please write the White House to have the president appoint Garland to SCOTUS

[SleeplessinSoCal]

[bObama Can and Should Put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court
The outgoing president has one final trump card—and he should play it.

BY DAVID DAYEN
November 16, 2016

Come January, President Barack Obama will be consigned to the sidelines as Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office and begins the work of dismantling his legacy. But there is one action that Obama could take on January 3, 2017 that could hold off some of the worst potential abuses of a Trump administration for up to a year. Obama can appoint his nominee Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on that date, in between the two sessions of Congress.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

https://newrepublic.com/article/138787/obama-can-put-merrick-garland-supreme-court?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sharebtn

[FBaggins]

1. It wouldn't do any good

The Senate could bump him by the time Trump was in office.

[msongs]

2. the senate will NOT recess before 1/21 according to reports there will always be a few people around

as necessary to keep the senate formally in session, thus making garlands apptment impossible (that's what Ive heard about this issue anyway)

[longship]

3. He should have pushed the issue harder after he nominated him.

He had every right to nominate Garland and the Senate had the obligation to hear him out. Unfortunately, the GOP reneged on their obligations. I wish POTUS had pushed harder during the summer to get Garland through.

[davidn3600]

4. Everyone was assuming Hillary would have an easy win, including Obama

Obama probably thought Hillary would win. And then Garland would be quickly confirmed in the lame duck session to deny Hillary the chance to fill the seat.

I think that was ultimately Obama's plan.

[longship]

5. Well, that did not work out.

Obama missed an opportunity. Not sure it would have done any good, but he could have at least taken the high ground. He could have at least falsified the GOP lies. Unfortunately, he did not do that.

A missed opportunity, which we will all now sadly pay for.

[Skittles]

8. I agree

he fought for that like he fought for single payer and for the previous administration to be held accountable for their war crimes

[longship]

9. Well, I do not concur with you all the way.

I am not sure how single payer could have passed in any Obama era congress, let alone war crimes for his predecessor administration. Certainly, not the latter. Congress would be very cautious of such things even in a friendly environment. This especially since the Bush administration was, as one might say, water under the bridge.

I would have preferred a single payer attempt. That may have resulted in a better deal for everybody, instead of what we got, RomneyCare.

However, I think President Obama has had one of the most scandal free and brilliant administrations in my lifetime, which goes back to the 1940's. I think he's great.

[Skittles]

10. he never pushed for it

so we will never know

[longship]

11. You are correct. We will never know.

That is why I give President Obama the benefit of doubt. As should anybody.

His is the most unequivocally honest presidency in my lifetime, which goes back to the 1940's. The only one that comes close is Jimmy Carter, yet another completely ethical political player.

We have been blessed these past eight years. Regretfully, we will now be cursed, for how many years is uncertain. Nevertheless, cursed we are, and damned to the lower levels of Hell.

We are screwn!

[Skittles]

15. um, no

America needed to know how corrupt BUSH INC was - how they started a war based on lies, how they endorsed TORTURE - instead, they're allowed to rewrite history and POSSIBLY REPEAT IT

fuck that BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BULLSHIT

[longship]

16. I stand with President Obama, the most ethical president of my life.

Could he have prosecuted Bush/Cheney? I suppose that he could have.

Would it have done any good?

Who knows? Certainly neither you nor I do. (Unless one just wants to just make shit up about contrafactus -- events that never happened.)

[Skittles]

17. it is wrong, wrong, WRONG not to hold people accountable

you think it is OK, FINE, I DO NOT

DONE HERE

[longship]

19. My friend, you are delving into the department of make shit up department.

Neither President Obama nor congress prosecuted the Chimp presidency. So any speculations on any such outcome are based on "make shit up" since it never happened.

The USA has a very long history in letting go of such things. This goes all the way back to the founding of our country and those first presidents who were part of the founding.

I prefer to stand with them, although they might be similarly flawed.

I suspect that we will soon see about President Drumpf. That outcome is very uncertain, and a bit scary.

[canetoad]

12. Don't often disagree with ya Skittles

But on prosecuting bushco I'm convinced PBO did, for the country, in the long run, the right thing by focusing on rebuilding rather than retribution and vengeance.

[Skittles]

14. those bastards were never held accountable

now, that shit can be REPEATED, by possibly THE SAME PEOPLE

[SleeplessinSoCal]

6. This may be a desperate move, but one day there may be no Democratic Party.

I would read the article from New Republic. In the end it estimates...

There are consequences to one party being more aggressive about defying governing norms. If liberal legislation can’t break a Republican filibuster, but Democrats don’t offer the same resistance, the playing field is tilted to conservative policy. If Republicans use any maneuver to get appointees in place, and Democrats don’t, conservatives become more likely to be ensconced at executive agencies. If Republicans are willing to blackmail the government and Democrats aren’t, they get more concessions from that blackmail. If Republicans use gerrymandering and voter suppression and every available tool more sharply than Democrats, we get conservative government even if we vote for a liberal one.

Democrats, in short, bring a butter knife to a gunfight. They may be correct on the merits that institutional norms allow the government to function properly. But as long as Republicans don’t care about such niceties, that respect is equivalent to surrender.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

7. OR THERE'S THIS

On January 3, 2017, Democrats will hold the majority in the Senate for a few minutes, until the newly-elected Senators are sworn in. Biden could convene the Senate in those few minutes and call for a vote. The majority could then suspend the rules and vote in Merrick Garland.

The key here is that VP Biden would have to be willing to convene the Senate and recognize Senator Dick Durbin instead of Mitch McConnell. Durbin moves to re-nominate Garland, and Senate Democrats then vote to confirm him. They will have a quorum for those few minutes.

[jfern]

13. A filibuster kills that idea. And no, the Democrats didn't go nuclear for SCOTUS confirmations.

[FBaggins]

20. That's clever... but couldn't work.

A Senator's term begins at noon just as the departing Senator's term ends. There would be no time when we actually hold a majority.

Oh sure... there's a short period where new Senators arguably wouldn't be able to vote because they hadn't been sworn in, but the form of the swearing ceremony is not Constitutionally mandated. The moment Biden tries to hand the gavel to Durbin, they can all stand up and take the oath.

[RandiFan1290]

18. It's time to get along!

We will have more 'temporary' tax cuts that will have to be made permanent