RJ Schwartz profile image 96

Obama could try to appoint Merrick Garland to the SC without Senate confirmation. Thoughts?


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

promisem profile image89

Scott Bateman (promisem) says

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.

19 months ago
 |  Comment
  • promisem profile image

    Scott Bateman (promisem) 19 months ago

    Eisenhower also used a recess appointment for Potter Stewart.


  • See all 4 comments
dashingscorpio profile image88

dashingscorpio says

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.

19 months ago
 |  Comment
  • lovemychris profile image

    Yes Dear (lovemychris) 19 months ago

    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.


  • See all 5 comments
Don Fairchild profile image82

Don Fairchild says

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.

19 months ago
 |  Comment
bradmasterOCcal profile image62

bradmasterOCcal says

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.

19 months ago
 |  Comment
  • RJ Schwartz profile image

    Ralph Schwartz (RJ Schwartz) 19 months ago

    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.


  • See all 2 comments
lovemychris profile image68

Yes Dear (lovemychris) says

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.

19 months ago
 |  Comment
  • RJ Schwartz profile image

    Ralph Schwartz (RJ Schwartz) 19 months ago

    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.


  • See all 10 comments
lions44 profile image100

CJ Kelly (lions44) says

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.

19 months ago
 |  Comment
  • RJ Schwartz profile image

    Ralph Schwartz (RJ Schwartz) 19 months ago

    Great answer, plus I think that several justices will be retiring in the next four years, so it might be a totally mute point.


  • See all 8 comments
profile image0

Old Poolman says

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.

19 months ago
 |  Comment
  • RJ Schwartz profile image

    Ralph Schwartz (RJ Schwartz) 19 months ago

    It sounds like the Senate is rock steady on not budging until the next President


  • See all 7 comments
Austinstar profile image88

Lela (Austinstar) says

You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.

19 months ago
 |  Comment
  • RJ Schwartz profile image

    Ralph Schwartz (RJ Schwartz) 19 months ago

    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?


  • See all 4 comments