http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-weapon-to-stop-obama-recess-appointment.html All McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., have to do is schedule what are called “pro-forma” sessions at three-day intervals for the rest of the year. Pro-forma sessions are brief meetings of the House and Senate, lasting but a minute or two – and sometimes, a matter of seconds. They help the House and Senate comport with the constitutional mandate of huddling every three days – even if they aren’t really doing anything. The House and Senate don’t conduct any business during these confabs. In congressional parlance, they’re sometimes referred to as just “gavel-in, gavel-out.” No votes. No speeches. Few words are uttered at all. The phrase “pro-forma” is derived from Latin, meaning “formality.” Congress doesn’t consider itself adjourned or on recess if it’s “meeting” every three days. And that’s all it takes to block a recess appointment for the rest of the president’s term.
Where in the constitution does it demand the Senate hold hearings? Where does it say the president can get tired of waiting and institute his own laws or non-recess appointments? Or the Federalist Papers or similar would do.
And if they choose not to hold hearings, then they are effectively waiving their right to do so. That is what a waiver is. It's like when someone is arrested. They have a right to remain silent. That does not mean they MUST remain silent. If they choose to waive that right, then that means they no longer will be silent and will testify. That's the consequence of waiving that right. The Senate has a right to hold hearings. But you are right, it doesn't mean they MUST hold hearings. But if they don't, there are consequences from that waiver.
I think Obama should make it very clear that he will appoint Garland at some specific date if the Senate doesn't take steps to do their duty of advise and consent. Then the ball would be in the senates court. They could try and fight it in the courts, they could hold hearings, or they could pull some parliamentary tricks. If the Republicans just did parliamentary tricks, i think they would look like total asshats by the public. It might force their hand to do more. It would do nothing to actually get Garland onto the court, but it might highlight the vitriolic blood coursing through the republican senates veins.
haha, what's going to go through your mind when neither Trump nor Cruz gets the republican bid, and they give it to Paul Ryan?
It means they do whatever they choose to do to approve or deny the nominee (in this case). There is no time limit because the senate sets their own rules. It doesn't mean "Harry Reid can do what he wants because he's a democrat but republicans can't do the same thing."
Obama can't appoint Garland if the republicans do Harry Reid's pro forma trick. No recess, no recess appointments. W could have done the same thing commie libs are proposing now to circumvent the constitution, and Obama so far has followed suit. If you don't like what the senate is doing, vote 'em out. 1/3 of them are up for election every 2 years.
Bullshit. Fantasy. They've declared they maintain their right. They haven't chosen to waive their right. "We won't hold hearings until the next president is determined" vs. "we choose to waive our right to advise and consent." Two very different things. Again, there's no timetable for the republicans to act. Obama cannot make rules for the senate, such as "have hearings by X date or else". The senate writes their own rules, per the constitution. Article 1, Section 5.
No it's your side that's ignoring the constitution. They have NO good reason to hold up this appointment.
Now, the Senate could simply hold a vote. WTF is supposed to be done if the Senate refuses? The advice and consent clause would be satisfied if they did. Republicans have been doing this for the past 8 years. Holding up judicial appointments is very Yertle like.
Sounds like a constitutional debate that would need to be settled by the Supreme Court. We all may have our opinions about the constitutionality of the President specifying a time frame for action and appointing a justice upon expiration thereof, but it is not our job to make that determination. If nothing else, it would be fascinating to see it play out, even if it doesn't fall in the President's favor. At the very least we'd get another precedent out of it.
To tell the truth, Im not sure 1) if it would be constitutional and 2) If I would support such a precedent. However, I think you are too quick often to determine based on your personal interpretation of the constitution what is and is not permissible. There are reasons that people become constitutional scholars and spend their lives debating many of theses issues. So much has to do with interpretation and exactly which word you focus on. But seems to me, that at least a decent argument can be made that it would be constitutional for Obama to appoint in these circumstances. Not saying it would be constitutional, but that there could be very coherent legal arguments made that would have the possibility of swaying the courts. And, inferring into much leeway you give towards legality if it is legal, than why shouldn't Obama do it?
There's a reason why no president has tried to trash the constitution like this suggestion. Obama can recess appoint. Of that there is no doubt. That and the bully pulpit are his two options. Get people to call their senators. Advice and consent isn't just a constitutional concept. It's a common law concept that goes back centuries before the USA was founded. It is well understood, except by those desperate to get around the constitution.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/senators-meeting-garland-face-critics-left-right The senators are doing their due diligence. Nobody but the senate can impose a rule about time limits. It's not like a veto where the president has X amount of time to veto or the law in question goes into effect.
Yes, the reason is that no senate has refused to consider a SCOTUS nominee before. So it hasn't come up. barfo
