If the Senate doesn't act, Obama may be able to seat Judge Garland anyway

[Yo_Mama]

8. No, not a chance, this is a powers issue. 2014 went 9-0 (anti O admin) on recess appts.

"Consent" is a positive action. It means what it says. And the Senate is presumed to be a deliberative body, which does not engage in pro-forma, but in genuine debate and argument, which means that it may take a longer or shorter period to achieve consensus.

For a court to rule that failing to say "no" is the same thing as saying "yes" would so disrupt the powers relationship on treaties and appointees that I cannot imagine ANY Supreme Court we have ever had ruling this way.

I believe that the Senate will ultimately decide on the nomination, because I think public pressure will be a factor in an election year. But I don't think that the Court would tolerate an attempt to do an end-run around this clause in the Constitution before it became grindingly evident that the Senate was out of all historical norms. And the truth is, in the past multiple candidates have been withdrawn when it became apparent that they would not be confirmed, and that the confirmation process usually does take months.

As far as I can see, right now the process is still going on, with several Judiciary committee members having met with Garland.

What I would expect is that if it became apparent that historical norms were being transgressed, the SC might revisit their NLRB ruling. Some day. Not this year.