Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jose Garcia

(2,612 posts)
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 04:07 PM Dec 2016

Chief Justice Roberts denies bid to force Senate action on Garland nomination

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts has denied a lawyer’s 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 Obama’s nomination of Garland violates Michel’s rights as a voter under the provision of the Constitution that provides for popular election of senators.

Lower courts had previously dismissed Michel’s case. He filed his suit in the summer, well before the election of Donald Trump seemingly doomed Garland’s 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/

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chief Justice Roberts denies bid to force Senate action on Garland nomination (Original Post) Jose Garcia Dec 2016 OP
I mean I want garlin voted on but the Supreme Court? yeoman6987 Dec 2016 #1
Roberts can tweak anything to suit his Republican principles and principals bucolic_frolic Dec 2016 #2
Lol it has nothing to do with Roberts being repube... cbdo2007 Dec 2016 #3
2 things melm00se Dec 2016 #4
So at this point bucolic_frolic Dec 2016 #5
the only option was a recess appointment melm00se Dec 2016 #7
A second option was mentioned recently bucolic_frolic Dec 2016 #8
He lacked standing just like the birthers lacked standing onenote Dec 2016 #9
Roberts is a racist and he is going to swear in a racist's, look at what he did on voting rights turbinetree Dec 2016 #6
Under Supreme Court practice, he could renew his application in front of any justice of his choice onenote Dec 2016 #10
 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
1. I mean I want garlin voted on but the Supreme Court?
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 04:20 PM
Dec 2016

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)
2. Roberts can tweak anything to suit his Republican principles and principals
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 04:33 PM
Dec 2016

Voters do vote for active representation. Obstruction is part of that?

cbdo2007

(9,213 posts)
3. Lol it has nothing to do with Roberts being repube...
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 04:43 PM
Dec 2016

He has no power to force the Senate to do anything.

melm00se

(4,997 posts)
4. 2 things
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 04:49 PM
Dec 2016

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)
5. So at this point
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 05:09 PM
Dec 2016

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)
7. the only option was a recess appointment
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 08:17 PM
Dec 2016

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)
8. A second option was mentioned recently
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 09:08 PM
Dec 2016

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)
9. He lacked standing just like the birthers lacked standing
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 10:45 PM
Dec 2016

It was a frivolous claim from the start.

turbinetree

(24,745 posts)
6. Roberts is a racist and he is going to swear in a racist's, look at what he did on voting rights
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 05:39 PM
Dec 2016

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)
10. Under Supreme Court practice, he could renew his application in front of any justice of his choice
Mon Dec 19, 2016, 10:49 PM
Dec 2016

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.)

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Chief Justice Roberts den...