Yes, The Senate Can Confirm a New Nominee Before The Election

I was on CBS News today with my friend Kim Wehle on the replacement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  There is a legitimate debate over whether a president should wait for the next election for such a nomination to move forward. However, I disagree with Wehle that a nomination would be unlikely given the roughly 40 days left before the election. The Senate could move this nomination in that time and, judging from some past nominations, even have time to spare without setting a record.

Kim Wehle is clearly correct that the average for nominations is roughly 60 days.  However, the Senate confirmed Justice John Paul Steves in 19 days.  Sandra Day O’Conner was confirmed in 33 days and Ginsburg herself was confirmed in 42 days.  Wehle was expressing doubt that such a short confirmation is possible in this environment and she could be proven correct. However, such speedy confirmations are more common when the Senate is held by the same party as the President.  If Majority Mitch McConnell wants a vote, I do not see how the Democrats can derail it without additional defections from the GOP bench of senators.  The issue is not the hearings but the scheduling the floor vote. However, all things are possible when political stakes are high.

Moreover, most presidents have not waited for the election. This would be the 30th such nomination in an election year.  I have no doubt that if the Democrats controlled the Senate with a Democratic president, they would be moving a nomination forward. Indeed, that was their position in 2016.

There is no question that there is a tsunami of hypocrisy from both parties this week. However, this weekend Chuck Todd exclaimed in disbelief when a Republican senator referred to the “precedent” for such nominations. Todd declared in disbelief “what precedent?!”  The answer is that most presidents have made nominations in election years. Waiting to fill a slot is the exception to that precedent.

Indeed, in 2016,Justice Ginsburg swatted down arguments that a President should wait until after an election.  She stressed that it is the “job” of the Senate to fill such slots and noted “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year.” Likewise, Justice Sonia Sotomayor insisted that the Senate should not leave the Court with just eight members, stating “Eight is not a good number. I think we hope there will be nine [justices] as soon as possible.”

Again, there are good-faith reasons to wait for an election and senators are clearly allowed to vote on that basis. However, if a president nominates before an election, I believe that Senate should give that nominee a vote.  That was my position with Merrick Garland and it is my view today.

357 thoughts on “Yes, The Senate Can Confirm a New Nominee Before The Election”

  1. An Ode to Liberal Left Demon-icrates !

    Your cheating heart will make you weep
    You’ll cry and cry you’ll try to sleep
    But sleep won’t come the whole night through
    Your cheating heart will tell on you

  2. Wonderfully telling comment I just read on the other Professor Turley’s — Steve Turley – blog about RBG:

    “RBG didn’t retire in Obama’s presidency. Her pride and selfishness has undone them all.”

    So true and poetically just. The Left done in in by its heroine. She’s not RBG; she’s Cleopatra.

  3. All our bags are packed and ready to.
    He’s right beside here in the snow.
    We’re leaving! On a Trump train!
    Don’t know when I’ll be back again.
    Big Donald stubbed his toe.

  4. He Haw elections do have consequences’ (President Obama so said)! The Democrats’ are shrieking you can’t nominate a Candidate to replace Justice Ginsberg because it’s an election year. Is there a citation anywhere that they can direct us to? Nowhere in the Constitution or a Statute can I find such where there is a timeline for Nominating a candidate to the Supreme Court. Some have tried to assert Morality to this issue, when did Politics become Moral? Others have tried to place a limit on the number of Senators to affirm a nomination greater than a simple majority, where is it written that the Senate has to have a vote greater than a simple majority for this issue? There have been Senate agreements among its members to conduct certain business out of respect to the minority party, but that was blown up by a Senator from Nevada (The Chicken have come home to Roost) and oh what a rotten egg it has laid. Further understanding can be obtained by reading the Federalist Papers 76 through 83.

  5. Article 1, Section 2

    The President…shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court,…

  6. “That’s their job.”

    “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year”

    – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    1. If you have the Senate, you provide advice and consent.

      If you do not have the Senate, you caterwaul.

      I feeeeel your pain!

  7. Turley checks in with a vote for complete lack of integrity on the side of the republicans.

    1. This happened 30 times prior. If your position is that not once did that involve Dems, prove it or shut your pie hole.

      1. Didn’t say that wasn’t the case, f&*k widget. Just saying that, McConnell, Graham, et. al. made a case of saying they were setting new precedent when they gignapped the Garland nomination. You have literally nothing to stand on in this regard as well as being someone completely lacking in integrity.

        1. So you condemn the GOP for what you admit the Dems did about 15x. Typical Demon-krap hypocrisy and stupidism, S&$T for brains. You F*&K your momma better than you toss epithets.

  8. There is no question that Constitutionally nominating and confirming a candidate for the SC is legal and necessary. The Court is supposed to have 9 members.

    All the rest of the discussion is political and shows what a mess our Legislative branch is functioning under. The Legislature has not used its power wisely so the SC has become a more powerful branch of government than intended. Blame most of that on democrats.

  9. I don’t care which party it is. I fully expect a sitting president with an allied Senate to make the most of any opportunity to confirm a Chief Justice. And I fully expect representatives of the opposition to try and stop it. All the emotional, “moralizing,” is pathetic, though, and the veiled calls for violence from people like ALOCO are obviously dangerous.

    Here’s the interview on CBS,

    1. Speaking of emotional moralizing em::


      Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” (source)

      Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas):

      “I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President.

      ISen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.” (source)

      Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election” (This was actually what he said in 2018, doubling down on his previous stance. )

      Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .” (source)

      Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.): “It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.” (source)

      Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.” (source)

      Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): “We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.” (source)

      Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “Vice President Biden’s remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they are entirely applicable to 2016. The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.” (source)

      Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.” (source)

      Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): “The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.”

      Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.” (source)

      Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.): “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.” (source)

      Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.” (source)

      Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

      Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.): “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.” (source)

      1. And? So what? I couldn’t care less. Dig up all the dirt you want – so long as you enjoy the digging and your pile of dirt, that’s all that matters.

        Anyone who expects their opponents to sit on their hands when they have an opportunity to confirm a Justice – is an idiot. And anyone who expects the other party to just stay quiet about it – is also an idiot.

      2. Democrats and Republicans use every legal means at their disposal to accomplish their agenda, whether that’s voting yes or no, delaying, filibustering, packing non sequiturs in bills, impeaching the president, etc.

        I do remember that the argument was mainly made that they wanted the American people to decide. The Republicans were in the majority, and there was nothing the Executive branch could do to force them to vote. I think they should have, and just voted “no”, but most likely they did not want to chance getting an opportunity to confirm a Republican nominee so they used the power at their disposal. This has occurred many times, by both sides, throughout our nation’s history. To pretend this is new or that the Senate always voted on a candidate is not truthful.

        Frustrating, yes, when they did not vote. So was years and years of undermining President Trump, opposing him at every turn, the Russia hoax, the impeachment, ignoring Biden’s quid pro quo.

        You know the great thing about quotes? Everyone, including RBG herself, is on record about how the President has the right to nominate a candidate right up until the end of his term. In fact, there have been multiple SC justices nominated, AND confirmed AFTER a president lost an election.

        Since Democrats have been talking for years about their plan to expand the Supreme Court and stuff it with Liberals to legislate from the bench, there is extra pressure on Republicans to get at least this nomination through. All the rioting, burning, looting, pro crime, anti-cop, and racism against whites has just added more pressure to do what we can.

  10. Professor Turley,

    You said you had the same position for Garland that the Senate should vote on a nominee in an election year. Did you say that in writing at the time? You discussed the Garland nomination in a USA article in March 2016 but I could not find such a clear position. Please provide. Thanks.

  11. “There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Six of these unsuccessful nominees were subsequently nominated and confirmed to other seats on the Court.[2] Additionally, although confirmed, seven nominees either declined office or (in one instance) died before assuming office.”

    Sorry about the Wikipedia source, but it’s the quickest list of SC unsuccessful nominations.

    1. Karen continues her excuse making for the GOP senators who lectured us 4 years ago about holding up a nominee until after an election to be held 8 months in the future, while jumping on approving one 1.5 months in the future.

      Republican President Abraham Lincoln – you may have heard of him Karen, though maybe not – held up on nominating a SC justice right before the election.for his 2nd term. He’s in the GOP manual I expect, a few entries before Roger Stone.

      1. Get over yourself, Book. If the democrats had the White House and the senate Garland would be on the SCOTUS.

      2. Lincoln fought the Southern Democrat secession with soldiers’ guns fire and war. He suspended writ of habeas corpus and smashed seditionist printing presses, literally.

        Yes we need the spirit of Lincoln today, although I would argue that we are not quite into an open civil war yet, just an insurrection.
        But it could get worse if Democratic party leadership is allowed to lead us all by the nose into chaos

        They’re openly threatening MORE RIOTS since they already have been instigating them, and some prominent Democrats have talked about “over our dead bodies literally” and “Burn Congress down.” This is the inflammatory rhetoric of criminals seeking to intimidate lawful voters and representatives with violence.

        Be careful what you wish for!

        1. The turtle is the one directing the way to chaos, Kurtz. There is no way around this.


            Only way to feel the noise is when it’s good and loud,
            So good you can’t believe it screaming with the crowd,
            Don’t sweat it, get it back to you,
            Overkill, Overkill, Overkill
            On your feet you feel the beat, it goes straight to your spine,
            Shake your head you must be dead if it don’t make you fly,
            Don’t sweat it, get it back to you,
            Overkill, Overkill, Overkill
            Know your body’s made to move, you feel it in your guts
            Rock ‘n’ roll ain’t worth the name if it don’t make you strut,
            Don’t sweat it, get it back to you,
            Overkill, Overkill, Overkill

      3. BTB:

        The Senate has the right to vote, or abstain. Yes, I think they should have just voted in 2016, even if it was a “no” vote. Yes, they are faced with criticism today.

        Do you recall Pelosi talking about using every arrow in her quiver? Filibusters, holding up votes, and so on are all arrows in the quiver of Congress, many of which we have all disliked over the years. Legally refusing to consider Garland was one of the arrows in their quiver at the time, albeit a rude one.

        President Lincoln had the right to nominate a replacement. Many Southern states seceded by 1861, and Taney had died less than 4 weeks before the election. Lincoln, as president, to make his decision. Trump also has the Constitutional right to nominate a candidate. Obama had the right to nominate a replacement in 2016. Then, in the separation of powers, any nomination goes to the Senate who can vote, not vote. This is one of those times where what is legal is not always popular. As I’ve said upstream, I think they should have voted.

        The Left has plunged the US into literal anarchy in Democrat-controlled areas. They have pushed the anti-American, anti-white, anti-black-conservative, and other hateful rhetoric. Both Republicans and Democrats are using all the tools at their disposal to fight each other politically. Republicans are fighting against this lawlessness and hate. One of the tools available to the Senate when a candidate is nominated to the Supreme Court is to vote, or not vote. Just like Democrats, Republicans feel a duty to work for their voters. In 2016, Republicans had the power to stymie Obama’s Supreme Court pick. They have the power to confirm a Supreme Court pick from a Republican president. Since Democrats wish the Court to legislate from the bench, choosing who sits on the bench is critical to both parties. If Democrat’s don’t like how the laws are currently written, instead of appealing to Liberal judges to make up laws through interpretation, they should do their jobs, and legislate through Congress.

        Note this analysis in The Atlantic, hardly a Republican bastion.

        “Does the Senate have to hold hearings and a vote on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court? The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent Garland cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination.

        The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.”

        1. “Do you recall Pelosi talking about using every arrow in her quiver?”

