The Constitution doesn't say the Senate has to vote, and eventually, inaction could be construed as consent--according to a Michigan law prof.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-supreme-court-the-nightmare-scenario-213776
Second--Dems have a procedural motion they could pursue to take approval away from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley seems to expect that to happen if the Rs insist on abdicating.
HOW DEMS COULD FORCE A GARLAND VOTE – Our ears perked up when Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, seemingly out of nowhere, floated an idea at an Iowa town hall this week: He’s expecting some kind of a vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland because Dems will use procedural maneuvers to force one. So from Orange City, Iowa, we explored the option: “The idea is not under active consideration by Senate Democrats, who are focused on pressuring Republicans to consider Garland using the standard political channels for Supreme Court nominees. But using a motion to discharge to try to force a vote could ultimately become a nuclear option of sorts for Democrats in the contentious battle to confirm Garland.”
--“A senator, presumably Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), would propose to discharge Garland’s nomination from the Judiciary Committee during an executive session of the Senate. Republicans would likely object, meaning that the motion would have to lie over one day, under Senate rules. At that point, McConnell could move to table the motion, which would require a simple majority vote to kill it. Republicans could also block Democrats from trying to enter executive session in the first place, which is otherwise a routine procedure. Democrats would need a simple majority to enter into executive session, but they control only 46 votes. The motion to discharge ultimately would need 60 votes to succeed, should the Senate reach that point.” http://goo.gl/78rGJM
Read more: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/h...-primary-in-pennsylvania-213482#ixzz44PwOcfvG
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Should be an interesting summer.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-supreme-court-the-nightmare-scenario-213776
Second--Dems have a procedural motion they could pursue to take approval away from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley seems to expect that to happen if the Rs insist on abdicating.
HOW DEMS COULD FORCE A GARLAND VOTE – Our ears perked up when Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, seemingly out of nowhere, floated an idea at an Iowa town hall this week: He’s expecting some kind of a vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland because Dems will use procedural maneuvers to force one. So from Orange City, Iowa, we explored the option: “The idea is not under active consideration by Senate Democrats, who are focused on pressuring Republicans to consider Garland using the standard political channels for Supreme Court nominees. But using a motion to discharge to try to force a vote could ultimately become a nuclear option of sorts for Democrats in the contentious battle to confirm Garland.”
--“A senator, presumably Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), would propose to discharge Garland’s nomination from the Judiciary Committee during an executive session of the Senate. Republicans would likely object, meaning that the motion would have to lie over one day, under Senate rules. At that point, McConnell could move to table the motion, which would require a simple majority vote to kill it. Republicans could also block Democrats from trying to enter executive session in the first place, which is otherwise a routine procedure. Democrats would need a simple majority to enter into executive session, but they control only 46 votes. The motion to discharge ultimately would need 60 votes to succeed, should the Senate reach that point.” http://goo.gl/78rGJM
Read more: http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/h...-primary-in-pennsylvania-213482#ixzz44PwOcfvG
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Should be an interesting summer.
