I just got an image of a bunch of GOP Senators eating beans and farting around the campfire. 
I think you vastly overestimate their productivity.
This seems to feeding into one line of thinking that has come upon on the Dope. But it is faulty.
The Constitution allows that the president shall nominate, and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, appoint…
This has been interpreted as a three step process, not a two step.
First the President nominates a candidate. Second the Senate votes to confirm. Third the President appoints. Steps two and three are optional. The Justice Department, IIRC under Bush, interpreted this to mean that a president could refuse to sign the appointment papers even if the Senate had voted to confirm.
So assuming Hillary wins and the Dems will take the Senate it’s not like Obama is in a race to withdraw Garland’s nomination before the current GOP Senate can vote to confirm. The Senate could then vote to give Advice and Consent but Obama could refuse to sign the appointment and leave it all up to Hillary.
bolding is mine
It has happened before with SCOTUS nominees. Sheesh fighting ignorance about SCOTUS nominees in days of yore is taking longer than I thought. President Tyler fought a recalcitrant Senate resulting in a vacancy of 841 days… more than 2 years and 3 months until after Polk took office.
Then Buchanan faced a similar fate, with a SCOTUS vacancy dragging on for 781 days… still more than 2 years, until Lincoln took office. Arguably Lincoln and the Senate were a little busy with other things so perhaps we can forgive them.
Aside from those two examples, six more vacancies were more than one year, but only once since World War II.
Completely missing the point of the proposed action …
No. Not missing the point at all.
Obama could threaten to pull the nomination prior to the election. And the Republicans will crow that they were right - that the issue of the nomination should be handled after the election and/or after the new president and Senate take office. Either the voters will punish the GOP or reward them. Either way the GOP got what they want. And if the GOP win the presidency and hold the Senate then their big gamble paid off.
But the subtext is a “watch what you wish for” lesson. The GOP could lose it all. Could happen.
What cannot happen is that Obama is stuck with a nominee. If the election splits and the Dems take the presidency but the GOP holds the Senate then perhaps Hillary would want to change the nominee. And perhaps the GOP would want to vote to give Advice and Consent in a lame duck session. But Obama could refuse to sign the appointment.
And if the GOP win the presidency but lose the Senate then Obama could again refuse to sign an appointment hoping that the incoming Senate could block an unacceptable nomination from Cruz/Trump. But that seems a more doubtful route, as the Dems would likely be happy to end up with Garland in that circumstance.
There was no question of Obama being “stuck with a nominee” and believing that was the point was completely missing it.
Once Hillary wins it will be normal course of business, cooperation, and succession for him to withdraw Garland. You just like to imagine otherwise.
No, their digestion works just fine. It’s their ideology that sucks.
I think about the theoretical possibilities, albeit excluding the fringe parties and assuming the control of the presidency and Senate will remain with the GOP and/or Dem parties.
And I excluded a tied Senate since the winner of the VP slot would break that tie.
A bit tardily, George Mason U. is reconsidering the name of their new Scalia law school: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/george-mason-university-antonin-scalia-law-school-name-change/index.html
I saw that. As it was April 1st, I thought it was possibly a joke.
The Antonin Scalia School Of Law’s acronym is ASSOL.
Already mentioned in the Stupid Republicans thread in the Pit.
Hahahaha. Are you actually suggesting that Merrick Garland can’t, or isn’t allowed to, make his own public statements concerning his personal beliefs unless it’s before a committee? When did that rule come in to being?
The point is that it’s futile.
Why would he want to provide public fodder for opponents to pick holes through before a hearing? What does he possibly gain by doing so? Advancing the hearings by a single second? Good luck with that.
If Garland decided to have a press conference about his beliefs doorhinge would be demanding to know why he’s not letting the senate deliberative process play out.
I can’t tell if you’re still trying to be funny, are being deliberately obtuse, or you really don’t understand.
It is not up to the NOMINEE to vet himself. This is not how it works. This is never how it works for any position, ever.
Did you ever hear of someone sending their resume to a future employer? That’s usually done before the actual interview, wouldn’t it?
I would let doorhinge issue his own statements. If I were you, that is. At least the statement would be correct. :eek:
Maybe he already did send his rezume to all the Senators. Are you privy to all the communications they’ve been having?
:eek: