Obama could still force Merrick Garland onto court during ‘intersession recess’

Here's a possibility about how Obama could appoint a Supreme Court Justice to fill the existing vacancy.

When Justice Scalia died, the Court had an opening and Obama nominated Merrick Garland.

But the U.S. Senate has yet to confirm Garland.

Now that Trump is President-Elect, Garland has a slim chance of holding the nomination.

Now we hear about a possibility that Obama could actually appoint Garland during what the article says is a "5 minute window" when the Senate closes the current Congress and open the new Congress !!

Legal complications exist, but maybe Obama does it anyway ?

If he does, can something like this be over-ridden ?

Interesting scenario.

Obama could still force Merrick Garland onto court during ‘intersession recess’

President Obama will have one last chance to force Judge Merrick Garland onto the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday — but it’s a legal gamble and one that has so many pitfalls that even those who say he could get away with it believe it isn’t worth the fight.

Mr. Obama’s moment will come just before noon, in the five minutes that the Senate gavels the 114th Congress out of session and the time the 115th Congress begins.

In those few moments the Senate will go into what’s known as an “intersession recess,” creating one golden moment when the president could test his recess-appointment powers by sending Judge Garland to the high court.

A smattering of activists has asked him to give it a try, but Mr. Obama has given no indication that he’s thinking about it. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment for this story.

a reply to: xuenchen

Obama hasn't done enough to destroy the democrat party. I say "do it" and finish off any positive legacy he might have held.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Obama hasn't done enough to destroy the democrat party. I say "do it" and finish off any positive legacy he might have held.

I would be quite content if Obama just went and played golf every day until the end of his term.

a reply to: xuenchen

I'd think a supermajority in Congress and Senate could nullify something like this.

This could be the catalyst to get term limits in the Supreme Court!

I would love to see him do it, but doubt he will..
don't know what, or if congress could do anything about it except try to remove him from the bench under the same terms they would be required to have for any other judge.

a reply to: xuenchen

The OP is incorrect.

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

In 2014 The Supreme Court decided that on the Senate’s side, the ruling made clear that it (the recess) has to last more than three days, without saying how much more time must pass without the Senate out of town and doing nothing.

There no longer is a 5 minute window.

I think he should do it since the Republicans refused to carry out their constitutional duty. Make them prove to the world what kind of asshats they are.

Of course no one in their party will give a damn.

a reply to: CB328

If the American people don't like what the Republicans are doing, then they can vote them out. Republicans are stronger than ever, the American people must not be too concerned about Merrick Garland not getting a hearing. We don't need the President to become a dictator just because he doesn't like what the people's representatives are doing.

originally posted by: CB328
I think he should do it since the Republicans refused to carry out their constitutional duty. Make them prove to the world what kind of asshats they are.

Of course no one in their party will give a damn.

Your party doesn't agree with you.

The U.S. Senate has the constitutional right to hold no hearings and no votes on President Obama’s eventual nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some of the best arguments defending the Senate’s right to act or not act on judicial nominees have been made by leading liberals serving in the Senate – Vice President Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.

Joe Biden 1987, “The framers clearly intended the Senate to serve as a check on the president and guarantee the independence of the judiciary. The Senate has an undisputed right to consider judicial philosophy.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid...“The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s very different than saying every nominee receives a vote. … The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch.”

List goes on and the list is long...

Linky

Of course, you won't agree with it because Liberals good Republicans bad. LOL

Why not?

What has he got to lose now?

It would be lovely if the elected Republicans would stop being assholes to the people of this Nation and do their job. One reason we elect Presidents is to appoint Justices.

originally posted by: Kali74
It would be lovely if the elected Republicans would stop being assholes to the people of this Nation and do their job. One reason we elect Presidents is to appoint Justices.

And the elected Senate has every right to reject those appointments.

a reply to: xuenchen

Then reject him, poop or get off the pot.

a reply to: Kali74

Perhaps you can look two posts up from your original post and I've answered that for you already.

The Senate is doing their job... according to Democrats.

I don't believe that the Constitution mandated a specific time limit to congressional appointments.

a reply to: Kali74

Tell the president to stop acting like one then.

He should lead by example.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I don't believe that the Constitution mandated a specific time limit to congressional appointments.

They didn't, but the intent was clearly that the President nominates and Congress approves or not. They don't table discussion on the nomination for a year in order to force the office to go unfilled. If this were the case, a group of 51 Senators would in theory be able to refuse confirmation hearings to every nomination the President made for 4 years, and force the total disfunction of government. That goes against the intent of the Constitution.

a reply to: Aazadan

History shows us that they have.

a reply to: xuenchen

The real question is why WOULDN'T Obama circumvent the spirit of a law in order to get his own way. He has been a pompous, egotistical, wannabe emperor since his election and has openly shown his disdain for Congress and the Constitution on many occasions.

Expect him to act like the complete asshat he is.