It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
I don't believe that the Constitution mandated a specific time limit to congressional appointments.