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.
All this nonsense because a man died. Both sides are behaving like children. The law is written that the president nominates US Supreme Court Judges. Don't like it? Move to another country and see how wonderful life is there. And I don't even like Obama, but he IS the president. There's no telling who will win the election in 9 months. That new president won't be president for 11 months! We, as a nation, canNOT sit around waiting for legal action. Neither the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights say we can wait around for a year for a judge. That's just idiotic!
And 79 is NOT old! 40 year olds drop dread all the time, too. Ginsburg is older and no one is screaming like a moron for her to retire. She would probably knock you out if you even suggested she retire because she's old.
the timing of when a president would be a lame duck is short. basically 3 months (Early November to Jan 20th of the next year)
If we're defining 'lame duck' as post-election, I certainly agree. But I was responding to the OP's implication that the term applied to the current situation. The reason I agree under your definition isn't for any philosophical reason, but simply for the fact that the normal process for selecting a new Justice takes longer than the short span between a Presidential election and the subsequent January 20th. Let's look at that.
Elections are held between November 2nd and November 8th. As such, they precede Inauguration Day by 73 to 79 days.
Here is the time span for filling recent Supreme Court vacancies:
Elena Kagan - 31 days for the White House to put for a nominee, 87 days for the Senate to confirm - 118 days total
Sonia Sotomayor - 25 days + 66 days = 91 days
Plus, when there's an election the Senate adjourns in December and a new Senate takes office in November, which usually results in changes to the membership of the Judiciary and sometimes to the leadership itself. As such, the confirmation would have to be completed before the December adjournment (effectively impossible) or not be started until early January. So, sure, I absolutely agree in that case. In fact, I'd probably bump it up a few months before that. But there is absolutely no valid excuse whatsoever for a vacancy that presents itself by, say, July 1st not being addressed.
If we're defining 'lame duck' as post-election, I certainly agree. But I was responding to the OP's implication that the term applied to the current situation. The reason I agree under your definition isn't for any philosophical reason, but simply for the fact that the normal process for selecting a new Justice takes longer than the short span between a Presidential election and the subsequent January 20th. Let's look at that.
Elections are held between November 2nd and November 8th. As such, they precede Inauguration Day by 73 to 79 days.
Here is the time span for filling recent Supreme Court vacancies:
Elena Kagan - 31 days for the White House to put for a nominee, 87 days for the Senate to confirm - 118 days total
Sonia Sotomayor - 25 days + 66 days = 91 days
Plus, when there's an election the Senate adjourns in December and a new Senate takes office in November, which usually results in changes to the membership of the Judiciary and sometimes to the leadership itself. As such, the confirmation would have to be completed before the December adjournment (effectively impossible) or not be started until early January. So, sure, I absolutely agree in that case. In fact, I'd probably bump it up a few months before that. But there is absolutely no valid excuse whatsoever for a vacancy that presents itself by, say, July 1st not being addressed.
We are not defining it. Lame Duck has been a well defined term in the US for a long time. There could be an argument made that it only applies to someone who has been defeated in their re-election bid, but.. It's fair to say that any time between when the people have elected a new person for the position, but he has not taken office yet.. His predecessor is a 'lame duck'.. It's certainly not a term that is restricted to the president, and if I'm not mistaken, has its roots when Congress started running "Lame Duck" sessions, back when inauguration day was in March.. Which is why it was moved to January. Back in the day, when congress met for a few months a year (also the reason for recess appointments) and there was no internet or planes.. Congress was just adjourned past the election.. Then in the 20th century.. When politics became a career... they'd run sessions in December to March.
I am presuming that you mean that the Senate adjourns in December and the new Senate takes office in January.. Remember that there's a far shorter lame duck period for congress, as the new congress takes office on January 3rd, if I recall correctly. Jan 20th is just presidential inauguration day.
But, your math there brings up very good reasons for a president NOT to nominate someone during a lame duck period, outside of precedence. It seems icky to me that a new Supreme Court justice could be confirmed on the watch of someone who did not nominate them. I wonder if that's even possible?
