This will drive my GOP friends here crazy, but this is, to me, a perfectly reasonable legal argument. Washington Post: Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing
One day in law school my contracts professor looked at me and point blank asked, "What is a waiver?" I dropped my head, looked down, and lo and behold, in my written notes from the previous class was the definition, verbatim. I looked up and said "A waiver is a voluntary relinquishment of a known right." Whew! As a result, waivers are a legal concept I get, viscerally. I never thought about this before, but if the Senate fails to even give the guy a hearing, that sure does seem like a voluntary relinquishment of a known right, does it not?
It would be another move by Obama to ignore the Constitution. Weird how this pleases so many here. We have no Justices "Appointed" in history. Such a reading of his powers would make a mockery of the Constitution. It would change the meaning to Notify the Senate, ask their advice if you want, but appoint if you will.
That is flagrantly untrue. Eisenhower alone put 3 people on the court with recess appointments. barfo
Didn't the Senate confirm these appointment after they returned? Do you see this as the same thing? I don't.
I love how lib's pat themselves on the back when they think they one up a righty. And the other way around too. So funny.
The senate must give consent. If they don't vote, they're not giving the consent. How the senate chooses to give consent is up to them, they make the rules that govern the senate (per constitution Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"). Period. Wishful thinking. There's no waiver involved or given, either. In fact, the senate has explicitly said they reserve their right.
Barfo with the usual unwise position. http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alumni/uvalawyer/spr11/recess.htm By 2000 U.S. presidents made more than 300 recess appointments and only 34 were not confirmed by the Senate. However, the constitutionality of recess appointments does not make them wise, Motz said. After President Dwight Eisenhower’s three recess appointments (Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justices William J. Brennan and Potter Stewart), the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report saying that recess appointment should only be made under unusual circumstances, Motz said.
We'll see how this idea goes with sexual relations. You can just find a girl who can't talk and if she doesn't consent you just have to "appoint" yourself on her. Seems fair. Is trying to slap you a vote? Hmmm, kinda vague.
My name is not Eisenhower. I took no position here, I merely commented that appointments had in fact happened in the past. barfo
Those 3, yes. I believe there was one who did not get confirmed, but I'm not sure how that matters. Same thing? - no, not precisely. You didn't, however, state that this very same scenario had never happened before. You made the broader, and incorrect, claim that no one had been appointed before. barfo
There are parliamentary tricks that can keep the senate in session through the election. If the republicans lose, they might look at passing Garland if they think Bernie Sanders would appoint someone even further left. See what I did there?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/u...-could-signify-end-to-a-senate-role.html?_r=0 Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, began using pro forma sessions, lasting just seconds, in late 2007 to keep the Senate nominally in session and prevent President George W. Bush from making recess appointments.
