General Discussion

Seeking Serenity

(3,299 posts)

40. Can't work. This idea starts with a faulty premise,

Wed Dec 7, 2016, 11:03 PM

Dec 2016

to wit, that there's window of time, even brief, when the Senate doesn't have 100 members (save, of course, for a resignation, death, etc.). It always does; it is a continuous body. The outgoing members still hold their seats until the new members assume them. And on January 3, no other motion (except one to adjourn) can be considered in front of the one to present the credentials of the newly elected (or re-elected) members. That motion takes precedence over any motion to confirm a nomination.

Also, since Garland's nomination dies when the Senate adjourns sine die, President Obama would have to renominate him on Jan. 3. But a rule of the Senate states that a nomination can't be considered on the same day it is received by the Senate.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A chance to confirm Merrick Garland on January 3rd? [View all] Starbuck2239 Dec 2016 OP

Heh. progressoid Dec 2016 #1

The republicans would scream and breathe fire, but that's nothing new. They scream and breathe shraby Dec 2016 #3

I say do it yeoman6987 Dec 2016 #10

Balls. That's what it takes. Mich McConnell has no problem referring to his. Nt Ninga Dec 2016 #2

If anyone thinks the repubs wouldnt do the same.......... Old Vet Dec 2016 #4

DO IT! mountain grammy Dec 2016 #5

Swing for the fences bucolic_frolic Dec 2016 #6

I'm not getting it MichMary Dec 2016 #7

I think this stealth strategy is best kept under wraps bucolic_frolic Dec 2016 #8

I think a surprise is already too late. Nt Auntie Bush Dec 2016 #19

A fillibuster would block the new senators as well. Tiggeroshii Dec 2016 #9

Maybe, MichMary Dec 2016 #11

The filibuster can be eliminated at any time. n/t PoliticAverse Dec 2016 #16

In therory there is time between when a Senators' term ends and a one new begins RAFisher Dec 2016 #20

Okay, thanks! MichMary Dec 2016 #22

That theory is wrong FBaggins Dec 2016 #26

Right. See the 20th Amendment. Plus there are other reasons it wouldn't work onenote Dec 2016 #35

Do it! We cannot let them usurp Pres. appointment power. The Wielding Truth Dec 2016 #12

Whatever pisses off Republicans makes me happy. DO IT! Gamecock Lefty Dec 2016 #13

it is what's right. mopinko Dec 2016 #14

Then let us enrage the Republicans IronLionZion Dec 2016 #15

Can we do that MichMary Dec 2016 #17

A Little Different Take DallasNE Dec 2016 #18

So they'd dispose of it by rejecting it or not voting on it. onenote Dec 2016 #36

Go for it ! bhowle Dec 2016 #21

Do it. Loki Dec 2016 #23

I hope they do it! DesertRat Dec 2016 #24

K&R nt ProudProgressiveNow Dec 2016 #25

I'd love it if they'd go for it. But I don't think they have the guts. n/t TygrBright Dec 2016 #27

Couldn't this backfire? Shrek Dec 2016 #28

why not try anyway, whats to lose? garland question is due a WH answer 12/12. Sunlei Dec 2016 #31

we'll see heaven05 Dec 2016 #29

I hope our President has more surprises for us before we enjoy him & family full time! Sunlei Dec 2016 #30

Is it shouting "Hey, is that Toni Tenielle?" & then voting while the Republicans are turned around? Bucky Dec 2016 #32

The House would just impeach Garland or threaten to. karadax Dec 2016 #33

The retaliation could be bad davidn3600 Dec 2016 #34

They will anyway...and we need to fight back... Demsrule86 Dec 2016 #39

Ain't gonna happen Dem2 Dec 2016 #37

Thanks Starbuck Cha Dec 2016 #38

Can't work. This idea starts with a faulty premise, Seeking Serenity Dec 2016 #40

"It's bold." It's also all over the Internet. WillowTree Dec 2016 #41

Yes, of course... Starbuck2239 Dec 2016 #42

Then by all means, go for it. I'll be watching to see how it works out. WillowTree Dec 2016 #43

Excellent Starbuck2239 Dec 2016 #44