With Biden in the chair on Jan. 3, the Senate can confirm a renominated Merrick Garland. - Polidicks

Warning: biased sites ahead. [QUOTE]Here’s an idea to ponder as a sort of closing act for the Obama administration and/or and opening salvo from Senate Democrats: a mechanism for confirming Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. As we’re all aware, congressional elections in November determined the makeup of the entirety of the House of Representatives, as well as one-third of the Senate. The Senate, of course, elects one-third of its membership every two years, such that the six-year terms are staggered among three “classes,” and two-thirds of the Senate membership remain incumbent in office even during elections and post-election transition periods.[URL="http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am20.html"]At noon on January 3[/URL], 2017, the terms of the current members of the Senate’s [URL="http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/senators_cfm.cfm?Class=3"]Class III[/URL] will come to an end. At that point, the Senate consists of 66 sitting senators, and we would ordinarily expect Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as [URL="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_3_4-5.html"]Senate president[/URL] (in which role he continues to serve until noon on January 20th), to begin swearing in the senators-elect of the new Class III. Typically, the swearing-in would be the first order of business, although occasionally there are brief welcoming remarks from the Majority and Minority Leaders, the Majority Leader traditionally being afforded preferential recognition by the presiding officer. That is, he gets to speak first, if anyone has anything to say before things get started. But when Biden looks out over the Senate floor—in what will likely be one of his last official acts—he’ll see 66 currently sworn and serving senators, 34 of whom will be Democrats, two who are independents, and 30 who are Republicans. At that moment you might wonder, then, just who constitutes the “majority,” and therefore who the Majority Leader actually is. In fact, as the numbers tell us, Democrats will make up the majority of the Senate, and their leader might arguably be entitled to preferential recognition. This situation has surely occurred before. It’s just never mattered. And so in all likelihood, absent some other plan, we would expect Biden to afford that privilege to Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the current Majority Leader, who’s expected to continue in that role in the new Congress. Suppose, though, that there [I]is[/I] another plan. Suppose Biden instead chooses to recognize the sitting Democrats as the majority, that being the then-current truth of the matter? And suppose, therefore, he chose to recognize the Democratic floor leader first? Now, we all understand that Chuck Schumer of New York is slated to become the Minority Leader in 2017. But at that point, he’s merely one of the 34 senators-elect waiting to take the oath and begin his term. Dick Durbin of Illinois is, at that moment, the highest ranking Democratic floor leader. So suppose Biden were to recognize Durbin first, and grant him the floor for opening remarks?[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/6/1606610/-With-Biden-in-the-chair-on-Jan-3-the-Senate-can-confirm-a-renominated-Merrick-Garland-Here-s-how[/URL] [QUOTE][B]On January 3, 2017, Democrats will hold the majority in the Senate for a few minutes, until the newly-elected Senators are sworn in. Biden could convene the Senate in those few minutes and call for a vote. The majority could then suspend the rules and vote in Merrick Garland. [/B][/QUOTE] [URL]http://crooksandliars.com/2016/12/senate-democrats-have-one-shot-saving[/URL] If they only had the balls to do this.

That would be a hell of a power move

Do it, Trump will very likely have other seats he can fill and it'll be nice to have a supreme court at the end of these 4 years that isn't heavily skewed towards the right.

Wew, those are some pretty...interesting sources. That being said, would be impressive given such a short time window. Wonder what possible counters could occur, if any?

I don't care what party you're a part of, Garland's waited long enough.

Would this be worth any lost political capital or potential backlash from the Republicans?

That's some House of Cards drama right there. Would be cool to see it happen.

Would this not give Trump some validity to his whole (utterly stupid) shtick about "the corruption of Congress" and all that jazz?

All I have to say is, don't do it. Don't twist the system anymore. It needs to be corrected not destroyed further. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html]Joe Biden helped legitimize the act of holding out on a Supreme Court nominee.[/url] Don't let him legitimize the act of using the small window between dismissal of Senators who lost their seat, and the swearing in of new Senators, to pass legislation or give consent to Supreme Court nominees. If this act is legitimized then it will be used again in the future. And possibly by another party or for another act you are not so sympathetic to.

