Posted on 11/22/2016 3:39:53 AM PST by chiller
.... if Congress adjourned for the year too soon, it could open a window to give President Obama a Supreme Court pick. That's because of a provision of the Constitution that allows the president to make recess appointments that can last two or more years. Now we get word that Congress is planning to adjourn early, which will give Obama an opportunity to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
This discussion is fairly complex, involving both constitutional and statutory law, so bear with me.
1) Why does Congress want to adjourn early? Members of Congress want to adjourn early this year so they can kill last-minute Obama regulations. ... According to a 1996 law, Congress has 60 legislative days in which to disapprove of presidential regulations.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I understand the sentiment, but suggest undoing recent Obie moves is less important than risking 2 years of a liberal swing vote.
We were warned about recess appointments prior.
This is an idiot move if they adjourned early.
High stakes intrigue here. Who trusts Obama ? Is Merrick more valuable on DC court which often decides what gets sent to a future conservative SC.
If there is a real danger of this, Pres-elect Trump could announce that if it happens, he will ask Congress to expand the Court to 11 Justices.
Obama has never missed an opportunity to stick his thumb in the eye of the opposition.
I wouldn’t put it past him. (any objection would be labeled ‘Racist’, of course.)
Wasn’t this already litigated with another federal court judge? I believe the conclusion was that only the Senate can determine when it is in recess, not the President. If the Senate says it’s in session, then it’s in session.
I don’t think he’d do that. Garland was only chosen because he seemed relatively moderate, to avoid controversy into the election. Now that that ship has sailed, he would stick us with someone truly vom-worthy. Like the chief counsel for ACORN, or the CEO of Planned Parenthood, or Mooch.
Of course, that gives President Trump the figleaf necessary to add two Justices to the Court to counterbalance this foolishness.
And why Garland? Why not go for the gold and appoint Hillary? Himself???
The New Congress is seated in early January - noon on the 3rd unless they set a different date - while Øbama is still in office. The House could and should Impeach him. Matters not that the Senate would not convict. He is gone on the 20th of January and would go down in the History books as an Impeached President.
Didn’t FDR call for “packing” the Supreme Court at one time?
Nothing in the Constitution calls for a specific number of Justices, and in fact, the Court could be reduced to a single member, and still be within the intent of the Constitution.
Or one of the more elderly of the Justices may die, giving us back the same conundrum we now have.
FDR tried this but it didn't fly. However, could congress reduce the size of the SCOTUS to seven? And then leave it to the President to choose which justices to fire?
-PJ
-PJ
Maybe someone will stay in town and read a book in the Senate chamber so they can claim to be in session
The wookie as a supreme court justice? I can’t even imagine that in an alternate universe.
Don’t see this happening. A Supreme court nominee is still subject to a cloture vote and then a confirmation vote.
check the article....statute specifies “next” session
check the article....there is a ‘good’ ? reason for early recess.
That is an interesting take (reducing number of SCJ & firing) but I wish I knew the answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.