Is control of House enough to block a Supreme Court nomination

[philly_bob]

the way that Republicans blocked Merrick Garland?

Serious question.

[still_one]

1. No

[Fullduplexxx]

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

[procon]

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

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

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

and the House is not involved.

[PoliticAverse]

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

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

[PJMcK]

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

[aeromanKC]

7. NO, but yes..??

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

[JayhawkSD]

10. No. nt

[Aristus]

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

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]

11. Dream on.

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

[BigmanPigman]

9. I was wondering that too.