Brd, an interesting little "this day in history" tidbit: March 3, 1845: The U.S. Congress passed legislation overriding a U.S. President's veto. It was the first time the Congress had achieved this. Historical Highlights The First Congressional Override of a Presidential Veto March 03, 1845 Image courtesy of Library of Congress After winning a special election to the 14th Congress (1815–1817), Representative John Tyler of Virginia served for three terms before retiring to serve in state politics. Tyler was later elected a U.S. Senator and eventually Vice President—succeeding to the presidency upon the death of William Henry Harrison. On this date, in the waning hours of the 28th Congress (1843–1845), the House joined the Senate to pass Congress’s first presidential veto override (over lame-duck President John Tyler’s veto of an appropriation bill). Introduced by Senator Jabez Huntington of Connecticut in January 1845, the original bill prohibited the President from authorizing the building of Revenue Marine Service (Coast Guard) ships without approved appropriations from Congress. President Tyler vetoed the bill to protect existing contracts and to retain presidential prerogative. Huntington responded that “the objections of the President relied entirely upon a philological criticism.” On the final day of the session, the Senate overturned Tyler’s veto with only one dissenting vote and sent it to the House for immediate consideration. The House debated late into that evening. As it proceeded to vote on the bill, Thomas Bayly of Virginia noted that “the clock, the hand of which was just at 12 [midnight] . . . had been stopped for five minutes, and that by the constitution the House was adjourned.” Because Congresses prior to the 20th Amendment expired on March 3, Bayly argued legislative business must cease after the stroke of midnight. The Speaker, however, refused to “entertain any motion while the house was dividing,” and ordered the Clerk to proceed with the roll call vote. The House voted 126–31 in favor of an override, nullifying Tyler’s veto. Congress would not override another presidential veto for more than a decade when, during the administration of Franklin Pierce, it overrode five of his nine vetoes. To date, U.S. Presidents have vetoed more than 2,500 bills—with Congress overriding the President less than five percent of the time.
One of my favorite odd factoids: John Tyler's grandsons are still alive. Or, they were a couple years ago. Might be dead by now. Unless that's a picture of Drew Bledsoe. In which case, ne'er mind.
If you believe the GOP the nominee is DoA. That makes the decision of who to nominate tricky. You're killing the chances the person will ever make it on to the Supreme Court by nominating them at this particularly feckless juncture for the GOP.
I say we just wait until Trump gets in the Trump House and begins his Trumpidency. When everything has finally settled down in Trumpington, D.C., THEN we can deal with finding a new justice for the Trump Court.
What would you do though? Nominate a candidate well qualified who you would like to see on the court knowing that you'll never get them confirmed? Nominate a candidate too Liberal to be confirmed under normal circumstances to bait the GOP, knowing that they'll then use that as an excuse not to hold hearings? Nominate a nobody and then wind up ambushed when the GOP decides to hold hearings and actually moves towards confirmation of an unknown quantity? It's just a ridiculous position to be put in. I'd put Laurence Tribe up for the spot. Then you'd get 8 months of "why isn't the GOP controlled Senate willing to give this distinguished Constitutional scholar even a hearing on his qualifications?" Nothing like making the do-nothing GOP into the issue in the next election. They've done nothing but bitch and shut things down for 6 years now. Make it an issue. I bet the Democrats take the Presidency and the Senate in 2016 if that's how Obama plays it.
It's really a win win for the dems. If they get office they can nominate as far left as they want and if trump gets in his sister is the next justice. I know he said he wouldn't nominate her but he's changed his mind before...
Umm, explain why on earth Laurence Tribe would want his name injected into the mix??!! Because he's so interested in putting into play the Br4d Master Plan? Worst case for him would be actually getting approved by the Senate and having to serve. Dude makes more in one case than Supreme Court justices make in a full year.
If I'm not mistaken, he can step down from the court whenever he wants so worst case scenario is mitigated. Regarding salary, he doesn't need the money but going into the history books as one of only a relative handful of people as a Supreme Court justice might be very appealing.
Geezus. I hope my income doesn't get fixed by others deciding what I may or may not "need". But richly ironic in this case. For Laurence Tribe, a seat on the Supreme Court is a step DOWN in every way. There's zero up-side for him to add his name into the mix. Which is, of course, why we never hear it.
Reports are that Obama chooses to nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Idk, the republicans might want to take back the plan to reject no matter what. Garland is very moderate, actually fairly conservative and is 63 years old. He is also well qualified. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0 seems like a decent choice. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/ block him on principle and they'll be faced with a President Hillary Clinton nomination and I doubt he/she would be similar at all to Garland
Another perspective on his being a moderate. http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland
I really don't see the need to rush. I'd rather hold off and see if this Scalia death thing really sticks.
Surprised at Garland just for the age factor. RBG is really getting up there, and I doubt will want to stay on as far out as 2020. Not that a 63 year old is likely to leave during the next term, as RBG is. But you look at the age some of these GOP justices are, and they stick around a long long time.
Hillary as President may lead to the second amendment getting tossed. Hide yo wife, hide yo kids, hide yo guns!
No surprise here. Obama picked an impeccable candidate who has to look a lot better to the GOP than the 40-odd year old Hillary might pick or the complete surprise Trump might put up. I know the GOP said no nominee but I think they have to take this one. I'd be surprised if he's not confirmed after a lot of wiggling and nit-picking before the GOP allows a hearing.
The GOP may string this out til the election is closer to see if the polls show a closer race than now. But that's risky cause their candidates at risk will be skewered in the meantime. Interesting to see what happens. But their smart move will probably require holding hearings at some point. Then they risk the pressure building even more if Garland comes across even semi-decent in the hearings. They picked a tough fit here.
