Political pressures probably won't allow that scenario. It hasn't happened, tho FDR tried to add additional justices to pack the court to rule in his favor.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...t_pick_compromise_candidate_than_to_pass.html Legal eagle Alan Dershowitz weighs in on the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the process to replace the vacant position. Dershowitz praised Scalia as the "most innovative and transformative justice in modern history" and talked about how he admired his intellect. "I disagreed with many of his opinions but I admired his intellect and the consistency of his views. He is probably the most influential conservative ever to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. And history will remember him very fondly," Dershowitz said of the Supreme Court Justice. Dershowitz said it is "unlikely" President Obama will be able to get a nominee passed. However, Dershowitz said Obama may pick a compromise candidate rather than let the opportunity slip from him and let it go to the next president. "President Obama now has the incredibly difficult task of trying to fill this with somebody who could be confirmed by the existing Senate. It's unlikely he'll be able to do it, but he might prefer to pick somebody who would be acceptable to the Senate than to pass completely and let it go to the next president. So that's being discussed in the White House right now, I assure you," Dershowitz said on MSNBC.
Yes, but only 12 of the 29 were actually rejected. Just telling you where I got my info. It is probably semantics. Still, it would seem very unprecedented for there to a practical year long vacancy because one party doesn't want the sitting president to appoint the justice. Or do you think that is just business as usual?
I think it's business as usual. It's rare that the judicial approval process (advice and consent) goes without a lot of controversy. I actually like all the justices and the makeup of the court, and generally think Obama should get his justices and judges appointed. Elections have consequences. (I supported all of Obama's nominees to date). On the other hand, anyone who's not as "right" as Scalia moves the court to the left. I'm not sure that's fine with republicans. They're in the majority. Elections have consequences. The republican's argument for delay is that the voters get to choose who gets to nominate the replacement. Some merit to that. I suspect Obama nominates and the senate rejects and it becomes a campaign issue. It remains to be seen which side is more fired up over it.
regarding the semantics, how do you "count" this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination
"Historically, most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees. President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!" http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
Strange tactic of McConnell to say that the senate won't approve ANY appointment. Seems like it would have been smarter to keep that to himself and complain about /stall the specific nominee when it comes. Doing it before knowing who will be nominated just makes the Democrats case for them that it is pure partisanship and nothing else. I'm not sure who wins this - both sides will be energized by the fight. But it's hard to see it not being a, if not the, major issue in the general. Let the battle begin! barfo
Obama is going to put some nominee through a painful rejection because he's going to insist on proving he's an idiot. McConnell is giving him an out and a warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_Rule The Thurmond Rule is an informal and somewhat amorphous rule in the United States Senate regarding confirmations of judicial nominees. While it originated with former Senator Strom Thurmond's opposition to President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in June 1968, the specifics of the rule vary between sources. Thurmond himself said that no lifetime judicial appointments should move in the last six months or so of a lame-duckpresidency.[1] In the last year of George W. Bush's second term Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy stated the rule as meaning "judicial nominations do not advance in the Senate in the latter part of a presidential election year without the support of Senate leaders and top lawmakers on the Judiciary committee."
Ah yes, Thurmond, the racist who Republicans gave the right of approval over every appointee whom Clinton nominated. While the media raked Clinton for his supposed affairs, they hid Thurmond's black love child. Ah yes, Fortas, the liberal who Republicans stalled on Lyndon Johnson naming as Chief Justice until Nixon was inaugurated and successfully blackmailed to quit the Supreme Court, using the same techniques Nixon used with the Watergate burglars Nixon employed. Nixon then nominated the right-wing Warren Burger as Chief Justice.
In the last year of George W. Bush's second term Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy stated the rule as meaning "judicial nominations do not advance in the Senate in the latter part of a presidential election year without the support of Senate leaders and top lawmakers on the Judiciary committee."
One whole senator said that once, 8 whole years ago? I guess that establishes it as one of the 200-year-old Rules of the Senate.
