President Obama should APPOINT Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here's How.
I'm not interested in grousing over the lost election, or pointing fingers over whose fault it was.
But more far-reaching than identity politics, party loyalty, who's worse, Hillary or Trump, yada yada, the biggest stake in the 2016 election was the future of the Supreme Court. 1992's "It's the economy, Stupid!" morphed into "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"
Bitch McConnell is now being praised for his shrewdness in not even allowing an up or down vote on Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. But maybe McConnell's sleazebaggery has backfired. According to the Washington Post's interpretation of the appointments clause of the Constitution:
“The president 'shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.' Note that the president has two powers: the power to 'nominate' and the separate power to 'appoint.' In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the 'Advice and Consent of the Senate.' What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing? [bold/italics added]
In most respects, the meaning of the 'Advice and Consent' clause is obvious. The Senate can always grant or withhold consent by voting on the nominee. The narrower question, starkly presented by the Garland nomination, is what to make of things when the Senate simply fails to perform its constitutional duty.”
Or as The Rude Pundit said: “It's like when a president refuses to act on a bill within ten days while Congress is in session. It becomes a law, no?”
I don't claim to have any sort of legal expertise, but I say go for it.
Labels: Merrick Garland, Supreme Court
posted by Tom Harper @ 12:50 PM
13 Comments:
That would be another interpretation of the Constitution not backed up by precedent, or tradition. Be careful what you wish for. A change like that could mean President Trump could appoint anyone he wanted without any vetting, which is what these hearings have given the people and the Congress. Don't give Trump the same powers Hitler had. Since the party in legislative power is the same party as the president advice and consent could simply be waived by inaction and Trump could appoint ANYONE he wants. Trumps appointments so far for other offices shows us the problem with no input from the other side, or even his own party. No Republican I've read has said anything negative about any Trump appointment so far. That's dangerous given the history of some of his appointments. Don't give up Constitutional checks and balances.
Luke: Interesting point. I don't have enough legal knowledge to tell whether the linked article was accurate or too optimistic. The scenario you described could happen, especially since no Republicans have publicly disagreed with Trump since he won the election.
What seems to be missed here is the transition of American governance from one that serves the public, with politicians who have a track record of serving the public's interests first and foremost, to one that joins the other third rate countries that allowed business interests to come first and foremost. That elect billionaire businessmen as leaders of their countries, that care only about facilitating profit. Rape, pillage and plunder.
Okay, go ahead and list the ways Obama served the interests of Big Oil, and so many other international interests. But he didn't run as a super rich businessman.
Think back to when FDR was President,"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." Not to hold him up as anything other than an example of when American society valued things other that the success of business interests. Remember when art, music, social studies and things other that "..what do you need to know in order to succeed in business" were valued?
And, we face this in the extreme now, as studies say 58% of animal life on the planet has gone extinct over the last 40 years or so, and that number is expected to be 66% in another 3 years! What more alarming information could we possibly hear, but, it is just back to " tax cuts for businesses" and business as usual.
Tom, do you really think a Supreme Court nominee by a Dem, a Repub, or any other of the current so-called "leaders" will face up to the urgency that confronts us? Really? Is it about NAFTA or the TTP? More trade deals, because "trade" and "jobs, jobs, jobs" are the only things of importance?
You wonder why our children are depressed, doing drugs, not engaged... and committing suicide?
Things have definitely deteriorated; can't argue with that. I too miss the days when art and music and social studies hadn't been swept aside in favor of getting the best and fastest degree for the highest-paying job.
About the only issue where I agree with Trump is scrapping the TPP, particularly those Investor Protection clauses where a wealthy investor can sue any American local government if their portfolio might be jeopardized by a workers' safety or environmental protection regulation. (That of course is not why Trump opposes TPP and NAFTA.)
As far as the Supreme Court goes, it would be fine with me if McConnell ends up setting a precedent, and justices who die or retire won't get replaced. Or if Obama can appoint Garland, as the linked article was describing. When Republicans are in the minority, they seem to pull out endless parliamentary procedures to bring everything to a halt. For some reason, Democrats either don't know about these tactics, or are too timid to use them.
Tom,
I would be in favor of this but, that time has passed. The Republican PArty successfully swiped this SCOTUS seat. Of course, it's going to have long term deterimental consequences for Americans (and in a more nefarious hidden way) but, there's no way Obama does this especially to Garland whom I *feel* would be obliged to obey the President but would be castigated by DC and the Media Villagers.