Constitutionally.. I think it could.. Anyone know the answer to that? Let's use death as an example, since that's a little more cut and dried and will avoid confusion with the current issue. President A nominates Judge B to the Supreme Court.. Senate begins the confirmation hearings on that Judge.. President A dies, and President B takes over... Could President B revoke the nomination? Would they have to? Would the nomination end with the death of the nominating president? I could see both ways.. Once the president has made the nomination, the process has started.. But, you could also argue that since he wasn't confirmed before the death of the president, the nomination died with the president.
We are not defining it. Lame Duck has been a well defined term in the US for a long time. There could be an argument made that it only applies to someone who has been defeated in their re-election bid, but.. It's fair to say that any time between when the people have elected a new person for the position, but he has not taken office yet.. His predecessor is a 'lame duck'.. It's certainly not a term that is restricted to the president, and if I'm not mistaken, has its roots when Congress started running "Lame Duck" sessions, back when inauguration day was in March.. Which is why it was moved to January. Back in the day, when congress met for a few months a year (also the reason for recess appointments) and there was no internet or planes.. Congress was just adjourned past the election.. Then in the 20th century.. When politics became a career... they'd run sessions in December to March.
The term 'lame duck' is not well-defined. People use it in different ways. This is hardly surprising - myriad words and terms have varied usage. When using them, it's necessary to define how one is using them. The term 'lame duck' is not a technical term, and therefore it's definition is essentially defined by usage. And simple googling can demonstrate its usage.
That's why I took pains to clarify my usage of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
But, your math there brings up very good reasons for a president NOT to nominate someone during a lame duck period, outside of precedence. It seems icky to me that a new Supreme Court justice could be confirmed on the watch of someone who did not nominate them. I wonder if that's even possible?
Andrew Jackson nominated John Catron to the high court on his last full day in office, March 3, 1837. Catron was confirmed by the Senate five days later, four days after Martin Van Buren had taken the oath of office. I don't know if there have been any others, but I do know that it hasn't happened since the end of the 19th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
Constitutionally.. I think it could.. Anyone know the answer to that? Let's use death as an example, since that's a little more cut and dried and will avoid confusion with the current issue. President A nominates Judge B to the Supreme Court.. Senate begins the confirmation hearings on that Judge.. President A dies, and President B takes over... Could President B revoke the nomination? Would they have to? Would the nomination end with the death of the nominating president? I could see both ways.. Once the president has made the nomination, the process has started.. But, you could also argue that since he wasn't confirmed before the death of the president, the nomination died with the president.
I believe that once the Senate has a nomination, it can act on it regardless of the wishes of whoever occupies the Presidency. Sometimes Presidents do withdraw nominations, but that is merely a formality that has little substance (and usually means that the nomination has become politically untenable in any case).
So, sure, if this November a Republican wins the Presidency and somehow the Democrats capture the Senate, President Obama could nominate someone to the high court and the Democratically-controlled Senate could confirm that nomination in, say, April, while President Cruz lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. technically, that could happen. However, in the real world, two things:
*First, while either of those things are possible, it is highly unlikely that both a Republican winning the Presidency and the Democrats winning the Senate could occur together. Political dynamics are such that if the Republicans can carry the White House, it is extremely unlikely that the Democrats could net the five Senate seats necessary for a majority in November.
*Second, such a move would be such a political grenade that the Democrats simply wouldn't do it. It wouldn't be worth it.
The country has now been handed a wild card in the upcoming elections with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Republicans (naturally) want to wait to fill the vacancy until after the November elections (actually, until mid January of 2017 when the newly elected government takes power). The democrats (naturally) want to appoint a new justice as soon as possible. This would mean a protracted fight on the floor of Congress, distracting from both the electoral process and the ability of the Supreme Court to rule on some of the most important questions now facing us regarding the law of the land. Yet, should a "lame duck" president be allowed to make such an important decision? Shouldn't this matter be left to a new POTUS, recently elected by the majority of the voters? Both arguments have valid points. Is there anything we can do to avoid such "shoot-outs at the OK Corral" in the future?
The President does not appoint a member of SCOTUS. He can only nominate a candidate and then that candidate goes through the CONSTITUTIONAL process and can either be appointed or denied by a Vote in the Senate.
It's terrible when a vacancy changes the ideological makeup - except when it goes in one's preferred direction. That's why the usual suspects were singing a different tune when the retirement of center-right O'Connor allowed the appointment of far-right Alito in 2005, or when the retirement of far-left Marshall allowed the appointment of far-right Thomas in 1991.
