Thursday, March 24, 2016

Re: The U.S. Senate's refusal to perform its duty to nominate President Obama's appointment to the Supreme Court





“There may be a way for Obama... to force the Senate’s hand to do its job to consider and vote on Merrick Garland’s appointment to the Supreme Court and, if they do not, to seat Judge Garland on the Court without their action.

“There is a maxim in the law, from the Latin, ‘Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit’ (He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree). 4 Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd ed., § 1071.

“Thus, legally, consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident. A corollary is that if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so. This legal principle has been recognized by the Supreme Court (Justice Scalia, no less) in the case United States v. Irvine and 1st Trust Nat'l Assoc., 511 U.S. 224, 114 S.Ct. 1473, 128 L.Ed.2d 168 (1994). 

“For example, ‘the maxim qui tacet consentire videtur had also been applied, as between the parties, to certain mercantile dealings, as where an account current was sent to the party by letter, and no objection made to it within a given time, established by convenience or by commercial usage. * * *’ Poy Coon Tom v. United States, 7 F.2d 109 (9th Cir.1925).

“The Senate has a constitutional duty to ‘advise and consent’ to Supreme Court nominations made by the President. If they do not perform that duty and register their objection to the nomination within a reasonable period of time (the average time it has taken in the past to consider and confirm or reject a nominee is about 90 days), then their silence on the issue can legally be considered their consent to the nomination.

“This approach has been argued and discussed in detail with respect to executive department appointments (exploring arguments for and against) in a law review article by Harvard Law Professor, Matthew Stevenson, published in the Yale Law Review... See, ‘Can the President Appoint Principal Executive Officers without a Senate Confirmation Vote,’ 122 Yale L. J. 940 (January 2013) (Yale Law Journal). 

“Despite Professor Stevenson’s reluctance to apply silence as consent to judicial appointments,  he would argue that it can and should be so applied. [President Obama should] advise the Senate that if they have not acted to take up consideration (i.e., hold hearings and vote) on Judge Garland by June 30, 2016, then he will consider their silence on his confirmation to be legal consent and he will swear Judge Garland in as a Justice of the Supreme Court and seat him on the bench. 

“If nothing else, this may force the Republicans’ hand to actually hold hearings and vote, or Judge Garland will be seated and the issue can be litigated in the Courts. It may perhaps be the case to set a precedent that the Senate must do its job when a President nominates a justice for the Supreme Court.

[Fredrick Ford, the author of this viewpoint,] invites everyone to share this post with as many people as possible and bring pressure on the White House to consider taking this action” (Frederick Ford).


2 comments:

  1. from John Alletto:

    I also think it's the duty of the President not to put forth a candidate that clearly disagrees withe wording of the 2nd Amendment. You take an oath to obey the constitution, not change it at will or if you don't agree with it. There is Article V for that and the people should decide. In this case Obama is putting forth a candidate he knows will piss off the right.

    I think we need a new way to appoint SCOTUS using literal language of the articles. I truly believe it's time for a States Convention to clean up loose ends. We should also make the second amendment clear, add term limits to congress, give federal agencies less authority, balance the budget, better define the duties that an appointed official can perform, make clear the extent to which a justice can bend the literal language of the constitution and limit their terms as well. Define what constitutes political activity of the SCOTUS and finally limit campaign contributions by lobbies and super pacs by clarifying the 1st amendment. Free speech should not mean buying the government.

    The tax code:
    Companies that originate here and leave the country to avoid tax need a higher tariff on import/export to the US. Lower the corporate tax rates

    Congress/Senate has no incentive to reduce spending and especially waste. The Pentagon wants to spend 17 Million dollars on a study for the best pistol to be carried by our soldiers. There is a 526 page instruction paper spelling out the repuest for submission by gun companies.

    I think one or two manufacturers out there may already have a gun or two and might even make a volume discount. Glenn these people are out of control. We need to have a convention or this will never end.

    How did we let this get so far out of control?

    ReplyDelete
  2. From Richard Palzer:

    From what I've read, the Constitution is silent, so both sides are playing politics, which isn't hard to believe. My opinion--Obama should not appoint via yet another executive action; nominating centrist Garland was a smart move, putting the ball in the Senate's court--refusal to even meet paints them as obstructionists once again; their ploy should be to meet, which doesn't mean confirming. Actually, given that they're trying to judge (sorry for the pun) him as liberal, at least on the 2nd Amendment, I'm wondering whether they could delay and still be looked at as "doing their job."

    ReplyDelete