          And do *you* recall the full context of her comment?

          If not:

          “We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is, we have a big challenge in our country. This President has threatened to not even accept the results of the election with statements that he and his henchmen have made. So, right now, our main goal and I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would want that to be to protect the integrity of the election, as we protect the American people from the coronavirus. And I have faith in the American people on this Sunday morning.
          “I hope and pray we have a vaccine, and that it will be soon, but it must be safe and efficacious when we do. Not one day sooner or one day later than that. But the fact is, this Administration has been a total failure in protecting the health and well-being of the American people, and it has had an impact on our economy. The lives, the livelihood and the life of our democracy are threatened by this Administration.
          “So, again, when people say, ‘What can I do?’ You can vote. You can get out the vote, and you can do so as soon as possible. Ten states as I said, on Friday, started their early voting, the day that we lost Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
          George Stephanopoulos.
          “But to be clear, you’re not taking any arrows out of your quiver? You’re not ruling anything out?”
          “We have a responsibility. We’ve taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people. That is when we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.”

          1. Oh, thanks for reminding me. So many Democrats have gone on record saying the vaccine won’t be safe, and urging the public not to take it…during a pandemic!!! Is there no low too low to stoop? Trump doesn’t control the FDA or the vaccine approval process.

            Remember when Pelosi accused Trump of working for Russia? The impeachment was all about “protecting democracy and our Constitution”. I’ll bet if pressed, she’d say illegally getting a hair salon to open, in defiance of the health department, so she could get her hair done while all the other women in CA were not allowed, was protection the Constitution.

            I live in CA. I am well aware of Nancy’s rhetoric. She usually uses the same phrases. Funny thing is, she regularly attacks the First Amendment (free speech), Second Amendment (gun rights), and the basic tenets of justice (proving allegations instead of just believing the politically expedient ones). Well, then there were her comments the promoted unrest and riots. Hmmmm, is that protecting democracy?

            She is an elitist, entitled snob.

          2. CTHD:

            I am curious if you saw the unedited video of the interview where Pelosi talked about the arrows in her quiver? She appeared to completely freeze. He asked her a question. They were in the middle of a back and forth conversation, and there was this long pause. Then she said, “Good morning. Good, this Sunday morning.” Smiling strangely. Then she seemed to get unstuck, and said what she almost always does, about how they defend the Constitution. It’s almost verbatim boilerplate what she’s said on any issue, like it’s what she says when she pauses.

            1. No, I only read the transcript.

              Re: “So many Democrats have gone on record saying the vaccine won’t be safe, and urging the public not to take it…during a pandemic!!!,” I haven’t heard any Democrats say that. I’ve heard Democrats say that they’ll want to know what scientists say about it and not rely on what Trump says about it. That strikes me as wise, because Trump is a pathological liar and will say whatever he thinks serves him in the moment.

              Re: “then there were her comments the promoted unrest and riots. Hmmmm, is that protecting democracy?,” I haven’t heard her say anything promoting unrest and riots. I’d be happy to read whatever you have in mind, just provide a transcript.

    2. Karen, you’ll notice on that page that for only 3 people other than Garland did the Senate take “no action.” And those vacancies weren’t created in an election year (Micou was nominated in an election year, but the vacancy occurred earlier, and the Senate had already allowed a previous nomination to lapse).

      That’s the bigger issue here: the cowardly choice not to act rather than to allow a vote.

      1. CTHD – remember all the times Democrat majorities stalled bills or refused to vote on important matters for political purposes?

        It was not a “cowardly choice not to act”. Rather, delay WAS their strategy so that they would have the opportunity to confirm a Republican nominee. The Court has been Liberal majority, legislating from the bench, for years. One of the reasons Republican Senators get elected is to help get more originalists on the Court, so we can go back to just applying the laws as written rather than making up new ones out of thin air. It’s Congress’ job to legislate, not SCOTUS. But as long as it’s Democrats doing it, the party is happy to encourage it.

        Democrats have long talked of expanding the Court and stuffing it with more Liberals. We need every originalist judge on the court we can get. Which means it is the Republicans’ job to use every legal means at their disposal to make that happen, regardless of how frustrating it is.

        Meanwhile, Democrats have made it their goal to have a Liberal SCOTUS legislating from the bench. All of their actions, including their very reason for getting a president in the White House, is towards that end. Hence, they, too, will use every legal means at their disposal to make that happen. They are not about to give up decades of control over the Court.

        1. Karen,

          I remember all the times Democratic majorities AND Republican majorities have stalled bills or refused to vote on important matters, and I think BOTH are a “cowardly choice not to act.”

          Re: the reasons Republican Senators get elected, that’s because Senators are elected by state, and a lot of smaller states have Republican majorities. WY, with a population of less than 600K gets the same number of Senators as CA, with a population of over 40M. The total population currently represented by the 53 Republicans in the Senate is about 15 million people less than the total population represented by the 47 Democrats+Independents. And of course several million citizens in DC, Puerto Rico, … aren’t represented at all in the Senate. If you look at the 60 Senators representing the 30 least populous states, they represent only ~12% of the total population. The Senate is out of whack with respect to representing the country as a whole.

          I don’t know what you mean by “It’s Congress’ job to legislate, not SCOTUS. But as long as it’s Democrats doing it, the party is happy to encourage it.” I’m a Democrat, and I agree that it’s Congress’ job to legislate, not SCOTUS. I hope you also realize that SCOTUS has long had a majority appointed by Republican Presidents.

          “Democrats have made it their goal to have a Liberal SCOTUS legislating from the bench.”

          Nope. It’s literally impossible for SCOTUS to legislate. All they can do is rule on cases before them.

          “[Democrats] are not about to give up decades of control over the Court.”

