How will the Merrick Garland nomination end?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

What happens to Merrick Garland’s nomination in December?

Let’s assume Merrick Garland doesn’t get confirmed in the lame-duck. Does his nomination stay active when the Congress ends? No — if Obama hasn’t withdrawn it, it gets sent back to the White House. Don’t forget that Obama is officially president until Jan. 20, after a new Congress will have convened. It’s unlikely, however, that Obama would overrule Clinton’s preference if she’s elected president. But might Obama resubmit Garland’s nomination if Donald Trump wins the White House? That’s an open question.

When exactly will Garland’s nomination die? We’re not sure yet. It happens when the Senate adjourns sine die to mark the session’s end. That could be the day the senators leave in December (maybe Dec. 9, when the continuing resolution runs out, or Dec. 16, leadership’s target date). Or it could be later. It just has to happen before noon on Jan. 3, when the new Congress convenes.

What are Obama’s options once the nomination is returned? He has several options. Once Congress comes back in, he can renominate Garland or nominate somebody else — there’s no rule forcing him to pick Garland again in January. Obama can also do nothing.

19 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Garland will get confirmed by the current Senate before election day
	0 (0%)
	Garland will get confirmed by the current Senate after election day
	14 (74%)
	Garland will get confirmed by the incoming Senate before the new President takes office
	0 (0%)
	Hillary wins, and Barack withdraws Garland on November 9th
	4 (21%)
	Hillary wins, and neither the current nor incoming Senate confirms Garland
	1 (5%)
	Trump wins, and the pick and the nation are doomed
	0 (0%)
	Something else I didn't think of?
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. If he is not approved by the end of the Congress, his nomination is canceled.

Clinton could renominate him, or nominate someone else.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

6. Not quite

Obama is President through 1/20/17, and the new Senate is sworn on 1/3/17. In theory (especially if the Dems win the Senate), Obama could re-nominate Garland, and the new Senate would have 2.5 weeks to confirm.

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. I don't think Obama would renominate hin.

Last edited Mon Oct 17, 2016, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

But if he does, it would move the court left. So I have no problem we it it.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

14. Exactly.

Even if he turned out to be an Anthony Kennedy (read: swing vote), he'd still be a huge improvement on Scalia.

[Freddie]

2. And replaces him with someone younger and more liberal

No offense to Garland.

[tenaciousdem]

3. Obama

Withdraws his nomination, Hillary wins, sworn in, and then nominates President Obama to the Supreme Court. That ought to make their heads spin.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

5. Welcome to DU!

Yours is a popular theory. I have two basic problems with it:

1) Notwithstanding the fact that the Obamas are going to remain near DC so Sasha can finish at Sidwell Friends, my sense is that Michelle Obama is over all of this, and wants to get away from politics and head toward retirement.

2) Barack Obama would be leaving millions in speaking fees on the table. I think he likes money (more or less) as much as the rest of us.

[tenaciousdem]

17. Wishful thinking

You're probably correct. Just me hoping for the ultimate revenge on the republicans.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

18. It's not a bad idea at all

Barack Obama is a great age to be a SCOTUS justice. He's an attorney, and brings a gravitas that would give him about as much prestige on that bench as the CJ. Also, I get the impression (perhaps incorrect) that he and John Roberts get along. In a sense, I think he'd be up for it.

If it were to happen, I'd guess maybe as a replacement for RBG. I think he really wants to spend at least a year sleeping in, playing golf, and getting his library built.

[tenaciousdem]

20. Thanks for the welcome!

I've been here before. Spent several years here during the Bush Misadministration. Had it not been for DU, The Smirking Chimp, and the Rude Pundit, well, I would have probably lost my mind. Once Obama was elected, I decompressed, I knew he had this. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has managed to resurrect my disdain for the Right Wing. Once Hillary is sworn in, I may need to take another break!

[Gman]

4. Obama will have his legacy.

He'll be confirmed in the lame duck session.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

7. They might go sooner

If McConnell et. al. think there is no chance Trump can win, the Senate may make a very quick, very quiet move to confirm. Jeff Flake made a comment about 10 days ago that recognized the reality that Garland may be the best deal they are going to get.

If they think there is any chance Trump will win, they'll hold off, but look for them to race to approve Garland before Obama can change his mind.

[Gman]

19. There are some risks to them for doing the right thing

including pissing off their base in states where there are Senators in tight races. You know, the same Senators who unendorsed Trump because they are in a tight race.

[joshcryer]

8. Yep, especially if we take back the Senate.

[Meldread]

9. I think Obama should pull his nomination now. He should not wait.

Merrick Garland is perfectly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. He should have been confirmed months ago, not long after he was nominated. Now that this nomination process has been so politicized...

Well, let's be clear. Merrick Garland is not a liberal. He is center-right at best. The nomination of Garland was a compromise on Obama's part, an olive branch to the Republican-controlled Senate. They spat on that compromise and threw their lot in with Trump. They hoped Trump would win and they could appoint someone like Scalia. Why should we reward them with this compromise?

It is my belief they will move to confirm Garland as soon as the election ends because they know it is the best they are going to get from a Democratic President. My feeling is that Obama should take that off the table. He should take Garland out of the running, and let Hillary make an actual liberal appointment--someone who is relatively young. The Republicans should pay the price for this bullshit. They could have had a compromise; they spat on that compromise, and so now they should get nothing.

Letting the Republicans confirm Garland in the lame duck session is a mistake, and it is something they do not deserve. It only rewards them for their bad behavior.

[Moonwalk]

10. Agreed! And Obama should let Hillary have this. As a reward for putting up with Trump...

[Algernon Moncrieff]

15. He should announce he'll withdraw the pick the moment it becomes clear Hillary has won

Translation: McConnell needs to fish or cut bait.

[Vinca]

13. Mitch the Turtle will convene the Senate the moment Hillary wins and get him confirmed.

Personally, I wish Obama would withdraw the nomination, but he's too noble a man for that.