ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

Hawkeyeballs

Team MVP
Jan 30, 2020
297
336
63
AMY HOWE FEB 13, 2016 11:55 PM

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.

And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year. That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.

 
AMY HOWE FEB 13, 2016 11:55 PM

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.

And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year. That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.

So you're saying what McConnell did to Garland - a judge he had SPECIFICALLY recommended as an acceptable choice - was total bullshit. Thanks. Now he can either live with his precedent or watch the SC grow to 12 members. Yeah, there's precedent for a larger SC, too.
 
So you're saying what McConnell did to Garland - a judge he had SPECIFICALLY recommended as an acceptable choice - was total bullshit. Thanks. Now he can either live with his precedent or watch the SC grow to 12 members. Yeah, there's precedent for a larger SC, too.

Can't be 12. It has to be an odd number.
 
No it doesn't. It can be any number they like. A split just leaves a lower court ruling in place but it doesn't serve as a precedent. McConnell's last little ploy left us with 8 for over a year and there have been times in US history when the court had 10 members.

Sorry, it obviously needs to be an odd number. I really don't care about odd occurrences in history.
 
Please explain the advantages of having an even number of justices?
There is no advantage or disadvantage. Like I stated - clearly, I thought - a split vote leaves the lower court ruling in effect but that ruling doesn't serve as a precedent for other courts. Were you this upset when the court was at 8 for over 400 days thanks to McConnell? No? Then STFU.
 
There is no advantage or disadvantage. Like I stated - clearly, I thought - a split vote leaves the lower court ruling in effect but that ruling doesn't serve as a precedent for other courts. Were you this upset when the court was at 8 for over 400 days thanks to McConnell? No? Then STFU.

So, the advantage is that all the circuit courts rule on things differently if the Supremes are deadlocked? What's constitutional in the Fifth Circuit is unconstitutional in the Seventh Circuit? That's a good plan in your worldview?
 
So, the advantage is that all the circuit courts rule on things differently if the Supremes are deadlocked? What's constitutional in the Fifth Circuit is unconstitutional in the Seventh Circuit? That's a good plan in your worldview?
*GASP* What a horror!!! That's the way it is NOW until the SC issues a ruling. The country endures. Get your panties out of your ass. But if it bothers you that much, urge the Dems to completely overturn Mitch's ploy and create four new seats. I won't argue with you. I was throwing you MAGAts a bone by balancing the court out - I have no problem at all with a liberal majority.. Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
Presidential duties don't stop just because it's an election year.

Just because the House failed to pass a budget in previous years doesn't mean it's ok going forward. It's no different for the POTUS. Biden is running commercials yapping about Trump not protecting the American people. Well nominating justice is a duty too. And the Senate should confirm or not confirm the nominee, though that process is another topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bank of Hawk
Presidential duties don't stop just because it's an election year.

Just because the House failed to pass a budget in previous years doesn't mean it's ok going forward. It's no different for the POTUS. Biden is running commercials yapping about Trump not protecting the American people. Well nominating justice is a duty too. And the Senate should confirm or not confirm the nominee, though that process is another topic.
‘Election year’ has a very broad range. January 2020 is far different than October 2020. I’m in favor of consistency. If February 2016 was too close to the election, then September-October 2020 is as well.
 
Presidential duties don't stop just because it's an election year.

Just because the House failed to pass a budget in previous years doesn't mean it's ok going forward. It's no different for the POTUS. Biden is running commercials yapping about Trump not protecting the American people. Well nominating justice is a duty too. And the Senate should confirm or not confirm the nominee, though that process is another topic.
Then Mitch should be voted out in November for shirking those duties in 2016.

Not that this argument needs anymore emphasis. We already know how Mitch turned his back on his duties.

The emphasis now is that filling the seat now gives license to pack the court later. Rs should be very careful to push this deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
In normal times I would say that whoever is POTUS when there is an opening should be allowed to nominte the next SCOTUS, unless the opening occurs during a lame duck period after an election (emphasize AFTER the election).

After the BS that McConnell pulled in 2016, that's out the window. If this seat is filled now, and the Dems win it all in NOV (a very realistic scenario) they should go all in on packing the court. Get it up to 13, create more appellate courts w/judges and push through LW Kavanaugh types.

They more crap the GOP does that is an obvious attempt to steal power, the more I'm disgusted about having ever voted for them. I'm getting real close to never voting for another again, purely out of contempt for the scum that is filling their ranks now.
 
In normal times I would say that whoever is POTUS when there is an opening should be allowed to nominte the next SCOTUS, unless the opening occurs during a lame duck period after an election (emphasize AFTER the election).

After the BS that McConnell pulled in 2016, that's out the window. If this seat is filled now, and the Dems win it all in NOV (a very realistic scenario) they should go all in on packing the court. Get it up to 13, create more appellate courts w/judges and push through LW Kavanaugh types.

They more crap the GOP does that is an obvious attempt to steal power, the more I'm disgusted about having ever voted for them. I'm getting real close to never voting for another again, purely out of contempt for the scum that is filling their ranks now.
Both Schumer and Nadler are on board with this. This doesn't appear to be some internet hypothetical. The actual leadership is saying we should do this. I would hope that this would give the Rs pause to reconsider their actions.
 