          Democrats haven’t had decades of control. Again: the MAJORITY of the Justices have been appointed by Republican Presidents, and it’s been that way for decades. Why on earth do you believe otherwise? It currently has a 5-3 majority appointed by Republican Presidents: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were nominated by Trump, Alito and Roberts were nominated by GW Bush, and Thomas was nominated by GHW Bush. And if you keep tracking back, you’ll find a Republican-appointed majority going back decades.

  12. The 40 days is artificial. the amount of time left is every day. and nearer 100 to Jan 1st nearer to 50 before election day and add 20 more for January 2021. Senate can call a session any time. As for the procedure they do not HAVE to have a committee involvement and in fact can vote the same day the nomination is handed from President of US A to President of the Senate. Thanks in large part to Comrade Harry Reid. And still time left over to impeach Pelosi.

        1. Not for SCOTUS nominations, no.

          So the Senate rules do not permit a majority vote to confirm a SCOTUS nominee? If they do, how was that rule enabled?

          1. Ha ha Olly yes of course they can vote to confirm a SCOTUS nominee. They can, and they will,


            1. It’s not god’s hand that will gignap yet another SCOTUS seat, it’s a complete vacancy of integrity on the part of the republican party.

          2. FFS, Olly, pay attention to the question I was addressing: “Did Harry Reid and Dems not change the Senate rules (nuclear) from 60 to 51?” The answer to *that* is “Not for SCOTUS nominations, no.” It wasn’t a question about confirmation but about cloture, and the Republicans are the ones who changed the Senate rules for cloture on SCOTUS nominations.

            1. It wasn’t a question about confirmation but about cloture, and the Republicans are the ones who changed the Senate rules for cloture on SCOTUS nominations.

              So Reid and the Senate Democrats voted to move the goalposts right in front of a Senate majority. And voters elected a Republican majority to kick through judicial nominees virtually unopposed. Brilliant move! I believe the term to describe this would be Strategery.

      1. Harry Reid used the Nuclear Option to change 60 to 51, for presidential appointments and federal judges. They did this because their ultra Liberal choices did not have enough support to get through. Once they used the nuclear option, they stuffed the federal court with Liberal judges. Once he did that, Republicans applied his own rule to SCOTUS.

        The trend, including regarding Garland, is that Democrats are shocked and find it unfair that Republicans would ever take a page from their own play book. Republicans are supposed to be polite, and defer to Democrats on all things. Of course they should have given up their opportunity to block a Democrat nominee, and of course they should give up their right to confirm a Republican nominee! Because that would promote the Democrat agenda, and that’s all that matters.

  13. Democrats are pressuring Republicans in the Senate to refuse to exercise their right to confirm a Supreme Court nomination, even using threats of violence and impeachment.

    This is the first year there will be nationwide mail in voting to decide a Presidential election. There are going to be problems, and widespread accusations of fraud. Remember when Democrats changed an election by “finding” a bunch of ballots in trunks?

    If Democrats succeed in pressuring Republicans not to vote in a 9th Supreme Court justice, there will be 8 justices to deal with this. If they deadlock, how will the question of who wins the 2020 election ever be decided? Then, will Democrats claim that if Trump refuses to leave, because there has been no legal decision, that he’s a dictator? They will demand to win.

    What if Trump wins and Democrats find more trunk fulls of ballots? With a split court, Democrats could just declare themselves the winner, and any disagreement is dictatorship.

    A side note about voter fraud. I have received voting materials for someone who used to live in the property before we bought it, over a decade ago. I have written “return to sender, does not live here” for years and years. I still get her voting material. This time, I thought I opened my address confirmation, but I accidentally opened hers. There was a line that said if you don’t live here, to write your new address and sign it. Voter registration will not be updated without her signature. Well, I have no idea where she lives, and I certainly can’t sign for her.

    So I will receive her mail in ballot. If I mark it “return to sender” will it be collected by unscrupulous people and used?

    How many times is this going to happen, all across America?

    1. Karen your acceptance of BS by the proven liar Trump, without questioning why as President he isn’t trying to make mail-in voting more secure – there is a pandemic which by his own guidelines the aged and others with special conditions should be avoiding – instead of fostering conspiracy nonsense which stooges like you eat by the soup spoon, throws into question your immoral support of the blatant hypocrisy of GOP senators who only 4 years ago lectured us on the propriety of waiting for an election to fill a SC seat.

      I suppose we should welcome your owning and outing your complete immoral partisanship in such clear terms..

      1. BTB:

        How has it gone when Republicans try to prevent voter fraud? Don’t you remember? Going through the voter rolls, or requiring ballot drop off locations are all racist. Even requiring ID is racist.

        Of course mail in voting is ripe for abuse.

        I also agree with you that there are valid reasons for mail in voting, and always have been. But you have to request a mail in ballot. This helps reduce fraud. For everyone else, there could have been car side ballot drop off, with ID. The elderly, military, and those without transportation could have requested a mail in ballot. In person polls should have switched to car side, or they could have lines of people standing 6 feet apart, check ID, and drop it off.

        So, no, I do not agree with the current 100% mail in ballots. I, personally, keep receiving voting material for someone who has not lived in this property since before I bought it over a decade ago.

        “I suppose we should welcome your owning and outing your complete immoral partisanship in such clear terms.” “Conspiracy nonsense.” “Stooges like you” Are you incapable of making an argument without ad hominem? Is it really too much to ask? This is pretty typical when a conservative tries to talk with a Democrat.

        I do not want anyone, Republican or Democrat, engaging in voter fraud. This should be a bipartisan issue. There were ways to safely vote nationwide in a pandemic. We need such infrastructure in place, because pandemics are the logical outcome of a globally traveling society with the speed of air travel.

        No one has said to drag the elderly or people like me, with asthma, to in-person polls. It’s a straw man argument.

