You're beginning to hear this legal theory more and more as it becomes clear the Senate has no intention of taking up the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
Does President Obama have the power to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court without getting the Senate's approval? The legal theory rests on an ambiguity in the Constitution and some legal sleight of hand.
Gregory L. Diskant, a senior partner at the law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and a member of the national governing board of Common Cause, penned an op-ed in the Washington Post explaining the theory:
More @ PJ Media
This isn't rocket science....it's second grade English.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution states that such appointments are made
'with the advice AND consent' of the Senate. That's pretty
clear. If the senate refuses to consider the appointment....then NO CONSENT. If the Senate votes but fails to get 51 votes ( a current majority ) then NO CONSENT.
If there is NO CONSENT then Garland CANNOT BECOME A JUSTICE.
ANY OTHER ACTION is a violation of the Constitution.... something the SCOAMF has done on an almost continual basis
since infesting the White House.
Excellent analysis.
DeleteSuppose he goes ahead and does it, who would stop him? I believe there is a list on this site that shows many repub senators who will not block ovomits executive amnesty action. Why wouldn't he try it? If I were him and I had these pantywastes as enemies I'd be doing the same thing.
ReplyDeleteIf I were him and I had these pantywastes as enemies I'd be doing the same thing.
DeleteReally.)