Chief Justice Roberts denies bid to force Senate action on Garland nomination
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON Chief Justice John Roberts has denied a lawyers bid to get the Supreme Court to force the Senate to consider the high court nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.
Roberts on Monday did not comment in rejecting an emergency appeal by lawyer Steven Michel of New Mexico. Michel argued that Senate Republicans obstruction of President Barack Obamas nomination of Garland violates Michels rights as a voter under the provision of the Constitution that provides for popular election of senators.
Lower courts had previously dismissed Michels case. He filed his suit in the summer, well before the election of Donald Trump seemingly doomed Garlands nomination.
Meanwhile, Garland soon will resume hearing cases on the federal appeals court in Washington, where he serves as chief judge.
Read more: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/chief-justice-roberts-denies-bid-force-senate-action-garland-nomination/
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)That's grasping at straws big time. That would have been horrible. That could have opened up a big can of crap.
bucolic_frolic
(43,465 posts)Voters do vote for active representation. Obstruction is part of that?
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)He has no power to force the Senate to do anything.
melm00se
(4,997 posts)1) the case was dismissed because "Mr. Michel has not shown that he has suffered an individualized injury such that he can maintain this action."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2016/11/4911949-0-19994-mem-opinion-granting-motn-to-dismiss.pdf
2) The Constitution does not require that the Senate give advice and consent just that the President cannot take certain actions without that advice and consent. So the Court cannot (and should not) use its power to force action upon a co-equal branch of government.
bucolic_frolic
(43,465 posts)Obama has waited 9 months for disapproval and hasn't heard any
Does he take one of the loopholes some have talked about?
melm00se
(4,997 posts)but the president's power for recess appointment powers were significantly restricted in a 9-0 (non-partisan decision) Supreme Court ruling in 2014.
bucolic_frolic
(43,465 posts)at the beginning of the new session, when the floor is handed first
to the minority ... but it would create an uproar
onenote
(42,829 posts)It was a frivolous claim from the start.
turbinetree
(24,745 posts)and as for not looking into this constitutional questions, he should be impeached, he sure can decide if a building has the same protections as a human being.
This political "normalization" by fascist's is just BS, whoever this loser 62 million( serial predator) to 65 million of the votes puts before the senate he is not a legitimate judge to sit on that bench, obstruction is still obstruction and every republican is a fascist----------the moment they denied that vote for the presidents nominee that was the day and time this country turned into what's called a third world country, lock, stock, and barrel, and they own it lock, stock, and barrel and whole bunch of people are going to get screwed, worse
onenote
(42,829 posts)So let's see if he does that and what the result is.
(Clue: He probably won't and if he does, he will get turned down again. And if tries again after that, he'll get turned down again, until every justice has turned him down.)