Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 4, 02:38
2: Dec 3, 14:19
3: Dec 3, 11:17
4: Dec 3, 07:33
5: Dec 2, 17:22
6: Dec 2, 11:48
7: Dec 2, 08:21
8: Dec 1, 17:33
9: Dec 1, 11:23
10: Nov 30, 15:54
11: Nov 30, 09:41
12: Nov 29, 16:44
13: Nov 29, 08:01
14: Nov 28, 16:19
15: Nov 28, 09:42
16: Nov 27, 18:07
17: Nov 27, 12:04
18: Nov 27, 08:26
19: Nov 26, 18:06
20: Nov 26, 12:05
Posts: 151
In response to
"
Yale Law J article: Does the Senate's failure to act on an executive nomination constitute implied consent? -- (link)
"
by
pixie ninja
"implied oral consent....*not* express written consent" -- nm
Posted by
prayformojo (aka mayhem)
Mar 29 '16, 16:02
(No message)
Responses:
It would set up a *fascinating* separation of powers case if Obama adopted this position with Garland's nomination
-
pixie ninja
Mar 29, 16:06
1
Yes, but the court would likely come down 4-4. -- nm
-
pmb
Mar 29, 16:08
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.