Posted on Dec 14, 2016
Obama Can and Should Put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court
8.48K
79
18
3
2
1
Merrick Garland will be the next Supreme Court Justice. President Obama has every right to appoint him in a recess appointment, as allowed by the constitution, which doesn't require a senate vote. The recess appointment will last for two years.
The Senate will automatically go into recess at the end of this year, and Mitch McConnell is not allowed by law to keep the senate in session during a certain period before January 3 next year.
This allows President Obama to make his recess appointment during this time.
Or, if he wants to play real hardball, President Obama can make the legal argument that by refusing to hold a vote on Merrick Garland, the senate implicitly consented to Merrick Garland's appointment. This would allow Judge Garland to take his seat for life.
This is constitutional, legal, and hopefully, it will happen. Trump will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy, President Obama will, and Merrick Garland will become the ninth justice of SCOTUS
The Senate will automatically go into recess at the end of this year, and Mitch McConnell is not allowed by law to keep the senate in session during a certain period before January 3 next year.
This allows President Obama to make his recess appointment during this time.
Or, if he wants to play real hardball, President Obama can make the legal argument that by refusing to hold a vote on Merrick Garland, the senate implicitly consented to Merrick Garland's appointment. This would allow Judge Garland to take his seat for life.
This is constitutional, legal, and hopefully, it will happen. Trump will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy, President Obama will, and Merrick Garland will become the ninth justice of SCOTUS
Obama Can and Should Put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court
Posted from newrepublic.com
Law
Constitution
Supreme Court
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 10
10
10
0
Choosing not to use a Power is still exercising that Power. Congress chose not to advise and consent in regards to M. Garland (actually their advise and non-consent was informal). They exercised their constitutional Power. They didn't "neglect" to do it. They thoughtfully and purposely did not do it. They same way that they chose not to go into recess to prevent recess appointments.
If Congress is FORCED to vote on every nominee, it removes constitutional Power from them.
If Congress is FORCED to vote on every nominee, it removes constitutional Power from them.
(10)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SP5 Christine Conley - In this situation, neither is the parent nor the child though. We have CO-EQUAL branches of government. The Judicial Branch is selected by BOTH the Executive and the Senate EXPLICITLY. The President NOMINATES, the Senate CONFIRMS. It is not a unilateral decision. Without consensus, there is no path forward.
In M. Garland's case, the President was told he would not be confirmed. He followed the letter of the constitution which said he SHALL nominate (He had an obligation to do so). The Senate however was well within the stated Powers to withhold Consent, because they did in fact Advise him (informally). The system is functioning as intended.
The Judicial does NOT require nine justices. It works better when there is an odd number, but MOST cases are ALL-ZERO anyways. The 5/4 split is far rarer than the media lets on.
In M. Garland's case, the President was told he would not be confirmed. He followed the letter of the constitution which said he SHALL nominate (He had an obligation to do so). The Senate however was well within the stated Powers to withhold Consent, because they did in fact Advise him (informally). The system is functioning as intended.
The Judicial does NOT require nine justices. It works better when there is an odd number, but MOST cases are ALL-ZERO anyways. The 5/4 split is far rarer than the media lets on.
(8)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SP5 Christine Conley - The Senate (and Legislative Branch et al) has the Power to abstain from voting. It's actually built into that Branch of government. Sometimes a bill isn't ready. Sometimes a person isn't ready to be confirmed yet. Sometimes "politics" need to happen before a vote can move forward. Abstaining is a perfectly valid use of Power. Just because you can use Power, doesn't mean you should use Power. This situation is far more complex than a simple Yes or No vote. Just like a bill going before the President can be Signed, Vetoed, Pocket Vetoed (didn't make to his desk within 10 days of close of term), or Pocket Signed (he ignored for 10 days automatically becoming law). Our system is complex.
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SP5 Christine Conley The Senate has done exactly what their electors have expected of them. To stop/stall liberal progression of destroying this country. Just because you do not like that Obama's agenda was stopped does not mean that Congress was not doing it's job.
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
I'd like to see him try that one. I believe the Senate has already stated they will not go into recess until inauguration to keep the lawless one at bay.
You might also recall the Supreme Court already smacked Obama down and ruled against him on his recess appointments (and in favor of the congress). This is another left wing blogger fantasy that is not going to happen but have fun talking about it in your safety pinned safe spaces.
You might also recall the Supreme Court already smacked Obama down and ruled against him on his recess appointments (and in favor of the congress). This is another left wing blogger fantasy that is not going to happen but have fun talking about it in your safety pinned safe spaces.
(7)
(0)
4
4
0
Trump should do exactly as he promised the voters that elected him to the exalted position of leader of the free world. And that doesn't include nominating another liberal to the Supreme Court. As I recall Garland was NOT on the list he presented while running.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google