        It is not responsible to ignore the scope for fraud, mistakes, and delays with massive mail voting. What’s going to happen if there are 8 Supreme Court justices, and a dispute like below? We need to come up with a better system or Florida will lose its ignominious “Hanging Chads” crown of voting mishaps. What is being set up is a system of voting that will likely fail, or be challenged, without the ability of a Supreme Court to break an impasse. Simply denying there is a problem won’t make it go away.

        “In the days before New Jersey’s third-largest city held municipal elections in May entirely by mail, postal workers became suspicious when they found hundreds of ballots bundled together.

        The discovery triggered an investigation that led to charges of voter fraud against two local elected leaders and resulted in nearly 20 percent of the ballots being rejected. It also prompted President Trump to cite the case as an example of how mail-in voting can corrupt elections, though election experts staunchly disagree.

        On Wednesday, a New Jersey judge ruled that the election in Paterson, N.J., had been irreversibly tainted and ordered a new vote to be held in November to settle the race for the City Council seat.

        The superior court judge, Ernest M. Caposela, wrote that the election “was not the fair, free and full expression of the intent of the voters.””

  14. Meanwhile, the Senate could be taking up the COVID relief bill that the House passed months ago.

    200,000 Americans dead.

    But instead, McConnell’s is focusing on the courts and what he thinks is good for the GOP elite, not what’s good for Americans, including working class Republicans. McConnell puts party over country yet again.

    1. INdeed CTHD. The necessary abandonment of any other Senate business for this Profile in Hypocrisy should and will be highlighted. It’s not like nothing else is going on that they should be focusing on.

    2. CTHD – Democrats have stalled the bill. They have stuffed it with their pork, such as bailing out pension funds. Public employees and unions should have transferred over to 401Ks long ago, along with most of the rest of private industry. Instead, they keep sticking the taxpayers with the bill of pension funds, until more is paid to pensions than in salaries.

      It has caused more than one CA city to collapse.

      Don’t stick federal taxpayers with the bill during a pandemic because they refuse to change to a viable system. Relief MUST be related to Covid-19. Now is not the time to hold pandemic relief hostage to try to stuff in goodies like expensive environmental programs or pension bailouts.

      You should recall that one of the GOP sticking points is that it is unfair to pay people more than they used to earn when they worked. That incentivizes not working, rather than the goal of helping people through a pandemic. Business owners in critical industries have lost employees in droves, when they earned more on UI than they did working.

      But, you know how much the Democrats love to buy votes by dangling money. Who cares if it crashes the economy or is unsustainable.

      One of my criticisms of the Trump administration is that debt kept increasing. This is one of the reasons why I want the pandemic relief bill to be targeted, helpful, and financially responsible.

      Basically, Democrats are holding pandemic relief hostage to try to force a Republican President and Republican majority Senate to give them a bunch of pork and irresponsible spending. As per usual. But then they will blame Trump for the debt that incurs.

      1. Karen, that’s more BS. Pounding out differences is what you do in Congress. The Democrats passed an aid bill over a month ago and await Senate action to move it forward. The Senate has passed nothing – NOTHING! Now, the hell with it and the hell with unemployment benefits, aid to states and localities and medical services.

        1. Read my comment more slowly. Democrats stuffed it with pork, and won’t give it up. They are holding pandemic relief hostage unless we give away lots of goodies, like funding pensions instead of just moving them to 401K.

        2. Red States are not fairly made to pay the bill for blue states who want to hole up for all of 2020 collecting unemployment except when the riots are on

          Red states are working and want to keep their tax money. let the blue states manage their own mess for once

          people don’t like how the Democrats run their turf? vote Republican or move

          you’ll see how this all shakes out, give it a few years. things are sometimes not what they seem

      2. “Democrats have stalled the bill.”

        No, Karen, Democrats in the House already **passed** a follow-up COVID relief bill months ago, and Democrats in the Senate are a minority, so the Senate doesn’t require them to pass a bill.

        1. Democrats stuffed that bill with pork and Green New Deal stuff, and then refused to put forth a bill with ONLY Covid-19 relief. They are holding aid hostage until and unless a Republican majority Senate passes a Democrat goody bag that would seriously hamper the economy at the time when we need jobs the most.

    3. Just because you can’t think when chewing gum doesn’t mean others have the same problem. There is money left over but Nancy thinks the suffering of the American people might alter the votes in the Senate and House. She thinks about these things alot when she illegally goes to the hair dresser to have her hair done while not wearing a mask.

  15. Turley said:

    “I have no doubt that if the Democrats controlled the Senate with a Democratic president, they would be moving a nomination forward. Indeed, that was their position in 2016.” I have repeatedly asked my Democrat friends if there was a Democrat President, and a Democrat majority Senate, would they abstain from replacing RBG’s seat out of deference to the possibility that Republicans might win the election?

    Exactly zero have answered me.

    I think the Senate should have voted in 2016, even if it was to vote “no.” They legally had the right to vote yes, no, or refuse to consider. However, refusing to vote has led to this problem. Should all future Senates be held to the actions of the 2016 Senate? Did Donald Trump agree when he ran not to nominate anyone in an election year? Will Democrat majority Senates forever be held to the actions of 2016?

    It is true that no Senate of a different party than the president has confirmed a SC nominee in an election year. Since appointments are for life, this is a rare occurrence both for there to be a vacancy during an election year, AND for there to be different parties in the White House and Senate. That is not how I remember the argument couched in 2016, however. I remember most of the rhetoric focused on the Senate’s legal right not to take action, and that the people need to speak in the election. I suspect that Republicans felt Scalia’s seat sacred to them in the same way Democrats feel about RBG’s. Since Republicans had the majority, the Democrat President was unable to force them to vote.

    Democrats have taken a scorched Earth approach with Republicans. Instead of building bipartisan good will over the years, they have impeached the President over what turned out to be a hoax perpetrated through serious wrongdoing. They have encouraged people to “get together, make a crowd, and show them they are not welcome anywhere, anymore!” Kamala Harris encouraged riots to continue. There are myriad ways in which Democrat politicians have accused Republicans of being racist, xenophobes, and many other slurs. They have tried to use force to get their way; ironic as that is what they have told their followers they should fear from Republicans.

    And now they turn around and demand that Republicans do them a solid? Why? If Democrats win in 2020, which is a real possibility, will they work across the aisle with Republicans? If Democrats get in a similar position today, will they abstain from using their legal right to fill a vacancy, just to help out Republicans?

    The Republican majority Senate of 2016 used their advantage not to consider Garland. I think a simple “no” vote would have created far less problems. Democrats have used every political option they have, from filibustering, calling for political unrest, calling for nation wide “resistance” against President Trump, ordering police to stand down and allow riots to continue which they blame on Trump…Remember that ominous remark from Pelosi that they have arrows in their quiver? There have even been terrorist threats to burn down the government if Republicans legally vote on a replacement.

    This is beginning to look more and more like pre-Holodomor, 1930s Nazi Germany, and right before the Bolshevik Revolution. There is the threat of violence unless Democrats get their way.

    If Democrats win the White House and a majority in the Senate, they might pass legislation to double or triple the Supreme Court, and stuff it with ultra Liberal judges who legislate from the bench. We’ve already seen how CA Democrat politicians drive taxpayers and businesses from the state. That could be the condition of the entire Union. There have been racist proposals of reparations. Forcing one race to pay another race for the behavior of the entire globe is both racist and irrational. Slavery still exists in Africa. Black people still own black slaves in Africa. It is a false premise to promote the idea that blacks were the only race enslaved and abused in human history. They have done their share of atrocities. Do the descendants of the few who survived the Holodomor, the Jewish Holocaust, or the Irish Potato Famine who emigrated to the US owe black people some sort of blood money? For what? What about descendants of those who ran the Underground Railroad, or Union soldiers who fought, bled, and too often died to free the slaves?

    There have been a lot of immoral reasons wars were fought throughout human history. How many civil wars have been fought to free slaves? Our country divided, and bled. Non slave owners fought to free black people from slavery when slavery was ubiquitous in human history. The US along with the West in general were at the vanguard of abolishing slavery. We don’t owe any debt. But that is not the rhetoric of the Democrat Party is it? It has become increasingly racist against whites and black conservatives. Misogynistic against conservative women. Antisemitic with the proliferation of BDS. Patriotism and nationalism has been redefined as Fascist.


    I hope to God Republicans win in November. Based on the fruits of the Democrat Party, that we can all see burning on the TV, I am very concerned at our country being torn apart if they win.

    1. Karen, your question is not answerable, but we can all hope that unlike the GOP now, they would choose the moral response and wait. In any case, whether they would or not cannot be used to justify the GOP choosing the immoral and hypocritical choice McConnell and seems like most – like you – support. Why don’t you stick to that moral choice instead of hiding behind hypothetical questions we can’t answer?

      1. your question is not answerable, but we can all hope that unlike the GOP now, they would choose the moral response and wait.

        Of course it’s answerable, if you weren’t a hypocrite. Conservatives believe the moral thing to do would be to confirm a justice that shares their moral worldview. Legally, the President has the duty to nominate and the Senate has the authority to confirm. Given the people elected this current majority in the Senate, a vote to confirm a justice within constitutional rules is where the legal and moral obligation intersect.

      2. My question is “not answerable?”

        Really? Because students are asked hypothetical questions every day. Can they just claim that if they don’t like the answer, they can just say it’s “not answerable?”

        Why would what Democrats do, or not do, be used to justify the GOP response? Because it is politically irresponsible for Republicans not to exercise their rights to vote yes, no, or abstain, when Democrats would do no such thing.

        The Senate has the legal right to vote yes, no, or abstain. Simply abstaining, while legal, set themselves up for plenty of sound bites and outrage today. Democrats absolutely have a reason to be angry that the Senate abstained from hearing Garland’s nomination, regardless of their right to do so. Democrats have a point that a Republican Senate refused to consider a nominee in 2016, and wish to consider a nominee now.

        I think they should have voted in 2016, even if it was to just vote “no.” That said, it was their right. Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself said they should vote. She did not say it was illegal for them not to, but that it was their job to vote.

        Democrats also should have built up political good will instead of their scorched Earth and salted fields tactics of the past 4 years. Why should Republicans do them a solid and give up their right to a Supreme Court pick?

        Democrats threaten violence if the Senate does not give up its right to vote. Well, there’s already Leftist violence in the streets. Turn on the news. They have threatened to stack the courts if they don’t get their way. Well, Democrats have threatened to stack the court the next time they get a Democrat President and majority in Congress. So how is today different than any other day? Would Democrats stop the violence and abstain from stacking the court if they get their way? History suggests otherwise.

      3. actually it would be IMMORAL of the POTUS and Senate to wait. They have a duty to the votes and the United States to fill this seat promptly

        and do so with courage unaffected by the prominent Democratic voices threatening MORE RIOTS, and to “burn Congress down.”
        This 2020 Democratic party strategy of criminal intimidation of voters and representatives with violence must be firmly rejected by voters! Law and order must prevail

        1. ignore my post above Kurtz, apology. I wrongly though it was someone else making the opposite point, my bad!

      4. book invokes “morality” ah ha lol…..

