Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
The Garland Affair: What History and the Constitution Really Say About President Obama’s Powers to Appoint a Replacement for Justice Scalia
https://www.nyulawreview.org/online-...ustice-scalia/
There have been 103 prior cases in which—like the case of President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland—an elected President has faced an actual vacancy on the Supreme Court and began an appointment process prior to the election of a successor. In all 103 cases, the President was able to both nominate and appoint a replacement Justice, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
This is true even of all eight such cases where the nomination process began during an election year. By contrast, there have been only six prior cases in which the Senate pursued a course of action that—like the current Republicans —deliberately sought to transfer a sitting President’s Supreme Court appointment power to a successor.
The historical rule that best accounts for senatorial practices over the entirety of U.S. history is thus the following: While the Senate has the constitutional power to provide advice and consent with respect to particular Supreme Court nominees and reject (or resist) particular candidates on a broad range of grounds, the Senate may only use this power to deliberately transfer a sitting President’s Supreme Court appointment powers to a successor in the highly unusual circumstance where the President’s status as the most recently elected President is in doubt.
.................................................. .........................................
Sure, unusual circumstances.
42 days untill a presidential election, and a deeply corrupt president needs a compliant Supreme court in case he loses fair and square and manages to use thousands of corrupt lawyers to litigate his way to the Supremes 
|
Hey, Empty Suit, what do you mean by "unusual circumstances"? That the left didn't get the election outcome they wanted or expected or think they are entitled to?
