Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing

[Coyotl]

Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing
Gregory L. Diskant April 8

............ The Constitution glories in its ambiguities, however, and it is possible to read its language to deny the Senate the right to pocket veto the president’s nominations. Start with the appointments clause of the Constitution. It provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” Note that the president has two powers: the power to “nominate” and the separate power to “appoint.” In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the “Advice and Consent of the Senate.” What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing?

In most respects, the meaning of the “Advice and Consent” clause is obvious. The Senate can always grant or withhold consent by voting on the nominee. The narrower question, starkly presented by the Garland nomination, is what to make of things when the Senate simply fails to perform its constitutional duty. ............

[diddlysquat]

1. I'm not sure that this is correct.

Norman Goldman said yesterday that this is absolutely not true. He could make a recess appointment but the House will not recess.

[frazzled]

4. And even if he did manage to recess appoint,

It would only be good for a year. Or that is what I believe is the case.

And then Garland would lose his seat on the D.C. court. Obama is not going to risk that.

[longship]

7. It's not the fucking House! It's the Senate! Jesus! Read your Constitution! nt

[Hortensis]

2. I've read this argument before. It is a move that

could be made, and off to the highest courts to decide what the Constitution means in this case.

Or not? If 4-4 in SCOTUS, the DC Circuit decision would rule? Judge Garland is chief justice of the DC Circuit. He'd have recused himself, leaving perhaps an even number, although unlikely the vote would be 8-8, but still ...? and ...?

Not to say that Obama would do this or Garland would agree. But interesting.

[napi21]

3. HE CAN'T! That's one position in the Constitution that states Preesident will nominate and

the Senate shall confirm. Sorry, but that idea can't fly.

[Mc Mike]

5. This is what should happen. rec, nt.

[barbtries]

6. well,

he did seek the advice and consent of the senate. they refused to do their part; he did his.

[The Wielding Truth]

9. They refused. He must do his. There is truth in that.

[CK_John]

8. I'm just glad they didn't reduce to court to 5 Justices which would

easier to do than your scheme.

[world wide wally]

10. It's definitely worth a try

As Trump said, "What have you got to lose"?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. The President can nominate

he can't appoint unless the Senate allows him to.