        Democrats, so clever, when they have laws and rules they pick rules, when no rules, mock up some morality!
        when neither rules nor morality suits them, they pick riots!
        one day, “its all relative” and “cultural diversity” and “difference of opinion!”

        but the next day when they want you to follow some “morality” that only benefits them not you, suddenly, they want you to be a saint!

        well, maybe we gonna “follow our own bliss” and “take the left hand path” on this one

    2. You’ve been watching Fox News again. We’ve told you before that we’d just watch first-hand if we wanted to know Kellyanne’s latest lying take on things. You didn’t watch “Meet the Press” on Sunday, in which Chuck Todd confronted some Republican Senator from Wyoming who heads the Judiciary Committee, with multiple clips of interviews done back in 2016 with Republicans who went on and on about how wrong it would be to allow Merrick Garland to ascend to the SCOTUS because the VOTERS SHOULD CHOOSE THE PRESIDENT and the President should choose the SCOTUS nominee. Plus, it is a lifetime appointment, so it’s not fair to make an nomination close to an election. So, with 9 months to go until the November election in 2016, President Obama, who didn’t cheat to win his election, was denied his nominee because of Mitch McConnell. This Senator came up with the disingenuous argument that it is acceptable to make a nomination when the President and Senate are both Republican, which Karen, of course, repeats here, as an excuse for the outrageous hypocrisy of Republicans. Logically, how do the political affiliations of the White House and Senate change the Republicans’ 2016 argument that the voters should choose the President to make this lifetime appointment when a vacancy arises in an election year? It doesn’t, and having been schooled in the Kellyanne technique of how to respond to interview questions you don’t like or don’t have any reasonable answer for, he simply refused to explain how this makes any difference, and pivoted to give a campaign speech.

      Yes, Turley, it is possible for the Republicans to shove through this nomination, and it has been done before, but what about the 180 degree pivot to the opposite position Republicans took when Scalia died in February, 2016? Justice Ginsberg’s body wasn’t even cold when they announced that they will nominate a replacement and vote because THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, even if doing so proves conclusively that they are total hypocrites. Talk about the Washington swamp! Trump was not the choice of the majority of the American people. Republicans have done an about-face on THEIR position on election-year nominations because they crave power, pure and simple. Their 2016 position is consistent with this–they had the power to deny the sitting President choice for SCOTUS justice and they used it. Now they have the power to shove in a nominee of a President not chosen by the majority of Americans, and who was impeached by the House of Representatives, and who is losing in the polls. They don’t care about the will or values of the American people. They are specifically looking for Judges to overturn Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education, decisions supported by the majority of Americans because they don’t care about the will or values of the American people. There is still pending the SCOTUS case on the Affordable Care Act, which if overturned will deny 20 million Americans health care coverage, in a pandemic, no less. Of course, another Trump lie is that he has no replacement. Neither do Republicans, but overturning an accomplishment of Barak Obama is the main driving force.

      Less talked about is the fact that McConnell and the Republicans have also shoved in hundreds of federal judges, a large number of whom were found to be “unqualified” by the American Bar Association. Some of them have never even tried a case before a tribunal, so they don’t know substantive or procedural law. McConnell allowed these vacancies to accumulate under Barak Obama’s presidency by simply refusing to call a vote, just like he did with Merrick Garland. The Constitution contains a presumption that members of Congress will not abuse the power granted them by the American people to play partisan politics. Republicans prove that all they care about is power, and yet disciples like Karen talk about anarchy when Democrats hold the majority in Congress and the White House. This lack of reality orientation is what happens when you are schooled by Fox News.

      Karen, you really prove how unsophisticated and what a complete Trump disciple you are when you repeat the “hoax” argument about Russian collusion. Why not look at interviews with Dan Coates, a former Republican Senator from Mikey Pence’s ruby-red Indiana, who was the head of American Intelligence? He said Russians helped Trump cheat by colluding with his campaign on a disinformation campaign against Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote anyway. He finally resigned when he got sick of Trump trying to get him to lie about this, but he’s got Billy Barr, who’s working very hard to come up with some way to attack the basis for the Mueller Report. Career DOJ lawyers are fed up, and one has already quit because Barr is trying to manipulate the outcome before the investigation is complete, but when Barr announces that the Mueller investigation was based on lies, she’ll believe it.

        1. No, it wasn’t. Crossfire Hurricane was opened when Australia contacted us about Papadopoulos (not a lie), and Mueller (a Republican) was appointed by Rosenstein (a Republican) when Trump fired Comey after asking Comey to “let go” of investigating Flynn (not a lie), after Trump and Pence both stated that Flynn had lied to Pence about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak. So I guess you could say the Mueller investigation was partly based on lies — but they were Flynn’s lies.

          1. No, it wasn’t. Crossfire Hurricane was opened when Australia contacted us about Papadopoulos

            They’d been running informants for months at that point.

            and Mueller (a Republican)

            Where was he registered to vote?

            Trump fired Comey after asking Comey to “let go” of investigating Flynn (not a lie),

            He fired an insubordinate employee who had lied to him.

            1. “They’d been running informants for months at that point.”

              Your claim was “the Mueller investigation was based on lies.”
              Just who are you referring to by “they,” and how are “they” related to the Mueller investigation, and what lies did “they” tell?

              “Where was [Mueller] registered to vote?”

              Presumably where he lives, in DC.

              “He [Trump] fired an insubordinate employee [Comey] who had lied to him.”

              What lie did Comey tell Trump, and how is this unspecified lie related to the Mueller investigation?

              Again, I was responding to your claim about the Mueller investigation: Mueller (a Republican) was appointed by Rosenstein (a Republican) when Trump fired Comey after asking Comey to “let go” of investigating Flynn, and after Trump and Pence both stated that Flynn had lied to Pence about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak.

      1. Natch, get ready for a lot more “triggers” to you sensitivity. We’re in for a wild ride.


      2. “because of Mitch McConnell”

        Senator Mitch McConnell did his job. You and the radical Democrats/media hate McConnell because he is as ruthless as they are at playing this game and they cannot stand it.

    1. Who cares? Anyone who is an American patriot and cares about the rule of law. Anyone who believes that the American people should have a voice in the composition of the court of last resort in this country. Anyone who stands to lose health care coverage. Anyone who disagrees that members of our military are “suckers” and “losers”. Anyone who thinks that the right of Americans to vote should be facilitated, not hampered, and that gerrymandering and voter suppression are unconstitutional. Anyone who believes that Black Lives Matter. Anyone who believes that people of good faith and good conscience can disagree on whether the government has the right to prevent abortions prior to the age of fetal viability, and that it is wrong for religious beliefs to be forced on those who don’t agree by the government.

