# Questions about SCOTUS nominations **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 15, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215 "2016-02-15T16:57:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215/21 "2016-02-16T05:58:43Z")
> [@Carl\_Pham](#): > > An interesting question arises in the case that the Senate refuses to consider a nomination – is the President constitutionally required to nominate someone else after a decent interval? Or can he refuse on the grounds that his first nomination has not been explicitly rejected? (I would guess that if a candidate is explicitly voted down the President is constitutionally required to present another nominee.) If the Senate doesn’t reject the nominee, the president can nominate the same nominee again. No? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215/22 "2016-02-16T06:09:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If the Senate doesn’t reject the nominee, the president can nominate the same nominee again. No? From post #18, it appears that that’s exactly what happened with Loretta Lynch. She was of course nominated for a cabinet position, but presumably it could also happen with a nomination to the Supreme Court. My guess would be that this happens reasonably frequently, and is mostly uncontroversial. It must happen from time to time that the Senate doesn’t get to consider a nomination simply because of pressure of business, the crowded legislative calendar, and the relatively short time that may elapse between a nomination being notified to the Senate and the end of the session. It must be routine that in such circumstances the President will renew his nomination early in the next session so that the process can restart. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215/23 "2016-02-16T12:14:13Z")
There was a nomination - can’t remember the post - that was rejected like four times by the Senate, but the President kept re-nominating the guy. A few of the votes were on the same day. Anyone remember this? I’m having a hard time googling it when my memory of the specifics is so hazy. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215/24 "2016-02-16T12:54:52Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > … > What are the possible legal repercussions if the Senate refuses to conduct business as mandated by the Constitution? Purely hypothetically, the full Senate could vote to [censure or expel a member](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress) (such as the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee) who was causing such obstruction. But since that would require cooperation from a large number of Senators in the majority party such an action is highly unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215/25 "2016-02-16T13:13:15Z")
Can the president simultaneously nominate several candidates for the senate to select among? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215/26 "2016-02-16T14:06:07Z")
That would be a very notable event had it ever been done before, so I’m quite certain it has never happened. Not sure why a President would ever undermine his appointment power that way. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215/27 "2016-02-16T14:52:27Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Can the president simultaneously nominate several candidates for the senate to select among? No reason why not, though the Senate would still be free to ignore or reject _all_ of the nominations. The Constitution is pretty vague about the procedure and there is no federal statute clarifying it (and it’s not clear that Congress would have authority to pass one anyway): > [@](#): > > …by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate [the POTUS shall have the power] to… nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the supreme Court… The framers explicitly rejected a scheme in which the Senate would have to _veto_ an appointment by majority in order to block it, so presumably they intended to require the Senate’s affirmative consent. They couldn’t have foreseen that a single Senator could block a nomination indefinitely by filibustering, of course. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215/28 "2016-02-16T15:59:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The framers explicitly rejected a scheme in which the Senate would have to _veto_ an appointment by majority in order to block it, so presumably they intended to require the Senate’s affirmative consent. They couldn’t have foreseen that a single Senator could block a nomination indefinitely by filibustering, of course. Worse than that, often a senator needn’t even filibuster any more. Just say s/he is going to. Rand Paul made the news when he actually did filibuster with a 10+ hour speech. Then there’s the custom of Senatorial Privilege (or Senatorial Courtesy) whereby the Senate will not vote to confirm a Presidential appointee until the Senators from the state the appointee resides in consent to the Senate voting on it. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215/29 "2016-02-16T16:18:11Z")
Supreme Court nominations don’t come along very often, but below that level, it’s entirely common for a President’s nominees to simply die on the vine somewhere in the process. One of my law school’s [professors](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillian_BeVier) was nominated by Bush 41 to the Fourth Circuit in October 1991, and the Senate Judiciary Committee simply did nothing with it. It expired when Bush left office in January 1993. There was no suggestion from anyone that this was at all improper. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-scotus-nominations/746215.md?page=1)