Obama could use 5 minute window to FORCE SCOTUS PICK Garland!

Gateway Pundit ^ | Jan. 2, 2017 | Ryan Saavedra

[HarleyLady27]

Obama has one last chance to force his pick for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, on to the highest court in the land.

Obama will have a 5 minute window known as “intersession recess” when he can force the move.

[mhx]

I’m just saying, if I’m in the Senate tomorrow just around noon, I might pull the fire alarm.

[Jane Long]

IIRC, it was posted (a while back), here on FR.

[HarleyLady27]

...good idea...

[JayGalt]

Apparently its just until Trump’s appointee is confirmed, maybe just a couple of months. I think he would be a laughingstock, not the resume enhancer you suggest but the stain of being willing to be used as a partisan tool to get back at Trump for winning.
An effect on his reputation like the loss of any the gravitas related to winning the Nobel prize after it was given to BO as a good will gesture.

[Qiviut]

This is not the article, but I believe it might be the same author - he makes the legal points (and 1 other at the very end) why ‘recess appointing’ Merrick won’t work:

The real reason President Obama won’t recess-appoint Garland Garland to the Supreme Court
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/29/the-real-reason-president-obama-wont-recess-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court/

I put nothing past Obama - he’s a brazen, lawless tin-pot dictator at this point, but trying to recess appoint Merrick just doesn’t look like it holds water.

BTW, I cannot keep this guy’s name straight - I know somebody with the first name ‘Garland’ & I keep thinking the last name is Merrick & it’s just the opposite.

[T-Bird45]

When does SCOTUS start hearing cases, March? They usually wrap it up by the end of May.

First Monday in October is the start of the session and they conclude issuing opinions on cases heard at the end of June.

[Qiviut]

IIRC, it was posted (a while back), here on FR.

*****************************************************

Probably - wherever I saw it, I quit worrying about Garland being a recess appointment after reading it. I just posted a link to another article by the same author (I think) of what I read originally - he’s stating legally why a recess appointment won’t work.

[onyx]

Right.

[Jane Long]

Thanks for the ping and link.

Happy New Year!

[morphing libertarian]

I can see it now. Pardon her at 10 AM appoint her at 1

[HarleyLady27]

Thank you for that article and yes that makes all the sense we need...unfortunately, is there a news site that checks to see what they write will hold water anymore?????

[txhurl]

snort!

[9YearLurker]

So this is interesting, I just came across Frank Luntz saying back on December 15th that he thinks there will be two new SC picks this year, based on who is hiring clerks and who isn’t. Hard to imagine a lib choosing that timing, so I’m guessing that Thomas might be getting ready to hang it up while Trump is in position to replace him.

Has anyone heard anything about this? I would take it a second pick could provide Trump a good opportunity to select someone not on his list, such as Cruz or Lee. Thoughts?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-people-who-could-cause-trouble-for-donald-trumps-agenda/

[cherry]

we’re talking Mitch McConnell here...

[Rockingham]

The problem for Democrats is that they would suffer hard blows from Republican colleagues in Congress angered by a Garland recess appointment. Despite the attraction of a slipping in another Supreme Court appointment, would Obama willingly incur the blame for angering the Republican majority in Congress and the state houses and rousing them to vindictive measures -- including possible federal constitutional amendments?

On the whole, Obama has preferred to avoid causing those kinds of problems for himself unless a major objective can be obtained and made permanent. In this instance, I think that the marginal value of a single Supreme Court appointment would be far less than the enduring discredit and blame that would fall on Obama. I think that he would prefer to let Clinton's defeat linger in the mind of Democrats rather than have blame and anger against him damage his standing, influence, and earning potential.

[Leep]

B.o. Should pardon Charlie Manson and appoint him.
As they both want to insight a race war.

[Hugh the Scot]

No, he can’t.

[Qiviut]

This issue should have been put to bed a long time ago but the presstitutes are basically reporting fake news (as usual) again.

[nwrep]

I file this under “Conservative hysteria”.

[morphing libertarian]

group hug tonight in our safe space