Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is what SCOTUS blog has to say about nominations/confirmations during an election year:
The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.
President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.
On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.
On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.
On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.
In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.
On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.
And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year. That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.
The Senate confirmed 17 SCOTUS justices in election years in the past. Most were voted on within months. So why is THIS president making an appointment in his last year different from any that came before him?
I love these old lists and the "so why?????" is the world not exactly the same in 2016 as it was in 1786 or 1812 or 1932? Why?????
A few possible reasons to perhaps consider:
1. A Senate Recess used to be exactly that in 1796 - Senators did not sit around in Senate Chambers, "working" 3-4 days a week in Washington D.C. There was no Washington D.C or Senate Chambers for that matter. No telephones or even telegraph. They communicated in quaint letters that often took weeks to arrive. The Miracle was that Supreme Court nominees were voted on as early as they were. The Supreme Court Justices wore themselves out riding Circuit Courts. Senators got together twice a year or so ..... note that most of those "confirmations" are in a similar timeframe. The first Presidential Election coverage on TV was really the Kennedy election - Campaigns were mostly a traveling show. If people know little about the Supreme Court nominations now ... they knew next to nothing in the 1700's, 1800's & early 1900's.
2. The President choose a nominee he knew (mostly former Legislators or Cabinet Officials) and that many of the Senators knew. They were chosen based mostly of what was known of their character and past service. A very quick process.
3. Harlan F. Stone was an Historic Associate Justice & Chief Justice is many ways. He was the First of all the Justice Nominees to even be interviewed by Senators on the Justice Committee - the year was 1925.
4. The modern practice of the Committee questioning nominees on their judicial views began with the nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in 1955. Politics reared it's ugly head and the inquisitions began.
Brown vs Board of Education was the catalyst. Even with the Judicial Committee hearings/questions, they process moved pretty rapidly. Mostly done in a month.
5. 1981 brought "change" again with the battle over Robert Bork ..... and it set the new tone going forward. Now we have battles and inquisitions before the Committee and the Senate - they are widely reported and televised. It's all Politics ALL THE TIME.
Only the top 3 nominees on that special list ever set foot in the US Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. We can't do any legitimate comparisons for what was happening 100's of years ago or even almost 40 years ago when President Reagan nominated a Justice in December before he began his last year in office. The Comparison are beyond foolish and look ridiculous.
The Supreme Court isn't a lower Court, so we will have to see who the nominee is. If it's a cookie cutter mindless liberal in the mold of Kagan and Sotomayor, which it will be, then Borking is appropriate even if the nominee was approved unanimously for a lower court position.
I'm fine with evaluating the nominee on his or her merits, and then rejecting or approving based on that evaluation. I'm not fine with rejecting a nominee regardless of his merits, simply because this President nominated this person. And it seems to me that that is exactly what the Republicans are proposing. Out and out rejection based on who is doing the nominating, rather than a careful review of the nominee himself.
I'm fine with evaluating the nominee on his or her merits, and then rejecting or approving based on that evaluation. I'm not fine with rejecting a nominee regardless of his merits, simply because this President nominated this person. And it seems to me that that is exactly what the Republicans are proposing. Out and out rejection based on who is doing the nominating, rather than a careful review of the nominee himself.
Pretty much. That's been their sole guiding principle for most of a decade now. Obama could nominate Jesus Christ upon his second coming to the Court and he would not stand a chance in hell.
Isn't that splitting hairs? And you might want to send a memo to the consitutional scholar Ted Cruz who said this during the debate:
CRUZ: Eighty years of not confirming. For example, LBJ nominated Abe Fortas. Fortas did not get confirmed. He was defeated.
DICKERSON: But Kennedy was confirmed in '88.
CRUZ: No, Kennedy was confirmed in '87...
DICKERSON: He was appointed in '87.
CRUZ: He was appointed in...
DICKERSON: ... confirmed in '88. That's the question, is it appointing or confirming, what's the difference?
CRUZ: In this case it's both. But if I could answer the question...
DICKERSON: Sorry, I just want to get the facts straight for the audience. But I apologize.
I'm fine with evaluating the nominee on his or her merits, and then rejecting or approving based on that evaluation. I'm not fine with rejecting a nominee regardless of his merits, simply because this President nominated this person. And it seems to me that that is exactly what the Republicans are proposing. Out and out rejection based on who is doing the nominating, rather than a careful review of the nominee himself.
Show us where mcconnell said he would not vote.....I've asked this in a few threads, and not a peep....
Maybe you can provide his exact wording, because your leftist friends are not....
Show us where mcconnell said he would not vote.....I've asked this in a few threads, and not a peep....
Maybe you can provide his exact wording, because your leftist friends are not....
Since I never claimed that McConnell said he would not vote, I have no reason to show you anything. Perhaps you need to re-read my posts.
McConnell has said that the current President's term is over in his eyes, and that the next President should have the privilege of naming Scalia's successor. But of course, the current President's term isn't over until January of 2017. And it would be a travesty to leave the Supreme Court incomplete and unable to fully function for an entire year.
Since I never claimed that McConnell said he would not vote, I have no reason to show you anything. Perhaps you need to re-read my posts.
McConnell has said that the current President's term is over in his eyes, and that the next President should have the privilege of naming Scalia's successor. But of course, the current President's term isn't over until January of 2017. And it would be a travesty to leave the Supreme Court incomplete and unable to fully function for an entire year.
Good, so you agree that the senate will vote but they may just "reject the nomimee" <<< you did say that, right?
So, what the hell is the problem then? It's going to go for a vote, you don't like the outcome of the vote, who cares......
Since I never claimed that McConnell said he would not vote, I have no reason to show you anything. Perhaps you need to re-read my posts.
McConnell has said that the current President's term is over in his eyes, and that the next President should have the privilege of naming Scalia's successor. But of course, the current President's term isn't over until January of 2017. And it would be a travesty to leave the Supreme Court incomplete and unable to fully function for an entire year.
Dems held a SC nominee for just over a year....so whats the problem? You don't like it, so what?
Was the SC able to function then? Of course they were.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
