- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How Merrivk Garland could still end up a SCOTUS justice
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:35 am
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:35 am
Method One -
VP Biden, before swearing in the new Congress of senators, recognizes Durbin who calls for a vote on Garland when there are only 66 senators seated, the majority of which are Ds. They vote and Garland is confirmed, then the new class of senators is sworn in.
Method Two -
LINK
Come January, President Barack Obama will be consigned to the sidelines as Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office and begins the work of dismantling his legacy. But there is one action that Obama could take on January 3, 2017 that could hold off some of the worst potential abuses of a Trump administration for up to a year. Obama can appoint his nominee Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on that date, in between the two sessions of Congress.
Here’s how it would work. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” This has been used for Supreme Court vacancies before—William Brennan began his Court tenure with a recess appointment in 1956. Any appointments made in this fashion expire at the end of the next Senate session. So a Garland appointment on January 3 would last until December 2017, the end of the first session of the 115th Congress.
Why January 3? Because the president’s recess appointment powers were significantly constrained by a 2014 Supreme Court ruling. In a 9-0 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the Court said the president cannot appoint individuals to fill vacancies if the Senate holds “pro forma” sessions every three days. Though these sessions, common since 2011, merely gavel in and gavel out the Senate chamber, they have the practical effect of keeping the Senate active, therefore blocking the recess appointment power.
But even the Court’s most conservative members acknowledged that a president can make recess appointments during “inter-session” recesses—such as the break between the first and second year of a Congress, or the break between outgoing or incoming Congresses. There simply has to be an end point there, as a metaphysical matter. Theodore Roosevelt once used a short inter-session recess to make hundreds of appointments.
VP Biden, before swearing in the new Congress of senators, recognizes Durbin who calls for a vote on Garland when there are only 66 senators seated, the majority of which are Ds. They vote and Garland is confirmed, then the new class of senators is sworn in.
Method Two -
LINK
Come January, President Barack Obama will be consigned to the sidelines as Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office and begins the work of dismantling his legacy. But there is one action that Obama could take on January 3, 2017 that could hold off some of the worst potential abuses of a Trump administration for up to a year. Obama can appoint his nominee Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on that date, in between the two sessions of Congress.
Here’s how it would work. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” This has been used for Supreme Court vacancies before—William Brennan began his Court tenure with a recess appointment in 1956. Any appointments made in this fashion expire at the end of the next Senate session. So a Garland appointment on January 3 would last until December 2017, the end of the first session of the 115th Congress.
Why January 3? Because the president’s recess appointment powers were significantly constrained by a 2014 Supreme Court ruling. In a 9-0 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the Court said the president cannot appoint individuals to fill vacancies if the Senate holds “pro forma” sessions every three days. Though these sessions, common since 2011, merely gavel in and gavel out the Senate chamber, they have the practical effect of keeping the Senate active, therefore blocking the recess appointment power.
But even the Court’s most conservative members acknowledged that a president can make recess appointments during “inter-session” recesses—such as the break between the first and second year of a Congress, or the break between outgoing or incoming Congresses. There simply has to be an end point there, as a metaphysical matter. Theodore Roosevelt once used a short inter-session recess to make hundreds of appointments.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:38 am to Eurocat
Yes, he has as good of a chance as you leftists have with the EC not voting for Trump. That went over well.
Why do y'all continue to delude yourselves? It isn't healthy.
Stop acting like children and move on.
Why do y'all continue to delude yourselves? It isn't healthy.
Stop acting like children and move on.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 11:39 am
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:38 am to Eurocat
So he would be on the bench for 1 year as a recess appointment not really worth it for theshitstorm it would cause and the fact trump would be running the justice department to target ex officials
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:41 am to Eurocat
Typical liberal, figuring out how to game the system to do something most of the country is against just so you can claim even the tiniest little victory in your quest to destroy America. Pathetic.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:45 am to PsychTiger
I'm not saying I want it done, I'm throwing it out as a possibility.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:45 am to Eurocat
Even if Obama was foolish enough to make a recess appointment in this tiny sliver of time, if both houses of Congress agree, the session can be ended on an agreed upon date, then started again on an agreed upon date. So, Mr. Garland may be there for only a week or so at the most, and then when the session ended, he'd be out.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:47 am to HubbaBubba
It is my understanding he would be there a year?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:59 am to Eurocat
As happy as I am that Trump won, Obama should have been given this appointment as the vacancy happened on his term. I'm all for fair play and know I'll get downvoted to oblivion and back for this but my mother taught me right.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:59 am to Eurocat
quote:It is my understanding that Congress has authority (as long as both the Senate and the House agree on a majority vote, which Republicans control) to call an end to a session and to authorize a new session. The question is, do they have the nuts to do that? There would be a lot of flak over the appointment, and then there would be a lot of flak about the political machinations to force a close to Congress. Either way, going to be a lot of crap if Obama tries this punk crap.
It is my understanding he would be there a year?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 12:08 pm to Eurocat
Why do liberals always want to break the rules to get their way?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 12:09 pm to Broke
quote:
As happy as I am that Trump won, Obama should have been given this appointment as the vacancy happened on his term. I'm all for fair play and know I'll get downvoted to oblivion and back for this but my mother taught me right.
But she apparently didn't teach you about communists, they don't give a shite about "fair play", the end justifies the means. One thing the GOP did well was not to confirm another justice brought up by this fraud president.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 12:39 pm to Eurocat
A gentleman writing at The Federalist weeks ago debunked this liberal fantasy. Read the takedown here:
No, Senate Democrats Can’t Use The ‘Nuclear Option’ To Confirm Merrick Garland
No, Senate Democrats Can’t Use The ‘Nuclear Option’ To Confirm Merrick Garland
Posted on 12/20/16 at 2:03 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
Well you are wrong
It's an opinion, it can't be wrong. This shite will bite us in the arse one day. I don't know when but it will.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News