Not if the entire Cabinet is dead; there wouldn’t be *anyone *in the line of succession until the House elected a new Speaker (or the Senate a new President pro term).
It’s worth noting that, at present, we have three living retired SCOTUS justices (Stevens, Souter and O’Conner) who could clue the batch of newcomers in on the nature of the discussions that aren’t part of the public record. No one but the justices knows what gets discussed in private deliberation, or what standards and procedures are adhered to, but this rare trio of living former justices could provide a kind of “apostolic continuity” to the new justices.
“What if all the SCOTUS justices needed to be replaced?”
Much better.
This particular Ohio Valleyism needs die.
Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.
Yeah, western Pennsylvania rears its ugly head.
Nice day and the car needs warshed.
If I recall correctly, during the State of the Union address and similar events, at least one cabinet officer does not attend, and, is, in fact, far, far away at the time. This person is charmingly referred to as the “designated survivor”.
Ack ack! Ack ack ack ACK! Ack ack ack ack!
<zaps entire SCOTUS with 1920’s-style death ray>
Not at random. The new President asks his aides to come up with a list of respected current Federal judges who would be immediately up to the job and likely to win quick confirmation. IIRC, he is careful (as George Washington was) to ensure there is geographic diversity - don’t remember any discussion of political ideology or racial or ethnic considerations.
Correct: Designated survivor - Wikipedia
Hollywood’s even getting in on the act: http://tvline.com/2015/12/14/kiefer-sutherland-designated-survivor-abc-series-president/
Most one-at-a-time appointees are selected for (relative) youth among the other qualifications (such as being very experienced and well-regarded), so I don’t think a new slate would necessarily be any different in that regard. About the only reason I can see why someone at the elderly end of the spectrum would be chosen is if this is the only concession the President’s political opponents can finagle out of the deal.
But one-at-a-time appointments are joining a panel which already includes respected, experienced, long-serving judges. In the scenario we are now discussing, the President isn’t making one-at-a-time nominations; he’s nominating an entire panel. And if he wants his nominations to be taken seriously and regarded as meritorious, then he must include among them already-respected and already-experienced senior judges, because the Supreme Court needs the talents of respected, experienced judges to be credible as a final court of appeal. Remember, the Supreme Court needs to be at least as credible as the courts from which it hears appeals. A bunch of 35-year old ideologue apparatchiks chosen over better-qualified possiblities simply because, once appointed, they’ll be around for decades simply isn’t going to cut the mustard.
Didn’t the Bush administration usually spirit Dick Cheney away to “an undisclosed location” whenever they got spooked?
Not many people know there’s a Hellmouth in the WH basement.
Sadly, they only ever did so on a temporary basis.
If a SCOTUS justice only needs majority approval to pass Congress, AND if politics are really partisan, AND if the president has a majority in both houses of Congress, then I do think it’s plausible that a president could nominate 9 ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal justices and have them all pass Congress - even if it’s just by a whisker - and get that dream SCOTUS.
My question would be, what if the Senate still refuses to nominate anyone? In other words, how does the government function without a Supreme Court? Do the heads of the district courts get together and make their own de facto Supreme Court? Do we splinter off into separate countries for the districts? Are there impeachment hearings and/or recalls for Senators?
Thinking about all that was what led to the OP.