Interesting analysis on the potential Jan. 3 Appointment of Merrick Garland

[Tiggeroshii]

That idea that's been going around of appointing Garland when the Senate meets to confirm the new Senators could hit some snags, according to this conservative blog I found. According to this guy, they would need to re-nominate Garland for the new Senate term and he cannot be nominated on the same day he is appointed without unanimous consent.

Anybody have a clue as to the accuracy of those statements?

Wonder if it could still count as a recess appointment, since there would need to be some kind of a gap between the previous term and the new term?

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/07/fun-left-wants-senate-dems-to-confirm-merrick-garland-in-a-three-minute-window-in-january-or-something/

[PoliticAverse]

1. Another analysis of why that won't be happening...

https://shugerblog.com/2016/12/08/can-the-senate-confirm-merrick-garland-or-hillary-clinton-on-jan-3d/

[Tiggeroshii]

2. Looks like both our sources reference the same person, Sean Davis

I think the only potential exception to this is if the Democrats can claim a "recess" in between the old and new session, since technically there has to be some sort of gap. In that case, it could pass as a "recess appointment, right?"

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. SCOTUS has ruled

that there needs to be a real recess, measured in days or weeks, not hours.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. I might be sold on this point, though from your link:

"Finally, a fourth point: we don’t want Biden to risk so much political capital and so much support by pulling this move. Biden may be a good nominee to run against Trump in 2020. I’m not suggesting he is the best option, but at this stage, he is one of our options with the gravitas, experience, and appeal to the Midwest working class to defeat Trump. That might be the best reason not to pull this move: defeating Trump is more important than any single office, seat on a Court, or piece of legislation."

The political capital may be too much to lose for a Supreme Court seat.

[MineralMan]

4. That's simply not going to happen. It's about as likely as

a re-do of the November 8 election. It's a nice idea, but one that can't really happen.

Now, if more people in more states had voted for Hillary Clinton, we'd be looking at a different situation. That didn't happen either, though. More's the freaking pity!

[Tiggeroshii]

5. :(

[kudzu22]

6. No chance in Hell

First of all, all it would take to stop it is for one senator to move to recognize the new senators. Per senate rules, this motion is always in order and takes precedence over any other business.

Second, if it were possible, I'm sure it would have been done before already.

Third, if they were to somehow pull it off, you can bet that Trump would expand the court to fifteen members and add six of the rightest-of-right-wing jurists you've ever seen to nullify the democrats' trickery.

[budkin]

8. Merrick has no chance... conservatives won

It's eating me up inside but they fucking stole that shit and we aren't getting it back.