or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 272

post #4066 of 5110
Thread Starter 
...
post #4067 of 5110

I was just thinking about this...  Obama formally nominated Garland, right?  Couldn't the Senate vote to confirm him following the election if they're afraid of the Hillary/Bernie/Trump domination?

Maritime lawyers?  Can POTUS withdraw the nomination and prevent the Senate from confirming him?

post #4068 of 5110
WTF would that question require a maritime lawyer? Or am I missing something?
post #4069 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I was just thinking about this...  Obama formally nominated Garland, right?  Couldn't the Senate vote to confirm him following the election if they're afraid of the Hillary/Bernie/Trump domination?


Maritime lawyers?  Can POTUS withdraw the nomination and prevent the Senate from confirming him?

There's not (to my sparse knowledge) anything textual that speaks directly to that question, but (in my half-assed opinion) there's not much doubt he could. And as a practical matter, what I know about Garland suggests that if the President who nominated him asked him to do so, he wouldn't hesitate to withdraw his own candidacy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by El Argentino View Post

WTF would that question require a maritime lawyer? Or am I missing something?

Pretty sure that was a joak.
post #4070 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Argentino View Post

WTF would that question require a maritime lawyer? Or am I missing something?

 

We do what we can in the CESpool to keep maritime lawyers employed.

post #4071 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I was just thinking about this...  Obama formally nominated Garland, right?  Couldn't the Senate vote to confirm him following the election if they're afraid of the Hillary/Bernie/Trump domination?


Maritime lawyers?  Can POTUS withdraw the nomination and prevent the Senate from confirming him?

I imagine that doing so would make them look like even bigger toolbags than they already do.

Can you imagine screaming for 9 months about how "we should let the next president choose, we won't even consider this guy, let the people have a voice"...and then flipping to "oh, fuck the people's voice, we don't want that, lets keep this guy".

I mean yeah, they are all years away from a reelection campaign at that point...but still.
post #4072 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I was just thinking about this...  Obama formally nominated Garland, right?  Couldn't the Senate vote to confirm him following the election if they're afraid of the Hillary/Bernie/Trump domination?

They could. They've already said they won't, but of course they could change their mind.


Like lawyerdad said, I assume Garland would withdraw if Hillary won and the Senate decided to vote on him.
post #4073 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

They could. They've already said they won't, but of course they could change their mind.


Like lawyerdad said, I assume Garland would withdraw if Hillary won and the Senate decided to vote on him.

While no dirt would stick to the Dems this would certainly be something I'd spend the next decade tossing into conversations regarding Repubs being cynical gamers of the political system.
post #4074 of 5110
Wait, he's going to withdraw if he thinks the Republicans would actually confirm him?
post #4075 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


They could. They've already said they won't, but of course they could change their mind.


Like lawyerdad said, I assume Garland would withdraw if Hillary won and the Senate decided to vote on him.

 

My point is this.  The Republican-controlled Senate is holding off any nominations because they think their guy is going to win the Presidency.  If their guy loses, they could confirm the nomination in the lame duck session because they can't go 4 years of Hillary going "we need another election before we can decide." 

post #4076 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

While no dirt would stick to the Dems this would certainly be something I'd spend the next decade tossing into conversations regarding Repubs being cynical gamers of the political system.

If life gives you lemons, I suppose. Certainly Obama wouldn't have nominated an older moderate like Garland if Scalia died Nov 9th. If he's faced eight months of obstructionism, wouldn't surprise me at all to see Obama capitalize on the change in circumstance.

The more interesting scenario would be if Trump wins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Wait, he's going to withdraw if he thinks the Republicans would actually confirm him?

Why fill the slot with a moderate when President Hillary has four years to put a younger and more liberal justice on the Court? That would be the cost of eight months of obstructionism from the Republicans, the literal price of letting the people vote on the issue.
post #4077 of 5110
Somehow I doubt Garland would be so enthusiastic about Obama getting to pick the "guy" (it'd almost certainly be a woman, but she might identify as male...) he really wanted, that Garland would be chomping at the bit to stand aside if confirmation was offered.
post #4078 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Somehow I doubt Garland would be so enthusiastic about Obama getting to pick the "guy" (it'd almost certainly be a woman, but she might identify as male...) he really wanted, that Garland would be chomping at the bit to stand aside if confirmation was offered.

Garland has to understand that he was going into this with a significant probability of being the sacrificial lamb in a stupid political fight. Whether he's enthusiastic about being a political football or not, he agreed to it and it's not unlikely that Obama discussed scenarios where he'd be withdrawn.

It's not uncommon for nominees to "voluntarily withdraw" when faced with certain political situations. I don't know that it happens with Supreme Court nominees, but there's never been a situation where the Senate refused to hear any nominees for a year either so we're in novel territory one way or another.
post #4079 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Somehow I doubt Garland would be so enthusiastic about Obama getting to pick the "guy" (it'd almost certainly be a woman, but she might identify as male...) he really wanted, that Garland would be chomping at the bit to stand aside if confirmation was offered.


Which is relevant to what, exactly? People willingly do things every day they aren't "enthusiastic" or "chomping at the bit" about. Since Garland seems to be pleased and honored to have been nominated, it's certainly reasonable to speculate he'd be disappointed if asked to stand down. Go figure!
post #4080 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

There's not (to my sparse knowledge) anything textual that speaks directly to that question, but (in my half-assed opinion) there's not much doubt he could.

You're forgetting the "no take backsies" clause from Article II.

Seriously, though: I'm not a constitutional scholar but I'm not aware of any precedent about this. It could make for an interesting Supreme Court case.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob