Presuming the congress will be in recess Friday morning...

[A HERETIC I AM]

5 minutes before cheeto face solemnly swears, OBAMA should appoint Merrick Garland

[onecaliberal]

1. I believe they are in recess

[yodermon]

2. Then he should absolutely do a recess appointment. n/t

[onecaliberal]

5. Agree

[onenote]

7. The Senate is not in recess.

The Senate adjourned at around noon on Tuesday and will reconvene at 10 am on Friday. Adjournments of less than three days are not recesses for purposes of the Recess Clause.

[global1]

3. Wouldn't That Be Cool....nt

[Doreen]

4. This made me laugh to loud.

[WillowTree]

6. I assume that this is meant to be a joke.

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. Let's say it isn't

Would you have a problem with the idea ?

[WillowTree]

9. Considering the fact that.......

....... it wouldn't constitute a "recess" for the purpose of entering a recess appointment, yes, if it was a serious suggestion, I would have a problem with it. I've just grown weary of the seeming never-ending plots to try to circumvent the Constitution or, in this case, the rules of the Senate, to get "our way". The election's over. Secretary Clinton lost (by the rules set forth in the Constitution and the certification of the electoral college results by the House). All legitimate avenues have been pursued and exhausted. President Obama seems to have come to grips with those facts. It's time that the rest of us did, as well.

But that's just me.

[A HERETIC I AM]

10. Here's a WAPO article that disagrees with you

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

It CAN be done and should be.

[WillowTree]

11. One would ordinarily assume that you actually read the article that you linked to.

I wonder about that in this instance since the only reference in that article to recess appointments is

More recently, the court determined that recess appointments by the president were no longer proper because the Senate no longer took recesses.

Which means that it doesn't support the (nonsensical) premise of the OP.

And insofar as the President just declaring that the Senate has relinquished its responsibility to give or withhold consent to the nomination and more or less ordering Garland to take a seat on the USSC, I'm going to assume that if President Obama, known to be a constitutional scholar, thought that there was a basis for such action, he would have taken it long before now.

And anyway, Judge Garland has returned to his seat on the DC Circuit Court.

It's over.