by Subjectivist » Thu 17 Jan 2019, 05:42:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'O')nce in a while I like reading parts of the Constitution, with an aim to see what things Trump can do to make the left outraged. I think I have found something:
US Constitutions Article 2, Section 2
2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:
I see nothing in this section which would prohibit Trump from nominating a new Supreme Court Justice right now. Since the government is shut down more or less, the Senate could do their hearings and usual investigation of the nominee and then send it to the Senate for a vote. Mitch McConnell could then just sit on the final confirmation vote until the buzzards start to fly around Ginsberg's house and vote in the new Justice. I like this plan and I think I'll mention to Trump in an email.
IMO that takes things a step too far. The White House can easily work up a list of names and fully vet them for issues and observed rulings while on lower courts. Properly done when the time comes the President can call in the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and share the 'short list' of three to five names and ask which candidate is preferred by said chairman and why. This was the practice up til around 1964 when LBJ inherited the office. The Chairman or sometimes the chairman and leading opposition would be solicited for opinions once a short list existed, the President would usually go along with the short list candidate most favored by the committee leaders, and the nomination would sail through in two or three weeks.
Today we get stuck with a rgetorical circus that might last two months or more, which is pathetic and serves nobody well. I think if this or any POTUS did as you suggest it would be a political disaster, described to the voters as an attempt to 'stack the court' and any other negative connotations they could tie to it.