In the passing of a much-revered Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court lost one of its most eloquent, thoughtful, and staunch supporters of our Constitution.
With his end looming, Obama may be considering what many on the Left beg for: a recess appointment of one of their Liberal-dwelling members to sway the Court left.
A review of Constitution wording, however, should bring such thoughts to an end.
An effort to distort the Constitution, making a vacancy appointment to the Supreme Court between when the old Congress ends and the new begins, is absurd…
…if you have any understanding of the English language.
Art. II, section 2, 3rd para: “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.” (emphasis added)
The ‘vacancy’ on the Supreme Court did not happen DURING a Senate recess.
Only the most mealy-mouthed of Liberal lawyers would try twisting that interpretation to mean anything other than what it clearly – and succinctly – states.
But, we’ve no doubt that, considering his past lawlessness, Obama will try just that.
And, of course, past courts willing to entertain the nonsense that ‘during’ doesn’t mean ‘during’ open the door to such idiocy, so why expect any less this time?
Tomorrow, within a five-minute time frame, the old Senate will officially close the last Congress, and then a new Senate will officially declare the next Congress open.
Odds are Obama will try to force a Left-wing justice appointment in those 5 minutes, even though he knows full well that his ‘legal justification’ doesn’t hold water.
Only Obama and his Left cohort could try to convince us that a vacancy occurring in February, 2016, could possibly mean it occurred during a recess in January, 2017.
But what the hell, true to form…once lawless, always lawless…right?