Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing - The Washington Post

 

 

Thoughts?

Justified Outrage After Editorial Reveals How Obama Can Appoint Merrick Garland if Senate Does Nothing | LawNewz

 

 

It would be unprecedented for anyone to stay a permanent member of the Supreme Court without senate arrival.

 

There have been a handful of people appointed while in recess and they still got voted on after. He could possibly force a vote but if he did he wouldn't like the result.

"The president should advise the Senate that he will deem its failure to act by a specified reasonable date in the future to constitute a deliberate waiver of its right to give advice and consent."

 

Under what authority?

This is at the feet of Mitch. He has handed more executive power to president Obama. Blame him.

This is at the feet of Mitch. He has handed more executive power to president Obama. Blame him.

 

Nice try. Obama has an ego the size of Trump's. Just more of his feet stamping when anyone dares challenge him.

This is at the feet of Mitch. He has handed more executive power to president Obama. Blame him.

 

You can't hand someone more power than they are granted under the law.

Senate could do their part. Guess they prefer demonizing the president for picking up the slack.

 

Say what you will, but if Obama appoints a justice while the Senate is in recess Republican leadership will look foolish.

Senate could do their part. Guess they prefer demonizing the president for picking up the slack.

 

Say what you will, but if Obama appoints a justice while the Senate is in recess Republican leadership will look foolish.

 

This just makes no sense to me for the GOP to not hear this. Hear it, deny him enough votes and keep doing it until a new President is elected. The law would be followed and they save face. Even though we know they are going to vote the person down.

The way they are doing it now is only validating they are not willing to work with the President.

There's an argument that's become en vogue since polarization between the parties has escalated over the last decade or so. The argument is that this polarization has led to the parties playing "constitutional hardball." The gist is that the parties in government have taken ever more creative interpretations of the constitution to justify obstructing or circumventing the other. These interpretations aren't necessarily incorrect or unjustifiable, but exist well outside of tradition and constitutional norms.

 

What's going on here is an example of this. Senate Republicans are outright refusing a hearing on Obama's nominee, which is not unconstitutional, but exists outside of the norms of how the body has traditionally functioned. What the author in the OP argues is similarly hardball. Obama declaring that the Senate has waived its right to consent by refusing hearings is a plausible interpretation of the constitution, but it is well outside the norms of how the process is supposed to work.

 

I hope that Obama doesn't pursue such a gambit because I'm afraid hardball is becoming the new normal. I think it's eventually going to lead to a serious constitutional crisis and ratcheting up the stakes right now would only hasten it. But, something is going to give soon.

I have posted this in other threads on this topic and will post it again here. I think the Republicans are hurting themselves in November by not holding confirmation hearings. The loyal Republicans will like it but those moderate and independent voters that decide elections will not and those voters may hurt the Republicans in the fall if they continue with this position

I have posted this in other threads on this topic and will post it again here. I think the Republicans are hurting themselves in November by not holding confirmation hearings. The loyal Republicans will like it but those moderate and independent voters that decide elections will not and those voters may hurt the Republicans in the fall if they continue with this position

 

No doubt about it.

I have posted this in other threads on this topic and will post it again here. I think the Republicans are hurting themselves in November by not holding confirmation hearings. The loyal Republicans will like it but those moderate and independent voters that decide elections will not and those voters may hurt the Republicans in the fall if they continue with this position

 

I think you're right but the other thing is they are in the middle of a contested primary that may very well be settled at the convention. I imagine if the leadership moves on the nomination it will galvanize even more anti-establishment backlash.

There's an argument that's become en vogue since polarization between the parties has escalated over the last decade or so. The argument is that this polarization has led to the parties playing "constitutional hardball." The gist is that the parties in government have taken ever more creative interpretations of the constitution to justify obstructing or circumventing the other. These interpretations aren't necessarily incorrect or unjustifiable, but exist well outside of tradition and constitutional norms.

 

What's going on here is an example of this. Senate Republicans are outright refusing a hearing on Obama's nominee, which is not unconstitutional, but exists outside of the norms of how the body has traditionally functioned. What the author in the OP argues is similarly hardball. Obama declaring that the Senate has waived its right to consent by refusing hearings is a plausible interpretation of the constitution, but it is well outside the norms of how the process is supposed to work.

 

I hope that Obama doesn't pursue such a gambit because I'm afraid hardball is becoming the new normal. I think it's eventually going to lead to a serious constitutional crisis and ratcheting up the stakes right now would only hasten it. But, something is going to give soon.

 

That is a real interesting (and scary) way of thinking about our government.

That is a real interesting (and scary) way of thinking about our government.

 

Agreed. On both sides of the aisle. One side refuses to to its job; in response, the other may overstep its traditional bounds.