Linda]

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40EjfaHi4
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

     Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”  Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Well now, do you think they will stand by their own resolution?  I bet they fight it tooth and nail.

[Bad Dog]

Completely different situation.  Back then Bushitler was the lame duck while now, RACIST!!!!!!!

[tuolumnejim]

I just saw that and was going to bring it here. 

[tuolumnejim]

And another one to smack leftards with. 

07/27/07 Link

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

[mrclose]

Simple solution: Congress should pass an eight justices amendment.
No need for a ninth.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide how many seats there are on the Supreme Court. In 1789, there were only six.

Congress could reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from the current nine to eight.

There has been as many as ten.

[thundley4]

Simple solution: Congress should pass an eight justices amendment.
No need for a ninth.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide how many seats there are on the Supreme Court. In 1789, there were only six.

Congress could reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from the current nine to eight.

There has been as many as ten.

Who would break ties?  Currently, if there is a tie when there is a vacancy, the lower court's decision stands. That would leave the loony 9th Circuit  controlling too much.

[mrclose]

I see this lame argument almost everywhere.
(Can't have an even numbered court)

The court started out at six!
We even had ten at one time.
Too, where is this argument when a justice recuses themselves?

The idea of having an even number of justices on the Supreme Court is not a new one. In fact, the Judiciary Act of 1789, which first set up the federal judicial system, established a six-person Supreme Court. And in its early years, the Republic clung to the even-number status quo.

Would those 4-4 ties cripple the judicial system?

They might have the opposite effect.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/2/5/and-then-there-were-eight-the/

[Ptarmigan]

Inconvenient Truth