Having effectively ever check and balance controlled by one party (either party) would be bad, this should be done.

Considering SCOTUS justices are appointed for life, I would approve this tactic in a heartbeat.

[QUOTE=Chaitin;51493539]Considering SCOTUS justices are appointed for life, I would approve this tactic in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE] Will you approve of this 4 years from now when there is another SCOTUS opening and the Republicans do the same thing to get a conservative judge in there?

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51493548]Will you approve of this 4 years from now when there is another SCOTUS opening and the Republicans do the same thing to get a conservative judge in there?[/QUOTE] It seems you can predict the future. How do you know that it will happen again in the exact same scenario?

[QUOTE=Chaitin;51493587]It seems you can predict the future. How do you know that it will happen again in the exact same scenario?[/QUOTE] You never know. Should just hang tight and let the republicans let their pick in honestly.

[QUOTE=Chaitin;51493587]It seems you can predict the future. How do you know that it will happen again in the exact same scenario?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the Democrats weren't thinking of this when they moved to legitimize blocking a Supreme Court nominee in 1992.

This is [URL="http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/12/07/fake-news-left-will-believe/"]fake news[/URL]. [QUOTE=Chaitin;51493587]It seems you can predict the future. How do you know that it will happen again in the exact same scenario?[/QUOTE] The point is you never use a tactic you wouldn't let the opposition use. Doing so runs counter to the whole democracy thing where everyone is able to use the same tools and methods.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51493548]Will you approve of this 4 years from now when there is another SCOTUS opening and the Republicans do the same thing to get a conservative judge in there?[/QUOTE] Depends. Have they delayed their nomination for an entire year?

[QUOTE=Kigen;51493638]I'm pretty sure the Democrats weren't thinking of this when they moved to legitimize blocking a Supreme Court nominee in 1992.[/QUOTE] Especially Biden when he criticized the Republicans for blocking the nomination for the next president to do yet he was the first one to do such a thing.

[QUOTE=benwaddi;51493743]This is [URL="http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/12/07/fake-news-left-will-believe/"]fake news[/URL]. The point is you never use a tactic you wouldn't let the opposition use. Doing so runs counter to the whole democracy thing where everyone is able to use the same tools and methods.[/QUOTE] Okay, so now that we know about this what's going to happen if the republicans try to use it after we've reused to? I wouldn't put it past them, and I doubt that "honorably doing as the democrats did and leaving it alone" is really in their play book. How do we know that it won't be legitimized later by the republicans?

[QUOTE=benwaddi;51493743]This is [URL="http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/12/07/fake-news-left-will-believe/"]fake news[/URL]. [/QUOTE] "Is There Any Fake News the Left Will Not Believe?" Top tier headline. Rich, considering that fake news creators themselves have come forward after being discovered and admitted that it's much easier to get a conservative to fall for something like "HILLARY ATE A BABY ONCE!!" than it is to get a "Liberal" to fall for something that sounds vaguely possible.

Not sure how I feel about this, on the one hand Garland should be confirmed, and the block has been some serious bullshit, but on the other, the tactic detailed in the article just sounds really scummy. I'm not well-versed in this matter but it seems like the kind of political move that justifiably enrages a lot of people.

Doing a move like that feeds the rogue Elephant, not pacify it. You want Ohio going 10+ years Red? Or any other swing state?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51493494]Would this be worth any lost political capital or potential backlash from the Republicans?[/QUOTE] the republicans are planning to do fuckall for the democrats anyways, they would consider this taking the government hostage but then again its not like the republicans haven't done this over and over again...

Isn't Biden like the Democratic version of Trump?

too bad corporate Dems are paid to lose, paid to be spineless

[QUOTE=DaMastez;51493516]Having effectively ever check and balance controlled by one party (either party) would be bad, this should be done.[/QUOTE] Like from 2008-2010, when the Democrats had both houses of Congress and the White House? Don't act like this has never happened in modern politics...