As an aside, this is the first high court vacancy since 1991 in which the Senate is not controlled by the President's party. Both previous Obama appointments, as well as both George W. Bush appointments and both Clinton appointments, found the Senate in the same hands as the Presidency. Bush did have one failed nomination, that of Harriet Miers, but that never even got to the Senate and was torpedoed by conservative activists who didn't trust her conservative bonafides (not without good cause).
Going back further, both appointments of President George H.W. Bush were confirmed by the Senate - Thomas very contentiously, and Souter pretty perfunctorily. Reagan's first three appointments - O'Connor, Rhenquest's elevation to Chief Justice, and Scalia - were all confirmed by a Republican Senate. Then came Bork, who was not confirmed, but hearings were held and the vote was brought to the floor and the Democratic Senate declined to confirm. That's how it should be done. The Senate should have a say - the Senate, not a minority of the Senate, either refusing a floor vote or filibustering. After Bork, Reagan turned to Ginsburg (Douglas, not Ruth Bader). His nomination failed to even get to hearings, after he admitted to having smoked marijuana in college. But it wasn't Democrats who took him down - with his admission, he was immediately abandoned by powerful GOP Senators such as Warren Rudman of New Hampshire and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and soon by the Reagan administration itself. Then came Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed in February of 1988, a Presidential election year, by the Democratic Senate.
I'd have no problem with a 18-year terms, provided there was an absolute limit to one term, no matter how short that term might be (and there would, of course, be occasional partial terms due to early retirements/resignations and deaths).
Let's consider this a bit:
The USSC's annual term begins in early October, the last oral arguments are held in the spring, and the final decisions are traditionally issued before the Fourth of July. So these 18-year terms would be designed to end with annual terms, presumably one coming open every two years (18 years / 9 seats). One seat would come open each odd-number year, to mollify the crowd that thinks that Congress and the Presidency can't simultaneously manage an appointment and an election in the same year (notwithstanding how ludicrous is that assertion).
One probably effect of this would be to increase the age of nominees a bit. Right now, the sweet spot for a nominee is between the ages of about 45 (old enough to have acquired the appropriate credentials for the job) to about 52 (young enough to maximize the number of decades the Justice will remain seated). With an 18-year-limit, you'd probably see more nominees well into their fifties and even sixties. Not a bad thing.
Now, all that said, while I'd have no problem with this, I also have no problem with the current setup, so I really wouldn't be interested in bothering with the huge battle that would be required to bring about this change.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, first asserting that since 'elections have consequences' that therefore it's fine for the Senate to block this President's nominee, but then claiming that whoever is elected next year gets to appoint a Justice regardless of the election outcome.
No surprise, really - the only reason for taking such a stance is rank partisanship, and no amount of spin can mask that fact.
Did you also notice I said "he"? I guess not or you'd have noticed I covered all the bases of every (current) political leaning.
I get annoyed when I hear (mostly from progressives) "elections have consequences but ONLY when it's their side that wants something.
I was just pointing out that yes, they certainly do which means those in power now decide who gets a pick (if any).
This court has gotten highly political (Roberts for example) so the reasons to change our system is pretty much moot. Nothing at this point will change SCOTUS from legislating from the bench. All we can do is balance out the damage...
While the current system is far from perfect, electing them would be far, far worse. Judges shouldn't be elected period, because a judge should be impartial and not have to survive a popularity contest or have a trial tainted because someone associated with the case helped get the judge elected (campaign contribution? bribe? semantics.) And that's just at the local level.
The current nomination/approval process involving both of the other branches of government (executive nominates, legislative approves) is by far the best system.
Exactly - impartiality is key. As is the extended appointment which is akin to having "tenure" - another cushion away from possible influences on the judgments they are called to make. Also, a longer tenure for the justices is one of the few ways a president can lengthen his or her indirect influence - I believe another original reason for lifetime appointments.
Sure, justices are living longer but is there really much difference between serving for 25 years versus 15 in the grand scheme of things? There's no reason to tinker with this and end up with unintended consequences resulting in the need for more bandaids to fix what was fine in the first place.
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.
