Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Interesting link in that the Democrats did not want a lame duck president to make SOCTUS replacements. Apparently what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ments.html

The tradition shows that election year appointments still go on. Most of these examples had the President and Senate controlled by the same party, but cross-party appointments have also happened during election years.

After thinking about this since the news first broke, I've come to the conclusion that the President should do his constitutional job and nominate someone to fill the job and the Senate should do their constitutional job and either confirm or deny the nomination.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supre ... ion-years/

Since the Republicans control the Senate, at least we won't get some far-left nomination, but may face a PR battle if this guy ends up being the nomination and the Senate trying to deny it after getting a unanimous appointment to his last position.

Padmanabhan Srikanth Srinivasan, 48
A judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was nominated by President Obama and confirmed to the federal bench by the Senate in May 2013 by a 97-0 vote. Before joining the bench, he was the principal deputy solicitor general of the United States, during which time he argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court. He was also a lecturer at Harvard Law School. As a lawyer, one of his most high-profile cases was the defense of Jeffrey Skilling, the former Enron executive, in his appearance before the Supreme Court in Skilling v. United States. Mr. Srinivasan was born in India and migrated with his family to the United States in the late 1960s when his parents took teaching jobs in Kansas — his father as a professor of mathematics at the University of Kansas and his mother as a teacher at the Kansas City Art Institute. Mr. Srinivasan is a graduate of Stanford University. He earned a law degree and a master’s degree in business administration in 1995 from Stanford Law School and Stanford Graduate School of Business.

As bad as this could be, I doubt it actually will be. Obama isn't stupid enough to nominate some whack-job libtard, like Holder, right before an election and with a Republican controlled Senate. Dead-eye Harry Reid will crow no matter who he nominates, but that's going to fall on a lot of deaf ears.

If Obama nominates someone, and it appears he intends to, it will be a sitting judge that he has gotten past the Senate in the past. That will give him the best position to chastise the Republican Senate who approved someone before, but may refuse to do so now.

It will also add to his legacy of having made the most appointments of any president in history. It scares the crap out of me, but I'm of a similar mind as ShotgunBlast. If he decides he wants to pick a fight during an election year he'll nominate a sure loser (Holder). If not, then someone more moderate. I wouldn't be surprised to see another with Kennedy's mindset come before the Senate.

Watch the SOB pull a recess appointment this week. He likes to win, especially by cheating. Nothing would please him more than to flip the bird at the American people as often as possible in his last year, and get away with it.

I doubt there will be any need for recess appointment trickery, the GOP will gladly rollover and play dead. Remember that the only thing stopping Obama from stuffing the Constitution into a shredder is Mitch McConnell. Yes, that guy.

Feel better now? Me either.

I bet he picks Loretta Lynch.

1st Black Woman, & making all of his appointees women. This would bode well for Hillarys campaign, & give her lots of ammo if/when republicans fight the nomination.

My thought as well, Andy. I consider her a Holder-with-boobs, and a symbolic appointment. She got past the Senate, after some rumblings, only because she is a black woman. McConnell would have been labeled a sexist AND racist at the same time if he has opposed her. Couldn't have that!