Forums

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

So back in April, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, there was a suggestion to appoint Merrick Garland without the Senate's rigmarole. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...301_story.html

There were lots of "no he can't" responsive Op-Eds. (See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-does-nothing/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ate/?tid=a_inl)

But why the hell not? I mean he can do it, they can sue, it goes to the Supreme Court.

I didn't read the responses, but three thoughts: (1) what's to stop the Senate from taking a formal vote to reject Garland in the face of the deadline? Filibuster?, (2) why would John Roberts seat him?, and (3) Why would the Roberts court ultimately uphold the gambit (bit of a luck of the draw on the lower court, I supposed, should it wind up 4-4).?