• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Recess appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?

Recess appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 68.4%

  • No

    Votes: 12 31.6%
  • Total voters
    38

Hercules56

Banned
H
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
17,176
The Republicans made believe that we cannot have the President nominate anyone for the Supreme Court during his last year in office.

There is no precedent for this. Several Supreme Court Justices have been nominated and approved by the Senate during a President's last year in office, several times.

And yet, the GOP Senate decided that no Obama nominee, not even one who supports some of their ideas, would get a Senate vote let alone hearings.

So basically they stole a Supreme Court Justice from the Democrats.

That is why Obama should make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court after the next session of Congress begins and before trump is inaugurated.

If the GOP is going to play games, let the Democrats play along.

Its legal and its right. Garland would serve until President trump decides to replace him, if he chooses so in 2018.
 
logger said:
Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for rule 11.
Click to expand...

Obama has every legal right to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court, that lasts at least one year.

And there is nothing you or the GOP can do about it.

The only question that remains if Obama has the balls to do it.

After the abstention from the UNSC vote, I think he may have found some balls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hercules56 said:
Obama has every legal right to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court, that lasts at least one year.

And there is nothing you or the GOP can do about it.

The only question that remains if Obama has the balls to do it.

After the abstention from the UNSC vote, I think he may have found some balls.
Click to expand...

Except that the Senate is still in session, therefore Obama cannot make a recess appointment.
 
Crossbow said:
Sorry, but I do not think that is the case.
Click to expand...

I believe it was on NPR that they were discussing that the Senate will have to have a real recess, and it will be the first time in 8 years. The recesses had been not "taken" by leaving a Senator in the Capitol, which had a legal effect of preventing recess appointments. This time, they can't do this. I don't know why they said it has to be a real recess prior to inauguration.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I believe it was on NPR that they were discussing that the Senate will have to have a real recess, and it will be the first time in 8 years. The recesses had been not "taken" by leaving a Senator in the Capitol, which had a legal effect of preventing recess appointments. This time, they can't do this. I don't know why they said it has to be a real recess prior to inauguration.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I do not know what you are referring in regards to that NPR account. I just did a brief scan of the NPR web site and I could not find anything about it.

However, the Senate itself has wide latitude to decided when it is session and when it is not in session. And since the various stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans have kept the Senate in technically in session for years in order to prevent recess appointments from President Obama, then I do not expect these same stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans to change things now in order to allow President Obama to make a recess appointment.
 
thaiboxerken said:
https://newrepublic.com/article/138787/obama-can-put-merrick-garland-supreme-court

According to this guy, Jan 3rd is when the Senate will be between sessions and is when Obama can do it. He agrees, however, that Obama doesn't have the balls.
Click to expand...

Thanks much for the data, but my impression of the article was rather different.

After all, the author goes on to state about Obama making a recess appointment while the Senate is in-between sessions:

"This is a highly aggressive and probably doomed strategy, without question."

Note: my emphasis
 
I think the guy is overly dramatic about it. Yes, Republicans would whine and whine about it, but it would be worth it.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I think the guy is overly dramatic about it. Yes, Republicans would whine and whine about it, but it would be worth it.
Click to expand...

Indeed so!

It sure would be nice to see that lot of stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans actually have to deal with the mess that they created as opposed to blaming their problems on Democrats, liberals, terrorists, Muslims, and other assorted scapegoats.
 
Crossbow said:
Indeed so!

It sure would be nice to see that lot of stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans actually have to deal with the mess that they created as opposed to blaming their problems on Democrats, liberals, terrorists, Muslims, and other assorted scapegoats.
Click to expand...

Obama won't do the deed. Trump will appoint a SCOTUS Justice or two and there will be a shortage of coat hangers in the USA.
 
The whole thing has gotten silly. Recess appointments were to be done because nobody was around and it had to be done. It isn't a get out of jail free card for the president to do a back alley quick nomination.

The proper course of action, if you don't like the Republicans holding up nominations, is to correct the situation by voting your disgust and taking over Congress.

So let the people consider the hold ups when judging who to vote for for Cong...

Oh, wait.
 
I hope Obama will do something like this if for no other reason than to see the legal challenges and find the outcome on whether it will stand or not. I'm more fascinated in that idea, such as whether the nominee Obama makes would be able to sit in and vote on the eventual lawsuit that'll make its way to the Supreme Court for instance.

I also would much rather have a middle of the road moderate (Garland) than just about anyone Trump has on his short list. Judges should not be people who are on one end of the political spectrum or the other. They should be able to do their job independent of any moral misgivings, and without religion swaying their decisions.
 
14 posts sent to AAH. Please keep to the topic of this thread. There are plenty of other threads for general discussions of the election result.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
Love to see it, don't expect it.

I wasn't aware of the Senate remaining "in session" for eight years. There's a new one every two years, how the heck does that work?
 
Why not? If it is legal (too bad if instead, as is likely, Crossbow is correct). It would reflect a moderate and very capable choice that I strongly feel would be in the interest of the country. It also likely parallels the hopes of those within the majority of the popular election vote.
 
The discussion so far appears to be missing the obvious point that somebody like Merrick Garland would never accept a recess appointment to the Supreme Court. In fact, almost anybody who be a party to such a clearly unconstitutional exercise of executive power, would, by defintion, be a poor choice for the Supreme Court.

One of the many problems that might arise is that any decision on a case on which such a bogus appointment sits (even if his vote didn't make a difference) would arguably be illegitimate and have to be re-heard.
 
sunmaster14 said:
The discussion so far appears to be missing the obvious point that somebody like Merrick Garland would never accept a recess appointment to the Supreme Court. In fact, almost anybody who be a party to such a clearly unconstitutional exercise of executive power, would, by defintion, be a poor choice for the Supreme Court.

One of the many problems that might arise is that any decision on a case on which such a bogus appointment sits (even if his vote didn't make a difference) would arguably be illegitimate and have to be re-heard.
Click to expand...

It is clearly Constitutional. This would be well within an appointment in a recess. Why would it be unconstitutional?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom