Does this Senate have enough time before the next elections?

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.

Seriously? How often has that individual touted something he’s going to do without prefacing it with some time period for the enthralled masses to wallow in their anticipation?

Remember that the election is not the end-date of the current congress. They still have a couple months after the election to do whatever they want to do.

So, they have till just after January 1 (hard to find a solid date but within a few days of that).

That gives them two months past the election. It is not 42 days (from this post) but closer to 102 days (give or take a few days).

And, honestly, I do not know what prevents them from voting on someone tomorrow.

Thre’s an interesting option that most people are ignoring/unaware of: lawsuit.

In the strictest sense, the answer is very obviously yes. James Byrnes was confirmed the same day he was nominated (fun fact: he was the last justice never to attend law school and resigned after 15 months).

Looking at this chart, it routine took less than a month (often a matter of days) to confirm a nominee up until the Eisenhower Administration. Most recently, I think it has run from over 100 days (Thomas) to 19 days (Stevens). Ginsburg herself was confirmed about 42 days after being nominated.

If they have the votes, yes.

Basically if no Republicans defect besides Murkowski, Collins, and Romney, whoever it nominated is going through.

Unfortunately, Romney has indicated he likely won’t object. There’s also the risk that Kelly wins Arizona. that’s a special replacement election so technically the winner can be seated the next day.

There are plenty of other maneuvers. FDR famously threatened to pack the Supreme Court with extra bodies if they overruled his New Deal. Don’t forget there’s no statute of limitations on impeachment, should congress manage to the justice department get a more in depth investigation of what Kavanaugh told congress during the hearings or whether there was a “deal” to put him there. My favorite “what if” is that Roberts gets Alito and Thomas to retire in return for not making the court a political football.

In fact, in terms of political fantasies, remember that technically (according to a recent SCOTUS decision) the state governor can appoint electoral college members, so even democracy is not guaranteed. (Once scenario has a disputed mail ballot count resulting in enough chaos that the governor picks the electoral results.)

I think the next step should the Dems sweep is to turn a lot of the “gentleman’s agreements” that ran the government into explicit rules to forestall the problems we’ve already seen.

But to the OP - yes, enough time to confirm a nominee by the elction, and should the Dems actually manage to stall, plenty of time and then some for a vote before the session expires Jan 3.

But… putting someone on the court does not guarantee they rule in your favour - as both Kennedy and Roberts have demonstrated. There’s a limit to how partisan most educated strong analytical minds can be to overlook the law (I hope). Plus, if an election result continues to be in dispute past Jan 21, then Pelosi becomes president. Disputes over the electoral college results that result in nobody getting a majority of 270 means the election goes to congress under special, interesting rules.

May you live in interesting times.

That is a key point. Congress has started playing fast and loose with the rules. Pelosi violated the rules during a certain delaying tactic on Obamacare but that was nothing like what the Senate did during Trump’s impeachment trial. I was saying that historically the Senate takes their role very seriously but the McConnell Senate made it political rather that deliberative. Susan Collins talked about how reprehensible Kavanaugh was but still voted to confirm and it seems the only moderate Pub that stands on her principles is Lisa Murkowski so I hate to say it but this may not be done by the book. I know Senators are saying no niminee should be considered until after the new/reelected President takes office but what happens when Trump sends a name in and McConnell wants them confirmed now? If Trump’s nomination goes through without a substansive hearing and a simple up/down vote on the floor I would not be shocked.

The problem is rules can be changed. Short of a constitutional amendment (which is super unlikely) any rules you come up with can be changed by the next majority making “rules” nearly worthless.

That should scare you (“you” meaning “everyone”).

If they were done legislatively, then it would require both houses and the president to change them back.

Elections in Arizona have to be certified by the Arizona Secretary of State before they’re official. By statute, that has to happen on the fourth Monday after the election, which this year is November 30. I don’t see any way for Kelly to replace McSally before then except wildly improbable scenarios like McSally resigning, dying, or being expelled from the Senate.

Weirder things are already common practice. I learned today from a CGPGrey video that during a pro-forma session, the Senate is considered actually in session. How is that possible when you need a quorum of 51 senators to be present, but only a single one is there? Well, a quorum is presumed unless someone asks for a roll call. And since the one senator isn’t going to do that, he can assume that there’s a quorum and continue with the (minimal) proceedings. Even though the room is obviously empty.

Why couldn’t a single Senator from the opposing party also show up, just to ask for the roll call?

Yes, but this is the way it has always been in the Senate — the presence of a quorum is assumed unless determined otherwise. And as mentioned below, any other Senator could show up at these pro forma sessions and request a “quorum call”. This motion must immediately be addressed and the roll taken. If there is no quorum, the Senate must adjourn or compel the attendance of absent Senators.

This doesn’t happen because it’s in no one’s interests to make everyone trudge back to DC for a five minute pro forma session. But it does illustrate how much of what happens there depends on these sort of “gentlemen’s agreements” not to muck up proceedings with dilatory motions and objections.

Pretty sure the constitution says each house can make its own rules.

No need for the other house or president to agree.

I asked that here and (so far) no answer. Your question came before mine so I am guessing no one knows. Unusual for here.

I answered your question two posts up.

We’ve seen speculation about some states not getting a “proper” count by the electoral deadline for president, and then the state legislature substitutes the electoral slate - or no electors, so without an electoral college majority it reverts to the house to decide. But what is the process for a senator or a congressperson? Do they just have to keep counting ballots and hitting the courts about it until there’s a decision? As I recall, Franken in Minnesota didn’t get a final judgement for his result until June 2009. Is there simply no senator during that time?

If the state sends no electors, then they have just removed themselves from the election. The President is decided by the majority of electors in attendance.

If the states substitute their own slate of electors over the electors selected by the voters, then they risk having their Congressional representation reduced, as per the 14th Amendment, section 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

It is up to the state to decide when the vote count is completed sufficiently to designate their electors. Their only deadline is the “Safe Harbor” deadline of 8 December. Naturally, each individual state has their own laws on this, but that’s the point. It’s not up to the Federal Government to tell the states how to run their elections.

Not that this will stop any of these faithless legislatures, nor has any of this seen, much less survived, a court challenge. Thus the necessity of seating a friendly (for Trump) Justice.

Senators and Congress critters are not seated until that person’s election is certified by the state, so yes, the seat remains empty until that time.

Disclaimer: I am not a Constitutional lawyer. I do not play one on TV. This is my understanding of how this all works, and I could be considerably off-base, as common sense rarely rules in these matters.

The key point there is the number of deprived voters (male, over 21 - has this ever been amended?) determines the number of congresscritters. I’m reading that as if the legislature negates the popular vote, then they forfeit their membership in congress.

But the problem with the electors is basically - if the substitute (legislature’s) electors are challenged and/or don’t count, then the possibility exists that neither candidate gets 270 votes - required for a presidential win. At that point, the top 3 candidates go to congress for a decision - but congress only gets 1 vote per state. The question then becomes - which states are majority which party? If one party dominates the congressional delegation of multiple small states, it could be a different outcome from the popular vote.

However, the fine print appears to say “electors appointed” meaning if a state slate is not approved, does not show up, it reduces the majority required?

Also it says if the congress cannot agree on a candidate, then the vice-president takes over; presuming, since it does not say otherwise, the vice president is the one with the majority of electoral votes or, otherwise, decided by the senate. So we could contemplate Kamala Harris or Mike Pence becoming president.

And all this hinges on what happens if the congressional or senate results are not certified in appropriate time for the determination…

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President .[a]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[1]