Grung: You're probably right. I thought the idea was intriguing when I first read about it (at The Rude Pundit), but most of the responses I've gotten (I posted it on Facebook as well) haven't been very optimistic. The GOP has pretty much swiped all 3 branches of the federal government. We'll have to see how it plays out. I'm trying to be optimistic, however...
What do you think of Allan Lichtmans prediction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-lfqQY-x80
I've heard this before, the professor who predicted Trump's victory also predicted his impeachment. I can't see it happening. Most Republicans are scared shitless of Trump; they don't even dare to disagree with him, let alone impeach him. If they decided to impeach Trump because of control issues -- they'd rather have Pence than Trump -- Democrats would probably vote against impeachment, IMHO, since it takes 67 Senate votes to convict.
It is an interesting prediction. I'm wondering why? Lichtman has successfully predicted the winning president since 1984. What does he have to gain from making such a prediction?
We'll see.
So, a few interesting developments to add to the conversations.
Trump declares HE is going to cancel Americas' participation in the TPP deal as his first action, and HE is going to re-negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world.
The United States currently represents about 4.4 % of the world's population.
Meanwhile, Chinese Premier Xi Jinping told the world he was the "Anti-Trump", and China will continue to make trade deals with countries interested. So, while Trump and America think they control the world economy, the rest of the world is making deals that don't need Trump, or America.
In other news, the USGS just announced new oil finds 3 times the largest found in America previously. In Texas. Controversial pipelines bring oil TO Texas refineries from Canada and Dakota become not economically viable as America, already the world's top oil producer, floods the world market with a products most of the world is investing heavily in to find ways not to need.
So, Trump, pandering to the Neanderthals in the US, is staking Americas' future in a resource with no market, as the bulk of the world's energy consuming invests in anything but fossil fuels. Trump tries to bully the world's economic community into accepting his views and terms, representing less than 5% of the world's population, while China, representing 20% (one in five humans on the planet) of the world's population, a leader in climate change conversion, offers an alternative.
Sure, the US MSM will blather on.
Did you see Xi Jinping's smile at that conference, a few days ago?
Interesting times here in Saudi America, the world's largest oil producer. I think this is at least part of the reason the DAPL company is acting so ruthlessly toward the anti-pipeline protesters -- if they can't get that pipeline up and running ASAP, they're screwed. Not only the economics of it -- being made obsolete by the huge oil discovery in Texas -- but there's a certain legal/permit window that will close in January. If the pipeline isn't up and running by then, they're out of luck.
The mainstream "media" blathers on, seemingly unaware, because that's what their corporate owners have ordered them to do.
Tom, it isn't that the MSM is necessarily unaware, although most Americans don't know much about what is actually going on (you remember 25% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, or " Sep 19, 2016 - A new survey on civic knowledge has found that only a quarter of adult Americans can name all three branches of our government."), but that the "machine" that runs our country doesn't want the topic discussed. The less the electorate know, the better. No "buzz", no problem.
Keep the public focused on the "prayers" at Dakota, and talk about a possible leak that might contaminate a river. But the daily pollution of the atmosphere, climate change, and the impacts already happening? No way. (That almost 2/3 rds of animals have gone extinct in the last 40 years is not serious enough to make us all stop in out tracks and say "OH SHIT!"??)
Locally, the oil companies continue to push pipelines and oil terminals, and the best the opposition can muster is "A possible oil tanker spill will damage our precious coastlines"?? What about the contribution of all that burned fuel, every day, to climate change??
The pipelines are not economically viable, anymore. Alternative sources of energy are already cheaper than fossil fuels, and getting cheaper by the day. Chinese industry, which dwarfs anything the US can contemplate, is already the top producer of alternative energy products. America can thump it's chest with feel good rhetoric, but that doesn't pay the bills (except for the MSM and PR firms employed by the politicians and their cronies/masters).
We continue to witness the Great American Myopia.
If it isn't the American view of all things, it doesn't exist.
A bit more reality for consideration. As our new Fearless Leader with such amazing business background bellows to his constituents that he is going to go toe-to-toe with China, he threatens to "impose tariffs as high as 45%", because under his regime, the US is "not playing games anymore."
Really?
Consider the list of US corporations operating in China, manufacturing the products that fill the shelves of Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, Staples, etc.
He also threatens Mexico. How many US corporations line the borders in and around Mexico?
Deport "illegal Mexicans"? How much are you going to be paying for food?
http://www.jiesworld.com/international_corporations_in_china.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home