Idle speculation.

[needledriver]

Suppose the Senate goes blue in November.

Suppose a Supreme Court seat becomes available.

Would the Senate be able to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland?

I mean, Merrick Garland was nominated by the President. Does it say anywhere in the rules that it has to be the current President?

Merrick Garland was never rejected by the Senate, so is his nomination still open?

[unblock]

1. presidential nominations expire at the end of the congressional session

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/garland-nomination-officially-expires/

Garland nomination officially expires

Nearly 300 days ago, on a sunny March morning, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. That nomination officially expired today at noon, when the 114th Congress came to a close.

Obama could have nominated Garland again as a matter of principle, or he conceivably could have attempted to install him without the Senate’s consent during the recent congressional recess. Instead, the president took the less controversial path of letting the nomination expire. Garland now resumes his duties on the court of appeals.

[needledriver]

3. Thank you.

I was hoping for a loophole.

I guess a Democratic Senate could refuse to consider any future Trump nomination on the basis of the McConnell Rule: no Supreme Court nominee should be considered while there is a Presidential Campaign under way. Trump has already filed for 2020 and can accept campaign contributions.

[Hortensis]

2. Yes, there is a rule. The current president nominates.

Now, if Trump had a Democratic congress he had to work with to get anything he wanted, he and congress could conceivably make a deal put Garland on the court in return for something else. Maybe his wall. Garland is extremely highly respected by colleagues across the board; he's fairly moderate and chosen by Obama to be as acceptable as possible to both sides, so it's not ridiculous to at least imagine in some world it could happen.

I'd just hope not to be standing too close to anyone whose hair caught on fire on learning that, but Trump's a completely undependable whackadoodle and his base should not be surprised at anything. Of course, they always are.

[Exotica]

4. I would take Garland in exchange for the Wall instantly (it will never happen)

[Hortensis]

5. Me too. A Democratic congress controlling Trump and

the minority Republicans is possible. In only 6 months now.

Sadly agree about Gorsuch. Since his very name was turned into a wedge issue that has their crazed base acting out big time, and he's definitely more liberal than otherwise, I imagine a compromise candidate would have to be someone else.

[Demsrule86]

6. Yes...we could refuse to confirm anyone Trump picks though.