Does this Senate have enough time before the next elections?

Does the Present US Senate have enough time before the general elections of November 2020 to confirm a Supreme Court nominee?

Does it need to be done before the election?

One of the talking heads on TV this morning said that the record was 19 days.

So, theoretically possible, yes. However, given the rancor in today’s politics, not likely.

With a Republican majority in the Senate, they will push this nomination/approval through very quickly.
“I want to nominate our esteemed colleague Ted Cruz to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Y’ all know him and what he stands for.”
“All in favor, Say Aye” (all Republicans vote for him, including Ted Cruz himself-'cause you know he wants it).
“All opposed, Say Nay” (all Democrats") Motion passed. 5 minutes! Done!

The answer is yes. However, the Senate elected in November 3, 2020, will not take their seats until January 3, 2021. Therefore, the current Senate will have two months after the election to vote on a nomination.

In the 1800s and earlier there were nominations that were made with a confirmation vote the very next day. In theory it can be that fast. In modern practice, not likely.

The quickest time from nomination to confirmation in the last 50 years was 19 days, in the case of John Paul Stevens (1976). As recently as 1945, it sometimes happened that the nomination and confirmation happened on the same day without any hearings being held. In the post-Bork era when nominations tend to be highly politicized, the quickest record is 50 days, for RBG herself in 1993.

John Roberts is a special case. Technically the period from nomination to confirmation as Chief Justice to replace Rehnquist was only 23 days, but that followed immediately after an additional 39 days when he was already under consideration by the Senate to replace O’Connor as an associate justice. So he was under consideration for a total of 62 days.

There’s no prescribed amount of time.

They can do it in a day if they want.

Would that be pre-2016 “modern practice”, or post-2016 “modern practice”.

IMO the only thing we can confidently say about the Federal government since 2016 is that “anything goes” while pre-2016 practice means exactly bupkiss.

While they can’t filibuster, there are some steps that Senate Democrats could take to draw the process out. For instance, routine business in the Senate is often conducted by “unanimous consent,” which is presumed as long as no one objects. Democrats could object and force votes on routine motions and other day-to-day business of the Senate. There are other procedural delays they could throw around, but it’s unlikely that they could significantly delay a vote on the nominee.

Don’t they have to be recognized by the chair first?

When a Senator offers a motion “by unanimous consent,” the Chair has to ask if there is any objection. If a Senator present in the chamber objects, the motion cannot proceed.

Czarcasm may have meant literally recognized by the chair. As in, a Senator objects but the Chair pretends not to notice what they’re doing.

Exactly. Selective hearing as a political weapon.

Could the Chair literally ignore a fellow Senator standing fifteen feet in front of him yelling, “I object, Mr. Chairman!”? I mean, I suppose so. Theoretically that Senator or another could appeal the ruling of the chair, but if it comes to that then what’s the point? Presumably if the Chair is deliberately denying a Senator his or her right to object (as opposed to genuinely mishearing or misunderstanding), then he has the backing of the majority party. At that point the Senate is no longer a representative body and none of the rules matter.

And why would the Republicans push it to this, when all the Democrats can do with their objections is slightly delay, but not prevent, a vote on the nomination?

Doesn’t McConnell essentially have power to prioritize? He could just say “we’re focusing on the nominee for the next 6 weeks” and any time a Democrat objects or tries to bring up unrelated business he would repeat “nope.”

The thing about what’s going to happen is that it’s by the book. I really wish that Democratic politicians on the national stage reacted more disgustedly whem Mitch pulled his bullshit the last time. That one was the fucked up one. Even if all they were able to do was convince otherwise ignorant Americans that something really wrong was happening. Kavamaugh and everything he touches should have an asterisk, but this one is unfortunately by the book.

But how was the Senate ever a representative body? Not of the people. Of individual State governments of the party with the Senate majority, yes. Representation beyond that was only ever by the graces of the people elected, and in practice today who beyond Romney (sometimes) actually ever demonstrates that?

Now there seems to be a fight on the basis of whether the Republican Senate can seat a Justice. Sure seems to me that the Constitution says they can. The problem is that the last time the Constitution said a Democratic President could nominate a candidate Justice, they simply ignored it.

Now we just get to decide whether it’s better if half the politicians or all the politicians ignore the Constitution.

I expect that the GOP will try to get the nominee confirmed before the election as insurance against another Bush vs. Gore-type scenario.

If Trump has a narrow lead on election night, it’s in the GOP’s interest to do everything possible to halt any further counting. As with Bush vs. Gore, SCOTUS might play a role in that.

With about fifty days until the election, it seems odd the President is sitting on his nominee’s name for six or seven of those days.