6 ms·

I'm not sure it requires confirmation if it's filling a spot with an incomplete term.

koolba 10y ago
If congress is in session it'd require confirmation. The exception is a recess appointment but that's not going to happen as they're already keeping congress continuously open to block Garland's recess appointment.
- tiles 10y ago
  I thought they were going to enter recess to allow them to invoke a law that allows repealing decisions made by the executive within the last 60 days of sessions of Congress. Maybe I misunderstood an article on this?
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    News to me - would love to know more if you can supply a link.
    - bzbarsky 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act The summary is that within 60 legislative session days of a regulation being issued Congress can go through an expedited process (in particular, not filibusterable) to pass legislation that blocks the rule from going into effect. The catch is that the legislation still needs to be signed by the president, or you have to override the veto. But if you get a new president before the 60 legislative session days are up... http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/11/17/midnight-mulligan-the-congressional-review-act-rides-again/ http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/11/17/midnight-mulligan-t... has some analysis of how that might play out in this case.
      - anigbrowl 10y ago
        That's really interesting, thanks for sharing. I think your interpretation is basically correct.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  That trick of procedurally gavelling open a session and immediately closing it to avoid the recess disgusts me beyond words. The GOP basically opted to treat the Constitution as a dead letter through tricks such as these and refusing to even dignify Garland's nomination with a hearing. Besides the political ramifications I think it's sad that a guy who's widely regarded as a decent hardworking jurist will have his legal career remembered only as a political football.
  - koolba 10y ago
    Look it up. It was invented by Democrats, specifically Harry Reid I think. Live by the sword, die by the sword ...
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Yep, and I expect the democrats to give Trump the hell that the republicans have given Obama, especially if they get back congress in 2018. There is no room for niceties anymore.
      - akiselev 10y ago
        Thankfully, the Republicans have been laying out the battle plans of obstruction for two decades. Already there are a bunch of state Attorney Generals frothing at the mouth to sue the Trump administration to stop everything from nominees due to conflict of interest to blocking deregulation and neutering Department secretaries, the same tactics used by Republicans to obstruct all manners of policy. It's four more years of the same just with slightly different players and the Democrats already know what to do.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        The history of the democratic party leads me to believe you will be disappointed. We shall see.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      I did - here's a decent summary: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123002487.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12... I agree that the Democrats made their bed on that one, but they were at least holding hearings for most of Bush's senior nominees rather than trying to obstruct all his appointments. The refusal to even hear a supreme Court nominee this year shocked me. It would be understandable if Scalia had died close to the election but his seat has been empty for nearly a year now.

If congress is in session it'd require confirmation. The exception is a recess appointment but that's not going to happen as they're already keeping congress continuously open to block Garland's recess appointment.

tiles 10y ago
I thought they were going to enter recess to allow them to invoke a law that allows repealing decisions made by the executive within the last 60 days of sessions of Congress. Maybe I misunderstood an article on this?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  News to me - would love to know more if you can supply a link.
  - bzbarsky 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act The summary is that within 60 legislative session days of a regulation being issued Congress can go through an expedited process (in particular, not filibusterable) to pass legislation that blocks the rule from going into effect. The catch is that the legislation still needs to be signed by the president, or you have to override the veto. But if you get a new president before the 60 legislative session days are up... http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/11/17/midnight-mulligan-the-congressional-review-act-rides-again/ http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/11/17/midnight-mulligan-t... has some analysis of how that might play out in this case.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      That's really interesting, thanks for sharing. I think your interpretation is basically correct.
anigbrowl 10y ago
That trick of procedurally gavelling open a session and immediately closing it to avoid the recess disgusts me beyond words. The GOP basically opted to treat the Constitution as a dead letter through tricks such as these and refusing to even dignify Garland's nomination with a hearing. Besides the political ramifications I think it's sad that a guy who's widely regarded as a decent hardworking jurist will have his legal career remembered only as a political football.
- koolba 10y ago
  Look it up. It was invented by Democrats, specifically Harry Reid I think. Live by the sword, die by the sword ...
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Yep, and I expect the democrats to give Trump the hell that the republicans have given Obama, especially if they get back congress in 2018. There is no room for niceties anymore.
    - akiselev 10y ago
      Thankfully, the Republicans have been laying out the battle plans of obstruction for two decades. Already there are a bunch of state Attorney Generals frothing at the mouth to sue the Trump administration to stop everything from nominees due to conflict of interest to blocking deregulation and neutering Department secretaries, the same tactics used by Republicans to obstruct all manners of policy. It's four more years of the same just with slightly different players and the Democrats already know what to do.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      The history of the democratic party leads me to believe you will be disappointed. We shall see.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I did - here's a decent summary: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123002487.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12... I agree that the Democrats made their bed on that one, but they were at least holding hearings for most of Bush's senior nominees rather than trying to obstruct all his appointments. The refusal to even hear a supreme Court nominee this year shocked me. It would be understandable if Scalia had died close to the election but his seat has been empty for nearly a year now.