• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Obama need the Senate to appoint Merrick Garland?

Does Obama need Senate approval in order to appoint Merrick Garland?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 78.9%

  • No

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • Total voters
    19
iacardsfan said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think there is a very good chance that:

(1) Garland would refuse to participate in this kind of charade (which is almost certainly unconstitutional) and/or

(2) The Supreme Court would refuse to welcome him to the bench and would probably receive support from Congress.

I think opinion on this would be nearly unanimous outside of the White House. A recess appointment? Sure. A permanent appointment? No. I think you would have a unanimous majority of the Court (or near unanimous) that would conclude that refusing to hold a hearing is tantamount to not offering its consent.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if the President has the ability to seat a Supreme Court Justice via a recess appointment.
Click to expand...

Here's a lazy copy/paste from wiki...

Presidents since George Washington have made recess appointments. Washington appointed South Carolina judge John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the United States during a congressional recess in 1795. Because of Rutledge's political views and occasional mental illness, however, the Senate rejected his nomination, and Rutledge attempted suicide and resigned.

New Jersey judge William J. Brennan was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 by a recess appointment. This was done in part with an eye on the presidential campaign that year; Eisenhower was running for reelection, and his advisors thought it would be politically advantageous to place a northeastern Catholic on the court. Brennan was promptly confirmed when the Senate came back into session. Eisenhower, in a recess appointment, designated Charles W. Yost as United States Ambassador to Syria.[1] Eisenhower made two other recess appointments, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice Potter Stewart.

George H. W. Bush appointed Lawrence Eagleburger Secretary of State during a recess in 1992; Eagleburger, as Deputy Secretary of State, had in effect filled that role after James Baker resigned.
Click to expand...
 
reinoe said:
Here's a lazy copy/paste from wiki...
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I thought that Supreme Court Justices were different.

Bottom line, considering Obama's previous shenanigans with recess appointments to the NLB that were rejected by the Supreme Court, I'd be surprised if the Senate actually declared a recess any time before Obama leaves office, making the point moot.
 
Well, the question was "to appoint", so no. The president alone appoints.


The senate confirms.
 
Sherman123 said:
<snip>
(2) The Supreme Court would refuse to welcome him to the bench and would probably receive support from Congress.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Good point. I had not thought of that. Without the administration of the oaths, he cannot participate in Court duties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom