Congress

philly_bob

(2,427 posts) Sun Nov 11, 2018, 11:46 PM Nov 2018

Is control of House enough to block a Supreme Court nomination

the way that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland?

Serious question.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is control of House enough to block a Supreme Court nomination (Original Post) philly_bob Nov 2018 OP

No still_one Nov 2018 #1

No the house has nothing to do with scotus picks Fullduplexxx Nov 2018 #2

Nope, that is done in the Senate. nt procon Nov 2018 #3

No, Supreme Court nominees are confirmed by the Senate, The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #4

The House has no formal voting role in Supreme Court nominations. PoliticAverse Nov 2018 #5

Respectfully, have you read the Constitution? (n/t) PJMcK Nov 2018 #6

NO, but yes..?? aeromanKC Nov 2018 #7

No. nt JayhawkSD Nov 2018 #10

The Constitutional answer is no. But I've been thinking of ways House Democrats could use Aristus Nov 2018 #8

Dream on. JayhawkSD Nov 2018 #11

I was wondering that too. BigmanPigman Nov 2018 #9

still_one

(96,523 posts)

1. No

Reply to philly_bob (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2018, 11:48 PM

Nov 2018

Fullduplexxx

(8,258 posts)

2. No the house has nothing to do with scotus picks

Reply to philly_bob (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2018, 11:48 PM

Nov 2018

procon

(15,805 posts)

3. Nope, that is done in the Senate. nt

Reply to philly_bob (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2018, 11:49 PM

Nov 2018

The Velveteen Ocelot

(120,830 posts)

4. No, Supreme Court nominees are confirmed by the Senate,

Reply to philly_bob (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2018, 11:51 PM

Nov 2018

and the House is not involved.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)

5. The House has no formal voting role in Supreme Court nominations.

Reply to philly_bob (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 12:00 AM

Nov 2018

Garland was blocked because the Republicans controlled the Senate which has an "advise and consent" role
in court nominations.

PJMcK

(22,886 posts)

6. Respectfully, have you read the Constitution? (n/t)

Reply to philly_bob (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 12:05 AM

Nov 2018

aeromanKC

(3,479 posts)

7. NO, but yes..??

Reply to philly_bob (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 12:13 AM

Nov 2018

If the House Dems would have had Subpoena power during Kavanaugh, could they have done anything..??

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)

10. No. nt

Reply to aeromanKC (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 01:18 AM

Nov 2018

Aristus

(68,328 posts)

8. The Constitutional answer is no. But I've been thinking of ways House Democrats could use

Reply to philly_bob (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 12:14 AM

Nov 2018

their new-found power for good.

If, God prohibit, Trump gets to name a new SCOTUS nominee, if he's far enough to the right to cause concern, the House may gently remind Trump of all the nasty things that could happen to him if any of the laws he has broken are investigated and subpoenaed by the Democratic majority. Then they could politely ask him: "Would you like to come down to the House conference chamber and discuss your new Supreme Court nominee?"

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)

11. Dream on.

Reply to Aristus (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 01:19 AM

Nov 2018

The word for that is extortion. It is illegal in all fifty states.

BigmanPigman

(52,241 posts)

9. I was wondering that too.

Reply to philly_bob (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2018, 12:25 AM

Nov 2018

Reply to this discussion