We Need Another SCOTUS Nomination Thread

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I haven't bothered to fact check this.

It should be noted that this "election year" formulation is not the same as the "last year of a lame duck president" argument - which is how Cruz and a few others have framed it. All last years of lame ducks are election years, but not all election years are last years of lame ducks, But it's interesting, nevertheless.

 

[thomasmulligan]

And as the board's failure-in-chief you obliged yourself.

 

[moral_victory]

And as the board's failure-in-chief you obliged yourself.

Thomas Thomas Thomas

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Are these presidential election years or just election years?

Personally I don't view someone as a lame duck president until the next president has been elected.

 

[naturalmwa]

Thomas Thomas Thomas

 

[cigaretteman]

Since 1900, the Senate has voted on eightSupreme Court nominees during an election year. Six were confirmed. But several of those were for seats that had become vacant in the previous year.

The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obama’s term.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ackage-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

[Huey Grey]

Holy crap. Not only are the Republicans dead wrong, but the guy they're saying shouldn't be replaced was confirmed during an election year, too.

 

[jscott78]

Holy crap. Not only are the Republicans dead wrong, but the guy they're saying shouldn't be replaced was confirmed during an election year, too.

Didn't Reagan get Kennedy in during his last year in office?

 

[The Tradition]

Didn't Reagan get Kennedy in during his last year in office?

Yes, after going through two other nominations that didn't work out.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

A year is a really long time to go without a full SCOTUS.

On the simple merits of it, there should be a nomination and replacement.

 

[TexMichFan]

Are these presidential election years or just election years?

Personally I don't view someone as a lame duck president until the next president has been elected.

Looks like election years. Scalia was confirmed in 1986.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

To be fair I will note that the news has been playing some Dems talking about holding up Bush's SCOTUS nominee's too. Eventually they got through though, so we'll see if the Republicans are just saying stuff or if they really intend to hold up the works.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/scotus
Six Justices have been confirmed in a presidential election year since 1900.
For more than two centuries, it has been standard practice for Congress to confirm a president’s Supreme Court nominee, whether in a presidential election year or not. Of the six justices confirmed since 1900, three have been Republicans. The most recent Justice to be confirmed in an election year was Justice Kennedy — appointed by President Reagan — who was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Congress in February of 1988.


Every nominee has received a vote within 125 days of nomination.
Since 1975, the average time from nomination to confirmation is 67 days. In fact, since 1875, every nominee has received a hearing or a vote. The longest time before confirmation in the past three decades was 99 days, for Justice Thomas, and the last four Justices, spanning two Administrations, were confirmed in an average of 75 days.

The Senate has almost a full year — more than 300 days — to consider and confirm a nominee.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Didn't Reagan get Kennedy in during his last year in office?

Yep.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

Boy the paid shills sure are pushing this SCOTUS deal. Interesting.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

Change the rules with the necessary amendment:

1. No more lifetime appointments. In 1776 the life expectancy was about 56 if you lived past infancy. 10 year max term and must be at least 40 years old.

2. Divide the country into 9 regions( NE, Mid Atlantic, Midwest, West, etc. ) Governors of the states in each region nominate a judge who is then voted upon.

3. The incoming judge would then be selected in geographical order as vacancies develop over time. Every part of the country gets a judge/rep.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Change the rules with the necessary amendment:

1. No more lifetime appointments. In 1776 the life expectancy was about 56 if you lived past infancy. 10 year max term and must be at least 40 years old.

2. Divide the country into 9 regions( NE, Mid Atlantic, Midwest, West, etc. ) Governors of the states in each region nominate a judge who is then voted upon.

3. The incoming judge would then be selected in geographical order as vacancies develop over time. Every part of the country gets a judge/rep.

Why would a selection by the governors have any more validity than a selection by the President? A different partisan hack. I would be ok with 18 year appointments, subject to re confirmation. In other words, you could conceivably do 36 years.

 

[naturalmwa]

Change the rules with the necessary amendment:

1. No more lifetime appointments. In 1776 the life expectancy was about 56 if you lived past infancy. 10 year max term and must be at least 40 years old.

2. Divide the country into 9 regions( NE, Mid Atlantic, Midwest, West, etc. ) Governors of the states in each region nominate a judge who is then voted upon.

3. The incoming judge would then be selected in geographical order as vacancies develop over time. Every part of the country gets a judge/rep.

That's sort of fun to ponder. I'd suggest that 10 years may be too short a term however. That essentially means any two term president would reshape the court. That seems like too much instability. Maybe a age limit or a longer term like 20-25 years.

I'm sort of surprised you offer what is essentially an affirmative action quota system, but I'm not inherently opposed. But aren't you afraid that by legitimizing quotas based on geography, you make other quota criteria more acceptable?