The Supreme Court

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ajax,

I know it's incredibly difficult for you to express a coherent and non-reactionary thought, but I need you to try.

1) What is a Senate resolution?

2) Can you explain to me how one passed in 1960 with regard to Eisenhower had any “F” ing thing to do with the Merrick Garland debacle?

- Doc

[_ajax18]

1) What is a Senate resolution?

In the United States, a simple resolution is a legislative measure passed by only either the Senate or the House. As they have been passed by only one house, simple resolutions are not presented to the President, and do not have the force of law.

Can you explain to me how one passed in 1960 with regard to Eisenhower had any ____ ing thing to do with the Merrick Garland debacle?

From your sides Washington Compost

Thanks to a Volokh Conspiracy 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 Supreme Court 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. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time.

UPDATE: Updated with a link to the final vote on the resolution, 48 Democrats voting “yea”, 33 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting “nay.” Also, note that President Eisenhower had recess-appointed William Brennan to the Supreme Court in October 1956, just before the presidential election. With a winnable election coming up, Democrats obviously didn’t want a replay.

The Democrat party has refused to confirm or even bring a supreme court nominee to a vote for confirmation in the past when they controlled the senate.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ajax,

I love you man. Lol. So the Dems passing a toothless resolution four years past Eisenhower's appt prevented Eisenhower from appointing a justice how? Again, how is that even relevant to the GOP scuttling Merrick Garland's appointment/nomination to the Supreme Court? They (the GOP) themselves said the the Supreme Court should have a full compliment of justices at all times.

You just blew up your own point.

eta: Ajax, I would really like you to make your point make sense, so I'm asking you to explain it in context in regards to this thread. If you can't, then I'd like you to admit you didn't understand what you were talking about and made an error.

- Doc

[_ajax18]

eta: Ajax, I would really like you to make your point make sense, so I'm asking you to explain it in context in regards to this thread. If you can't, then I'd like you to admit you didn't understand what you were talking about and made an error.

- Doc

I don't completely understand it. Mark Levin asserts that the Senate has refused let a nomination come up for a vote before. What do you think he's talking about?