Why do you think they would not act on an appointment?
Because it is a presidential election year. Traditionally, the Senate does not confirm SCOTUS justices during a presidential election. See also: Merrick Garland.
Why do you think they would not act on an appointment?
Because it is a presidential election year. Traditionally, the Senate does not confirm SCOTUS justices during a presidential election. See also: Merrick Garland.
McConnell already said he would act in an election year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year/
That is only when the President is of the other party.Because it is a presidential election year. Traditionally, the Senate does not confirm SCOTUS justices during a presidential election. See also: Merrick Garland.
That is only when the President is of the other party.
Certainly, I agree with this. It's not much of a play, but it's all I can see Pelosi having.
Otherwise, it's a "court of public opinion" thing, where she prevents the Senate from holding a trial, and then tries to play the "an impeached President shouldn't be allowed to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court until the Senate settles the impeachment matter." The problem there, of course is a) the House would be actively obstructing the Senate from doing so, and b) at this point, any SCOTUS vacancy will happen in 2020, which is an election year. As such, it is doubtful the Senate would act on a nomination anyway.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the POTUS can petition SCOTUS to force the Speaker to transmit articles to the Senate
That doesn't surprise me.
And he would earn all of the criticism he would receive for doing so.
I would like more information on this mechanism. Asking a court to do something is a "mandamus" or "mandate" kind of action. Those are very limited, though.
I'm talking particularly about the situation in which the House of its own volition fails to take the articles of impeachment to the Senate. In the following congressional term, the new House will have no obligation to act on those articles of impeachment. Though, in the situation in which the House does take the articles to the Senate, and the Senate chooses not to dispose of them, that gets a bit trickier (particularly since the Senate has adopted rules that require them to dispose of articles of impeachment).
…
..
Procedurally, you may be right.
I've worked with legislative bodies before. And if I were counsel to the House (which I'm not) and they wanted to undo the articles of impeachment, I would still have them take an official vote on the repeal.
There was an official, recorded vote on the articles of impeachment. Symmetry requires the same kind of vote to cleanly repeal them. If not, it is another manufactured gray area.
I would like more information on this mechanism. Asking a court to do something is a "mandamus" or "mandate" kind of action. Those are very limited, though.
Yes, mandamus was the word I was looking for. Let see if I can go back and find where I read it. *I think* it was in a tweet from that goofy constitutional scholar guy.
And if there had been a Dem majority Merrick would have been on USSC already. It only became an issue because the Senate was controlled by the Reps.Obama was a lame duck also
So it appears that you are saying the Articles of Impeachment do NOT die with the end of the session. If a following House sessioncan take or send (or not) the same articles to the Senate (whatever "take" or "send" means) without going through the House rules for the impeachment again (which would be a new impeachment effort), then the Articles still have force. Particularly if is this is solely based on whether the House Speaker decides to send them to the Senate, versus a full vote of the House.
The following House would have no obligation to do anything, but I don't think it is the case that if the current House does nothing else the Articles are dead.
But really, there's nothing else for the House to do. It voted for the impeachment, it exists, and now the Senate has the sole power to decide what to do with it.
And because the Senate has the sole power to convict and pronounce judgment, either the impeachment exists now or it doesn't. Once the prez is impeached, the House's power ends and it is up to the Senate what happens next. If Nancy is saying the Senate can't move unless she sends over some pieces of paper, then she is saying that the prez has not been impeached yet.
I agree it would be much cleaner for a follow-on House to vote to repeal a previous House's Articles of Impeachment (as long as the Senate hasn't acted), but that would set the precedent that Articles of Impeachment do in fact outlast the House in which they were adopted.
I would like more information on this mechanism. Asking a court to do something is a "mandamus" or "mandate" kind of action. Those are very limited, though.
Here ya go T. Lex
Because it is a presidential election year. Traditionally, the Senate does not confirm SCOTUS justices during a presidential election. See also: Merrick Garland.