As President Barack Obama’s efforts to pressure Senate Republicans to confirm Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court fail, liberal White House allies are floating a trial balloon of installing Garland on the Supreme Court without Senate confirmation. For 227 years every justice has had Senate approval - how would this impact the balance of power in our government going forward?
sort by best latest
Eisenhower also used a recess appointment for Potter Stewart.
Of those 12, 11 were confirmed by the Senate within a reasonable window, only 1 (200+ yrs ago) was rejected. I see your point, but wouldn't characterize it as a major error. Thanks for the input though - I'm always open to learning!
My point is that Presidents make appointments without Senate approval. The Senate can certainly do a token approval months after the appointment or take "no action". Likewise, I'm learning as well!
Based on the SC today, it no longer functions without prejudice, and political ruddering. The country today has morphed way beyond the aspirations of the founders. The founders erred in giving congress the job of detailing the SC. FDR had 15 SC justi
Bingo! They want another full monty, like 2000-2006. I feel as if my vote has been nullified, and wish there was a provision in the constitution to deal with it.
"Advise and consent" does not mean stall for a full year while the Court has a series of 4-4 votes that accomplish nothing for the country.
Yet the broken system allows something like this to go on - I don't like it when people blame one party or the other on these matters - unless the actual law is changed, it will continue.
I agree that the system is broken and that both parties have a responsibility to govern. As a former Republican, I believe the Republican party has been more obstructionist than the Democratic party in the last seven years.
Obstructionism is a broad brush Scott
Sorry Sir, but you are incorrect. A recess appointment can be made and as long a the Senate confirms before the end the session it can stay https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Supreme-Court
Not at all Brad - in fact you bring another layer of sanity to the discussion. I think the 4-4 takes away the partisanship angle. Check out the hub I wrote on the Supreme Court yesterday if you get time.
Another good one. I put my spin on it, of course it went off your well paved road. Keep them coming.
Nothing in the Constitution requires the Senate to act on a nomination, nor is there a time table, nor is there any provision to waive the Senates confirmation power.
But doesn't the Senate have an obligation to do their jobs? Just do it. If I said I wasn't going to do my job which would be to hold a hearing, I would be fired.
Lol, I bet that would change if the situation were reversed. So then, if repub makes prez, dems can obstruct. And im sure you'll be just as sanguine. Yeah suuurreee
Seriously ? Both parties obstruct. It's called politics
Oh no. Not like this. But you know dems cant. House and senate is repub. They want prez and supreme court, too. This is democracy? Hardly. House is rigged, suppressing votes, want it all...again. Not America, UAE more like. Dictatorship.
Reminds me of when Harry Reid refused to let legislation through. It goes both ways
There is no comparison to what these republicans have done. None. They have made it their job to ruin a presidency. $176,00 and more a year to make sure nothing gets done. Like Austin alluded to, they should be fired. Should make amendment to do so!
You can't call out one party as worse than the other - When Reid triggered the nuclear option to change senate rules - obviously obstructionist tactic - double standard
Yes, both parties obstruct. But when the GOP controls both houses of Congress and can't even get a budget out of the House, I believe the evidence is pretty clear that it has taken obstruction to a new level.
No kidding.150 nominations are sitting in limbo-waiting for a repub prez,no doubt. I'm pretty sure this is not what the framers had in mind, or they wouldn't have bothered to say all men are created equal. "Unless you're a democrat" is not qualifier!
Great answer, plus I think that several justices will be retiring in the next four years, so it might be a totally mute point.
But is IS about running our country, something that has been stalled for 8 years due to political sour grapes. (another good sound bite)
"The average duration of the 15 Supreme Court vacancies since 1970 has been just over 55 days." - Pew Research
If it is not filled by Obama, it will be at least the second longest vacancy and possibly the longest in nearly 200 years.
There have been 10 vacancies lasting over 300 days, with the longest being 841 days. Lengthy vacancies are rare now, but in the past were very common. Pew Research
Point well taken. It would have been very difficult 200+ years ago to fill a position quickly because of travel distances by horseback and much shorter congressional sessions.
Well, the fact they're doing it as a power play proves they're working for themselves, not we the people. They have rigged districts, put in laws that restrict voting, and now are stalling confirmation. All so they can have another 4-fecta. Big bums.
This thread has inspired me - I just posted a hub on this topic - I have been fact finding all morning. It's non-partisan and shows similar events from the past - please take a look and share an opinion if you wish to
If this is how we govern, we need a new way. I really really think we need to split up. It's absolutely ridiculous to have to fight to live your life. North, south, red, blue. I don't care how it's done, it needs to he done.
It sounds like the Senate is rock steady on not budging until the next President
And I hope that next president is another Democrat.
I know you do - people's politics are pretty easy to see when having discussions of this type
Mike, a President does not need the approval of the Senate to make what's called a recess appointment. It has been done many times over the course of U.S. history including two by Eisenhower.
But Scott, if the Senate doesn't recess, the sitting President cannot proceed with a recess appointment.
Ralph, I don't disagree it may be theoretically possible for the Senate to avoid a recess. But it requires a quorum and means they cannot take even a single day break for the remainder of the year.
Actually the law allows for breaks up to 3 days but no longer to be considered in session
The Senate is acting within the rules and as I always like to say what if the roles were reversed, would you still feel the same way?
Yes, I would. I would protest as I did when G.W. went to war with Iraq which I knew was a very bad idea. But I support the legal decisions that our government makes or else I wouldn't live in the USA
We're not discussing George Bush in this thread - would you be OK if an outgoing Republican was picking a nominee, Joe Biden wasn't.
I just gave it as an example because you asked me if I would still feel the same way.