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.
"Since 1869, when Congress settled on a nine-justice panel, the longest the Court has gone without a complete roster is 391 days, from the resignation of Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969 to when Harry A. Blackmun took the oath of office on June 9, 1970. This delay was due in large part to the fact that President Nixon’s first two choices for the seat were rejected by the Senate."
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
It's not 27 months but it's certainly more than a year. I expect it'll be much the same as Blackmun. Obama and Congress are just too mutually hostile for this to go smoothly.
The longest vacancy on the Supreme Court was 27 months between the Tyler and Polk administrations before the Civil War. Tyler, derided as "His Accidency," because he was the first vice president elevated to the White House, also holds the distinction of a record eight nominees rejected or withdrawn. - See more at: 7 Things To Know About Presidential Appointments To The Supreme Court | WGBH News
Exactly. The Constitution specifies no requirements for any appointee to the judicial branch; the President can appoint anyone he/she chooses. Of course, the Senate is under no obligation to vote for or consider any appointee.
It should also be pointed out that vacancies of much longer than 11 months have been thought of as perfectly legal throughout the history of the Court, and there is no legally specified timetable for voting on or voting for an appointee. Under any reasonable reading of the law the Senate has the unquestionable legal right to consider appointees at the time of its choosing unless it is completely unreasonable, such as multiple elections in the future or flat-out never considering an appointee. Waiting until after the next general election when it is much less than a year away is both legal and prudent, and supported by prior precedent (see 1828 below).
To those that bellow that it would be unprecedented in recent history, I'll offer a little history lesson. The last time there was an election-year vacancy* was 1956, and that was not a competitive election; there was little point in putting it off since Eisenhower's re-election was very likely. It was also a retirement rather than a death, and the appointee was an uncontroversial figure; the only objections to his confirmation flowed from McCarthyism, and only McCarthy voted against him.
Before that the last election-year vacancy was in 1932, when Oliver Wendell Holmes retired (i.e. he didn't die). Hoover appointed Benjamin Cardozo, who was a universally beloved jurist, and he sailed through confirmation.
Before 1932 we have the 1916 case, oddly exactly a century ago, where there were actually two election-year vacancies. Joseph Rucker Lamar died in January and was replaced by Louis Brandeis. Brandeis was a very controversial appointment, eliciting opposition from anti-Semites and those politically opposed to his "radicalism". This would make an excellent precedent for our situation were it not for the fact that there was unified government - Democrats controlled the Senate after the 1914 elections, so it is not comparable to the current divided government situation.
The other vacancy opened up upon the resignation of Charles Evans Hughes to run for President that year, and President Wilson appointed John Hessin Clarke, who was uncontroversial and was confirmed unanimously by the Democratic Senate. Hardly comparable to what we're dealing with.
The previous one was in 1892, when Joseph Philo Bradley died and President Harrison nominated George Shiras to replace him. Again, though, we didn't have divided government in this case.
In 1888, quite a competitive election year, Morrison Waite died, and we had divided government. President Cleveland nominated Melville Fuller to replace him, and he was a controversial figure. The Senate did confirm Fuller, though. This is the last time we were in a comparable situation to 2016 - a Supreme Court Justice dies in an election year expected to be competitive with a divided government.
Prior to that there was the death of Roger Taney in 1864, but control was unified then. Before then it was 1828, when Robert Trimble died in the summer before one of the most competitive elections of all time under a divided government. The Senate outright refused to confirm any appointee from John Quincy Adams and confirmed John McLean, Andrew Jackson's nominee for the seat, after he was inaugurated the next year. This is the other time we were in a situation comparable to where we are in 2016.
Before that there was an election-year vacancy in 1800, a competitive election, but due to retirement rather than death, and there was unified government. Oliver Ellsworth retired and the Senate quickly confirmed John Adams's pick of John Marshall before they had to leave town. Before this there were a few election-year appointees by George Washington but government was unified then and none of the election he ran in were competitive.
So we have had two times before now when the situation was analogous - 1828 and 1888. In 1828 the Senate ran out the clock on the incumbent President, and it was widely considered to be within their powers to do so at the time. In 1888, on the other hand, the Senate voted on and confirmed the President's appointee. It should be noted, though, that the modern Supreme Court and Senate hadn't evolved yet as of 1888, let alone 1828.
*As in a vacancy that occurred during an election year. Anthony Kennedy's confirmation doesn't count since the vacancy opened up in 1987 (rather than 1988) and neither does Frank Murphy's since the vacancy opened up in 1939 (rather than 1940).
It may not be uncommon to let Supreme Court Judge seats go for an election cycle. That is not the issue here. The issue is we are in a faster cycle due to news. We live in an age where we are much more accessibility for better and for worse if we chose to be. We don't hear about news weeks later like even in the 1930's nor do we have limited access to news like in the 1980's. Remember not everyone had cable in when we had Scalia and Kennedy questioned during their nomination process so we didn't see a lot on CSPN or CNN (there was no MSNBC or FNC back then.)
As another poster stated, we aren't looking to see Obama name a nominee in the next weeks. More likely we will see it by the end of March or in early April, giving several months into the summer recess. Should the Republicans block this right and left, it can and very well will hurt them in the Senate races especially in blue and purple states.
The longest vacancy on the Supreme Court was 27 months between the Tyler and Polk administrations before the Civil War. Tyler, derided as "His Accidency," because he was the first vice president elevated to the White House, also holds the distinction of a record eight nominees rejected or withdrawn. - See more at: [URL="http://news.wgbh.org/2016/02/14/politics-government/7-things-know-about-presidential-appointments-supreme-court#sthash.qV6t4EKi.dpuf"]7 Things To Know About Presidential Appointments To The Supreme Court | WGBH News[/URL]
I believe my post said "since 1869" Did it not? You even quoted it.
Please look up the Civil War.
I cannot believe that (a) someone thinks the Civil War was after 1869 and (b) anyone would actually compare that war with the obstructionism in Congress.
Whoa! Someone posts that there have been vacancies as long as 27 months. I post an article from Time Magazine that states the longest is 13 months, and this is the answer? "it's certainly more than a year?"
Anyway, you are overlooking another fact I posted. The only reason that vacancy lasted so long is because 2 of Nixon nominations were rejected. However, the longest there has ever been a vacancy without a nomination is 125 days as I posted early, and Pres Obama will be in office for over 300.
Why are so many people twisting historical facts?
HUH???
Why are you assuming that I'm twisting historical facts. When I heard that Scalia died and thought about it, I very quickly realized that this one's going to get really ugly. That is not me making a political statement. I despise both parties actually. I didn't even research what the longest vacancy was, though I had the vague recollection that there had been some very very long vacancies.
Personally, I think it's all very childish, but I'm also a realist. This one's going to take a long time because the current President and current Congress despise each other.
Here's what should happen. Obama should nominate a judge. Congress should treat them fairly and vote on it. Everything else is just political theater and is the kinds of things everyone complains about the government for.
Yes I know conservatives are going to complain about it but unless a Democrat killed scalia to make sure Obama gets to nominate someone, there shouldn't be any deviation from the typical process. To wait over a year for someone to just be nominated makes no sense. Sometimes you just have to play the hand you are dealt.
Why are you assuming that I'm twisting historical facts. When I heard that Scalia died and thought about it, I very quickly realized that this one's going to get really ugly. That is not me making a political statement. I despise both parties actually. I didn't even research what the longest vacancy was, though I had the vague recollection that there had been some very very long vacancies.
Personally, I think it's all very childish, but I'm also a realist. This one's going to take a long time because the current President and current Congress despise each other.
Thats for sure.. some of the hate on the other thread was proof of that.. cant believe the party of tolerance would know such words.. no suprise it was shut down
I believe my post said "since 1869" Did it not? You even quoted it.
Obviously you're correct. I didn't note the '1869 qualifier' you were utilizing. But that just begs the question: Why would you use such an idiotic qualifier to respond to a simple statement made by whogo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
No, it not unprecedented the longest vacancy was 27 months. Do you just make stuff up as you go along?
whogo didn't use your 1869 qualifier. I have to assume that he/she was counting since the inception of this country. Why would you respond thusly:
"Since 1869, when Congress settled on a nine-justice panel, the longest the Court has gone without a complete roster is 391 days, from the resignation of Abe Fortas on May 14, 1969 to when Harry A. Blackmun took the oath of office on June 9, 1970. This delay was due in large part to the fact that President Nixon’s first two choices for the seat were rejected by the Senate."
With you 1869 qualifier, you're drawing a distinction that no one else in dozens of pages has drawn. Is it just to be right?
They aren't going to reject candidates because they won't get the chance. McConnell is not going to let it come to the floor of the Senate. He has decided the next president will pick the next justice.
Puts new meaning in the expression, lame duck president.
Not surprising that McConnell and the Pubs in the senate would choose the cowardly way out and trample the constitution in the process.
It's not going to happen this way. McConnell isn't going to let it even make it to the floor. Unless he changes his mind, it's shelved until after the election.
Obama can nominate whoever. No Senator is going to get to consider it.
Yep sounds about right. That's how idiot partisan politics work in this nation. Switch roles and you'd get the same thing. The Dems would do exactly the same thing if it was a Republican president sending them nominees.
Seems to me, the GOP will want to wait and see the election results. If they win, then they'll wait for the new president to take office. If they lose, they'll get a last minute nomination offering from Obama and they'll probably pass it.
Everything hinges on the election.
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.
.. no suprise it was shut down
