8/22/2023 0 Comments Lame duck president and supreme![]() ![]() That’s because conservatives who argued that the Senate has refused to vote on Supreme Court nominees before had some history, albeit very old history, on their side. ![]() Senate Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy called the GOP’s move unprecedented, but wisely stuck to 20th-century examples when they talked about justices confirmed in election years. ![]() Last year, when Senate Republicans refused to vote on anyone President Barack Obama nominated to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Democrats protested that the GOP was stealing the seat, flouting more than a century of Senate precedent about how to treat Supreme Court nominees. It is intended to reserve this vacancy to be supplied by Gen. “This is equivalent to a rejection, contingent upon the result of the pending Presidential election. Bradford…as successor to Justice McKinley was postponed,” reported the New York Times on September 3, 1852. It was 1852, but the doomed confirmation battle sounds a lot like 2016. Senate, blocked due to the hostile politics of the time. But the unlucky nominee’s bid was forestalled by the U.S. As controversy continues over the push to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in another election year, this piece about past battles over nominations to the Court became relevant again.Ī Supreme Court justice was dead, and the president, in his last year in office, quickly nominated a prominent lawyer to replace him. Editor’s Note, September 25, 2020: This article was published after Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court expired after Senate Republicans declined to hold a vote on President Barack Obama’s nominee because it was an election year. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |