- Joined
- Dec 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Reaction score
- 806
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I came across this article last night and found it a fascinating interpretation of the Constitution. Here is an excerpt from the Opinion piece.
The whole piece can be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html
I think it is an interesting argument, and it sets up a President vs. Congress conflict that could redefine the balance of power. I think there are valid points brought forward in this piece, but at the same time I think there are significant short-term POLITICAL implications, that people will first and foremost be concerned over. I prefer to put aside politics and look at the Constitutional impacts and the long term political affects of this move.
With this all in mind, does Obama need Senate approval to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?
Here’s how that would work. The president has nominated Garland and submitted his nomination to the Senate. The president should advise the Senate that he will deem its failure to act by a specified reasonable date in the future to constitute a deliberate waiver of its right to give advice and consent. What date? The historical average between nomination and confirmation is 25 days; the longest wait has been 125 days. That suggests that 90 days is a perfectly reasonable amount of time for the Senate to consider Garland’s nomination. If the Senate fails to act by the assigned date, Obama could conclude that it has waived its right to participate in the process, and he could exercise his appointment power by naming Garland to the Supreme Court.
The whole piece can be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html
I think it is an interesting argument, and it sets up a President vs. Congress conflict that could redefine the balance of power. I think there are valid points brought forward in this piece, but at the same time I think there are significant short-term POLITICAL implications, that people will first and foremost be concerned over. I prefer to put aside politics and look at the Constitutional impacts and the long term political affects of this move.
With this all in mind, does Obama need Senate approval to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?