January 3rd threat to 2nd

[Old TexMex]

January 3rd: the Senate will temporarily be majority anti 2A Democrat. This could result in SCOTUS appointment of a dedicated gun control Justice (Merrick Garland). Joe Biden is (edit would be spearheading this move, petitioned by Daily Kos.
Don't forget to impress on your senator to act against this, when you send him a New Years Day greeting.
Find your Senator here:
U.S. Senate: Senators of the 114th Congress

 

[johngalt]

Don't Supreme Court nominees still require 60 votes to stop a fillibuster? I thought Harry Reid's 'nuclear option' only affected lower court judges.

 

[GaryS]

Yes. I don't see how the Democrats will have a majority since they didn't pick up enough votes to get any sort of majority.

Plus ANY one Senator can hold up the process with an objection.

Don't Supreme Court nominees still require 60 votes to stop a fillibuster? I thought Harry Reid's 'nuclear option' only affected lower court judges.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I am not 100% sure this thread is within the purview of the 2nd Amendment Forum, but since Garland's previous rulings with regard to the 2nd Amendment could be seen as less than favorable to the cause, I supposed it's in the neighborhood.

This is theoretically how it would work, quoted from the petition website. Joe Biden is not spearheading the effort, but rather is the target of the petition.

Sign the Petition to Joe Biden and Senate Democrats - Confirm Merrick Garland to Supreme Court

"At 12:00 noon on January 3, 2017 (according to the Constitution), the terms of 34 U.S. Senators will expire. At that point, the Senate will briefly consist of 66 sitting senators—until Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president, begins swearing in the senators-elect.

Before Biden begins the proceedings, he has a chance to preside over a Senate that consists of 34 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with Democrats and 30 Republicans—as the remaining Senators are in limbo of being newly sworn in. At this point, Democrats could ask to finish Senate business as it pertains to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland."

The Petition fails to recognize the long standing and highly structured rules of the Senate for the first day of a new Congress, as set forth by the Senate itself. Any change would have required agreement by the previous Congress, which did not happen.

The general procedure, a small part of which is quoted below, is found here: The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the Senate Floor

This is the last schedule, from 2015, but the principles remain the same.

"The Constitution mandates that Congress convene at noon on January 3, unless the preceding Congress by law designated a different day. P.L. 113-201 set January 6, 2015, as the convening date of the 114 th Congress. The Senate follows a well-established routine on the opening day of a new Congress. The proceedings include

• swearing in Senators elected or re-elected in the most recent general election (approximately one-third of the Senate);

• establishing the presence of a quorum;

• adopting administrative resolutions;

• adopting standing orders for the new Congress;

• agreeing by unanimous consent to any date, other than the convening date, on which bills and joint resolutions may begin to be introduced; and

• electing a new President pro tempore and one or more Senate officers if there is a vacancy or change in party control.

The majority and minority leaders usually make welcoming remarks during the day’s proceedings. If an election to a Senate seat is undecided or subject to consideration by the Senate, the majority leader and other Senators might address the Senate’s posture on that election. Other first-day activities may occur as a consequence of specific circumstances, such as providing for a joint session with the House to count electoral votes after a presidential election. After Senators are sworn or after organizational proceedings are completed, the Senate may turn to legislative or executive business or other activities."

The important part is that the new Senators are sworn in before a quorum is established.

 

[DWalt]

There are several circumstances under which it is possible that Garland could be appointed as judge without a vote of the Senate. However, those would set new precedents which are scary enough that it is doubtful that either party would support such actions for fear of getting bit in the rear in the future. We'll see, but I doubt anything will happen regarding Garland. And yes, any situation involving Garland getting to the SCOTUS definitely has grave Second Amendment implications. No doubt whatsoever.

 

[Chrisj357]

Done

January 3rd: the Senate will temporarily be majority anti 2A Democrat. This could result in SCOTUS appointment of a dedicated gun control Justice (Merrick Garland). Joe Biden is spearheading this move, petitioned by Daily Kos.
Don't forget to impress on your senator to act against this, when you send him a New Years Day greeting.
Find your Senator here:
U.S. Senate: Senators of the 114th Congress

Sent to Marco Rubio

 

[Old TexMex]

I am not 100% sure this thread is within the purview of the 2nd Amendment Forum, but since Garland's previous rulings with regard to the 2nd Amendment could be seen as less than favorable to the cause, I supposed it's in the neighborhood.

This is theoretically how it would work, quoted from the petition website. Joe Biden is not spearheading the effort, but rather is the target of the petition.

Sign the Petition to Joe Biden and Senate Democrats - Confirm Merrick Garland to Supreme Court

"At 12:00 noon on January 3, 2017 (according to the Constitution), the terms of 34 U.S. Senators will expire. At that point, the Senate will briefly consist of 66 sitting senators—until Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as Senate president, begins swearing in the senators-elect.

Before Biden begins the proceedings, he has a chance to preside over a Senate that consists of 34 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with Democrats and 30 Republicans—as the remaining Senators are in limbo of being newly sworn in. At this point, Democrats could ask to finish Senate business as it pertains to President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland."

The Petition fails to recognize the long standing and highly structured rules of the Senate for the first day of a new Congress, as set forth by the Senate itself. Any change would have required agreement by the previous Congress, which did not happen.

The general procedure, a small part of which is quoted below, is found here: The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the Senate Floor

This is the last schedule, from 2015, but the principles remain the same.

"The Constitution mandates that Congress convene at noon on January 3, unless the preceding Congress by law designated a different day. P.L. 113-201 set January 6, 2015, as the convening date of the 114 th Congress.
etc
etc

The important part is that the new Senators are sworn in before a quorum is established.

Muss, thanks for putting the "entire" up for the crew here to read. (I should've done that m'self)
It is definitely 2A related if anyone interested has heard Hon. Garlands position regarding said Amendment
As far as he Vice President "not spearheading" and being "a target", I edited, accordingly.

 

[SMSgt]

Sent to Marco Rubio

Like he's going to show up...

 

[Kevin J.]

I don't see, or maybe it's just that I still believe in our system, but a nominee with any respect for the Court would/could not accept the nomination under those circumstances. The justice would forever be tainted and the Court permanently damaged.

But never say never.

 

[the ringo kid]

Couldnt the Pres Elect just nullify this??

 

[GaryS]

The Senate, not being in recess for over three days, the President can't make a recess appointment. Nor will the Senate rules allow a vote without the nominee going through the hearing process. Cry as they might the Democrats can do.nothing.

 

[DWalt]

As expected, nothing happened. Even if there had been a "recess appointment" by Obama, Garland could have been appointed to serve on SCOTUS for only one year. And he would have also lost his lifetime Bench appointment on the DC court in the process. Not a good trade for him. In addition to such an appointment being a certain future political minefield for the Democrats. I never thought it could happen despite the speculation.

 

[GaryS]

Some people have to have something to fret over.

As expected, nothing happened. Even if there had been a "recess appointment" by Obama, Garland could have been appointed to serve on SCOTUS for only one year. And he would have also lost his lifetime Bench appointment on the DC court in the process. Not a good trade for him. In addition to such an appointment being a certain future political minefield for the Democrats. I never thought it could happen despite the speculation.

 

[Old TexMex]

Thank you all for your perceptive statements regarding the Second Amendment, and all those "inconceivable" nuances in our legal system.