In normal times I would say that whoever is POTUS when there is an opening should be allowed to nominte the next SCOTUS, unless the opening occurs during a lame duck period after an election (emphasize AFTER the election).

After the BS that McConnell pulled in 2016, that's out the window. If this seat is filled now, and the Dems win it all in NOV (a very realistic scenario) they should go all in on packing the court. Get it up to 13, create more appellate courts w/judges and push through LW Kavanaugh types.

They more crap the GOP does that is an obvious attempt to steal power, the more I'm disgusted about having ever voted for them. I'm getting real close to never voting for another again, purely out of contempt for the scum that is filling their ranks now.

Packing the court with 13 justices would be much more of a power grab than anything McConnell has done or will do, and will prove that the dems are worse than the GOP on this issue.
 
Historical precedent includes the blocking of a SCOTUS nominee in a presidential election year.

I agree with you. Let’s be consistent this presidential election year and not bring in another SCOTUS nominee.
well from the article:

“The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election.”

I mean the article I read above, pretty much all the Supreme Court justices were installed during election year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkeyeballs
well from the article:

“The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election.”

I mean the article I read above, pretty much all the Supreme Court justices were installed during election year.
Most recent precedent was set by the current GOP leadership in 2016. Let’s be consistent.
 
Packing the court with 13 justices would be much more of a power grab than anything McConnell has done or will do, and will prove that the dems are worse than the GOP on this issue.
Does it matter at this point? Rs want to play games. We can play games, too. You fill that seat, you lose the election. And WE pack the courts. That's the route you guys seem to want to take. It's a stupid one, but this seems to be your choice. We will respond in kind.
 
No doubt the Republicans will try.
No doubt the Democrats would try.

The hysterical Left again are stamping their feet and holding their breath. Such spoiled children.
 
The R’s shouldn’t have blocked Obama’s choice the way they did.
The D’s shouldn’t have played such stupid and juvenile games with Kavanaugh.
Unfortunately, this is probably more the norm now.
 
‘Election year’ has a very broad range. January 2020 is far different than October 2020. I’m in favor of consistency. If February 2016 was too close to the election, then September-October 2020 is as well.

My point was about the constitution, not what happened politically in 2016.
 
No doubt the Republicans will try.
No doubt the Democrats would try.

The hysterical Left again are stamping their feet and holding their breath. Such spoiled children.

The Democrats did try. In 2016. But the republicans ignored the constitution and refused to hold a vote.

WHo is the spoiled children here?
 
And they’d try again.

Who are the spoiled children here? The hysterical Left.

Prinzen.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey
538 did an article about this. No justice has been confirmed this close to an election. We are in foreign territory here.

Oh stop. I’m with you that the seat should remain vacant until after the election. And if Biden wins, until he takes office, but stop with the nonsense
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
AMY HOWE FEB 13, 2016 11:55 PM

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916. On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two. Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican. On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

In two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire in a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957. The fact that Eisenhower put Brennan on the Court is inconsistent with any tradition of leaving a seat vacant.

And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year. That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.

In normal times I would say that whoever is POTUS when there is an opening should be allowed to nominte the next SCOTUS, unless the opening occurs during a lame duck period after an election (emphasize AFTER the election).

After the BS that McConnell pulled in 2016, that's out the window. If this seat is filled now, and the Dems win it all in NOV (a very realistic scenario) they should go all in on packing the court. Get it up to 13, create more appellate courts w/judges and push through LW Kavanaugh types.

They more crap the GOP does that is an obvious attempt to steal power, the more I'm disgusted about having ever voted for them. I'm getting real close to never voting for another again, purely out of contempt for the scum that is filling their ranks now.
This. It’s Nuclear War if they do.
 
Just LOL that Republicans are going full Orwell and now arguing the exact opposite of what they argued in 2016. Up is down, night is day, suddenly there are precedents galore for ramming through a new Justice in a Presidential election year.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: St. Louis Hawk
The Constitution allows for the president to make this pick and have it go through and the GOP didn't seem to care about playing by the Constitution in 2016 . My question is why does the GOP hate the Constitution?
 
Last edited:
Packing the court with 13 justices would be much more of a power grab than anything McConnell has done or will do, and will prove that the dems are worse than the GOP on this issue.

Lol. Cons stole a Supreme Court seat applying a “rule” that didn’t exist, went on record saying they would apply the rule in the future, then, at the first opportunity, abandon the rule.

Cons have no room to complain. What’s the saying - Elections have consequences?
 
If Obama had a Democrat controlled senate, his pick would have been appointed, and republicans would have bit*hed to the moon.

Most felt Hillary would win the election, so there wasn’t much fuss put up by dems at the time.

But then Trump won.
 
If Obama had a Democrat controlled senate, his pick would have been appointed, and republicans would have bit*hed to the moon.

Most felt Hillary would win the election, so there wasn’t much fuss put up by dems at the time.

But then Trump won.
That’s irrelevant. If you’re talking about historical precedence then go back to 1864 when Lincoln waited till after the election to replace a judge.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT