John Marshall was both nominated and confirmed in January 1801 while John Adams was President, after Jefferson had been elected.
Of natural deaths, and possibly resignations due to illness, sure. Resignations of justices probably don’t follow that pattern.
Sotomayor was nominated less than a month after Souter retired and was approved three months after that.
Exactly. That is why a duly elected president gets to make the nomination. If Romney were president, he would, but he lost.
This whole Supreme Court session could be easily deadlocked due to politics. Can we afford that?
This seems another case of Republicans wishing to trash the workings of government for political advantage.
And if they lose in November, would they want to wait four more years for another chance?
Is there any precedence for the GOP’s newfound unwritten rule that Supreme Court nominations shouldn’t be made during an election year? Even if it wasn’t ever done in practice, has it ever even been suggested before?
If the Senate doesn’t take up a nomination for Supreme Court justice, the President should examine using his power to call the Senate back into session during every planned recess - which are quite a few during this election year.
No reason why the Senate should get to sandbag a major appointment and get all of its recesses, too.
I don’t know, but it’s not surprising that the GOP uses this as their opening bargaining position. You never open with what you actually will agree to. Plus, these guys are in a ruthless battle of the nomination, so no on wants to look “weak”.
But trying to delay this nomination until after the election, should the GOP try and do that, will most likely backfire against them in the general election.
I heard it suggested that Hillary and Bernie ought to both promise to nominate Barack Obama to the seat when they are elected. Or maybe Michelle. That would get the Rs off their asses.
I think the GOP will indeed block any nomination. And it will cost them a little in the general, but they would have lost anyway.
The real question is what happens to President Clinton’s nominee. Can they block the nominee for four years? Why not?
Obama should nominate Bill Clinton unless you can’t serve because your license has been revoked for perjury?
If the Dems win, it’s likely they get the Senate too. Then it’s a moot point.
The Senate will very likely have a D majority next year.
He was never convicted.
Cite?
Also, a majority alone does not make it moot.
Like most suggestions one hears, that’s a really stupid idea. To prevent you from playing politics with the SCOTUS justice nominating process, we are going to play politics with the SCOTUS justice nominating process.
I guess if you want to make the true believes feel even better, then it might be a good idea. If you want to court independents, not so much.
There are no constitutional requirements to serve on the Supreme Court. Obama could nominate me if he felt like it. He could nominate his wife or one of his daughters if he felt like it. He could nominate Charles Manson if he felt like it.
And if the Senate confirmed me, I’d be a Supreme Court justice. And I wouldn’t be like Clarence Thomas, I’d ask lots of questions, though admittedly, some of them might be along the lines of, “Who gives a shit what you think?”
Yep. It would be a strategically terrible move, as long as Obama comes up with a halfway decent candidate.
I’m sure you’re sincere with this sentiment, but for some reason I’m getting an image of Snoopy doing his happy dance. :dubious:
Speaking of which, what rationale human being would agree to put themselves through the shitstorm of a confirmation process that this is absolutely guaranteed to be?
Of course he should.
And the Senate should be able to promptly tell his nominees to get lost.
Sure. Will they do so promptly? Or will they sit on their ass and not vote for the next year? That’s the issue here.
Ok. But that wasn’t the question posed.
A recess appointment of a Supreme Court justice is considered a no no, but so is deciding to block any and all nominees.