Yes it has. Many many times. The most recent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination Senate held no hearings, did not vote.
From the link, hearings were scheduled, and her nomination was withdrawn before they could occur. How is that even slightly the same thing?
Republican senate, republican president. They gave W the courtesy of a date, but the idea was to force her name to be pulled. See the red text below. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/ Though the examples are few, they tend to support the right of Republicans to handle — or not handle —this nomination as they wish. In August 1828, Justice Robert Trimble died just as President John Quincy Adams was battling a tough reelection campaign against Democrat Andrew Jackson. Adams ended up losing to Jackson, but in December nominated Kentucky lawyer John Crittenden to replace Trimble. (Recall that before passage of the 20th Amendment in 1933, the presidential inauguration did not take place until March.) Supporters of Jackson opposed this lame-duck nomination, leading to a debate of nine days on the floor of the Senate. Supporters of Adams’s maneuver argued that it was a duty of the president to fill vacant slots, even in the waning days of a presidency. They offered an amendment on the floor: “That the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject the nominations of the President, is as imperative as his duty to nominate; that such has heretofore been the settled practice of the government; and that it is not now expedient or proper to alter it.” But this amendment was rejected in a voice vote and then the Senate voted 23-17 to adopt an amendment saying “that it is not expedient to act upon the nomination of John I. Crittenden.” A few days after becoming president, Jackson nominated John McLean, the Postmaster General under Adams, to replace Trimble. (Jackson did this mainly to get McLean out of the Cabinet and to remove the possibility of him running for president, according to a study of the confirmation process.) According to the Congressional Research Service, “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.” ... During the 1852 campaign between Democrat Franklin Pierce and Whig Winfield Scott, Justice John McKinley died in July. President Millard Fillmore, a Whig who was not running for reelection, nominated three candidates — one in August, one in January and one in February. The Democratic-controlled Senate took no action on two candidates and the third withdrew after the Senate postponed a vote until after inauguration. One of Fillmore’s nominations was never even considered by the Senate, while the other was simply tabled. ... But it is also clear that politics has always played a role — and the Senate has set the rules to act as it wants. Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation. It’s matter of opinion whether a refusal to consider a nominee is a dereliction of constitutional duty or walking away from a constitutional responsibility. But the Senate majority can in effect do what it wants – unless it becomes politically uncomfortable. Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.
Sure they do. They want someone "Nominated" that will read the Constitution and endeavor to understand the original intent when judging issues before the court. The Nomination does not become an appointment until after the consent. You know like, If I nominate this person, will you consent to his appointment? (Hint. No answer is an answer.) Not by my reading, they are acting exactly as the Constitution states and will hold out for a nomination that will also follow the Constitution with attention to the original intent.
So, the Senate can set whatever rules for themselves they want, but if the Constitutionality of their delay is challenged by the sitting president by appointing a justice without their approval, the validity of his actions will be decided upon by the Supreme Court. Sounds like the checks and balances process in action to me.
Actually, it sounds like an action where the President ignores the Constitution and doesn't give a shit what you think. But then we have seen this sort of action already.
The president may appoint a justice during senate recess. That is what the constitution allows. FDR tried to stack the court and was rejected. I think that's about the closest thing to precedent as this unconstitutional proposal is.
Thank you Chief Justice Crane. If this suggested action were to actually occur, I'll defer to the actual Supreme Court. No offense.
My hunch is there's zero chance this will occur. If he does anything but whine about it, he might try a recess appointment. You can't defer MY hunch to anyone but me. WashingtonPost gives "this action" being legit:
