 |
|
There is also an argument that Obama could just appoint
Posted on: December 28, 2016 at 22:53:56 CT
SparkyStalcup MU
Posts:
25122
Member For:
13.53 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Garland to the court because the Senate would have waived it's right to advise and consent by refusing to act. Again, highly unlikely, but it'll be interesting if either tactic gets any traction.
As the Supreme Court has said, “ ‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it."
By refusing to act, the Senate perhaps has waive its constitutional right to advise and consent. The president has the right to both nominate and appoint.
Edited by SparkyStalcup at 22:57:40 on 12/28/16
As the Supreme Court has said, “ ‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it."
By refusing to act, the Senate perhaps has waive its constitutional right to advise and consent. The president has the right to both nominate and appoint.
Edited by SparkyStalcup at 22:57:40 on 12/28/16
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
There is also an argument that Obama could just appoint - SparkyStalcup MU - 12/28 22:53:56
-