      The list of matters that come before the SCOTUS is very long, but the bottom line is that Americans should have a voice on who sits on the SCOTUS. That was Republicans’ position 4 years ago and should be their position now.

      1. but the bottom line is that Americans should have a voice on who sits on the SCOTUS.

        And their voice will be heard by the Senators they elected. Not some screech owl ranting on the Turley blog.

        1. No, Olly, Americans have no voice when Republicans are in control. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, and he only “won” the Electoral College because of well-documented and established cheating. He tried to cheat again by leveraging aid to Ukraine, and was impeached by the House, but the Republicans in the Senate, other than Mitt Romney, let him get away with it. According to Republicans, in 2016, it was wrong to allow Obama to nominate Merrick Garland because of the upcoming presidential election 9 months later, but now, with less than 2 months to go and Trump losing badly in the polls, the country in total chaos due to his incompetency, it’s OK to pack the Court with a radical conservative whose values are far-right of the majority of Americans, and who was nominated not because they are fair-minded, but because they are radically right-wing.

          1. ‘The fake news is incredibly powerful. We will be governed by them forever if we lose this one. And even then the fight will have to continue. Worst people in the world and they know exactly what they are doing and why.’ @joelpollak

          2. Prediction: this time Trump will win even more Electoral College votes. Plus the popular vote. It will be a decisive win for Trump ON ELECTION DAY but the Fake News and the Democrats will create utter chaos and confusion, intentionally.

  16. I fully expect a significant effort to increase the Supreme court to 13 justices will occur in 2021. I’ll go out on a limb here and predict that Biden is our President beginning in January 2021, and the Senate will also be Democratic, along with the House. If there are 6 conservative Justices on the Supreme Court, I give it a 99% chance the court will increase to 13 by June 2021. If the Repos are unsuccessful at getting a nominee confirmed, I put the odds at 50% that by June 2021 there will be 13 Justices on the Supreme court. The is just no way the Demos will let a 6 person advantage of conservatives sit on the Supreme court. And rightly so, I fully support there effort and encourage them to do this. It is high time we have more diversity on our SC.

    1. Yo it’s because of FDR your so poorly educated. His seating of 8 justices corrupted not only the courts by our entire country’s educational system leading to today’s mess.

    2. Paul:

      Democrats have long said that the next time they sweep Congress, and the White House, they will stack the Court. Perhaps there will be 18 judges. They have been talking about this for years. This will in no way change if Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise their right to confirm a nominee. Democrats are just saying that it will be payback, but they have long spoken of this. It’s just handy for them to have contrived a reason that would blame Republicans for their stuffing the court.

      What I find amazing is that Democrats have long warned of Republicans not accepting elections or turning violent. But Democrats have no accepted the results of the election, and have frequently been violent. Yet they blame Trump for their own actions, as well as for the anti-cop rhetoric that has allowed rioters free rein. And people actually believe it.

      1. Correct.

        “Will you accept a peaceful transition of power?” they ask Trump during *year four* of Dems/media refusing to accept the transition of power in 2016.

        1. Even with all the evidence that shows the Obama admin did everything to thwart and oppose a “peaceful transition of power.”

          Joe Biden has yet to be asked and answer about his role in the January 5 Oval Office meeting in which he suggested the Logan Act be used against Gen. Flynn.

          1. ‘BREAKING: Explosive new FBI texts uncovered by DOJ show that FBI agents were so horrified by the bureau’s actions to take down Trump that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves after they got sued.’

            ‘Oh, and that insurance they purchased? You paid for it. They charged you to insulate themselves if they got sued for being corrupt.’


            1. “[W]e all went and purchased professional liability insurance.”

              “Holy crap,” an agent responded. “All the analysts too?”

              “Yep,” the first agent said. “All the folks at the Agency as well.”

        2. ‘The fake news is incredibly powerful. We will be governed by them forever if we lose this one. And even then the fight will have to continue. Worst people in the world and they know exactly what they are doing and why.’ @joelpollak

    3. Don’t bet on that Paul. You mistake what the centi-billionaire donors of the Democratic party will permit.

    1. Bork was a radical crackpot who fired Archibald Cox because Nixon told hom to.

      Nuff said.

      1. Bork was a radical crackpot who fired Archibald Cox because Nixon told hom to.

        Bork’s jurisprudence was perfectly reasonable, as was his political theory.

        Strange as it may seem to you, federal employees are answerable to elected officials and to their superiors. Your son doesn’t own his job and Archibald Cox certainly did not own his. Both Bork and Richardson explained the sequence of events in 1973 and why he, Richardson, and Wm. Ruckelshaus decided on the steps they would take when Richard Nixon’s instruction was transmitted.

      1. Mr. K:

        He turned out to be spot on. Moral decay and lack of martial vigor kills all empires including ours. Bork was just paraphrasing Gibbon.

  17. Dingy Harry removed the 60 vote cloture rule on executive branch nominations, not the Republicans. He started the nuclear exchange.

      1. Harry Reid did use the nuclear option for federal judges and presidential nominations, not the Supreme Court. That bit him later.

        “On Nov. 21, 2013, Senate Democrats deployed the “nuclear option,” so named because of its explosive impact on Senate rules and traditions. They voted 52-48 to reinterpret the words “three-fifths” in Rule 22 to mean “simple majority.” As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would later explain, 52 senators made 60 equal 51.

        Democrats got what they wanted when Obama quickly filled those three D.C. Circuit vacancies. In 2014, the Senate confirmed 89 judges, twice the annual average and the third-highest annual total in history.

        But, as they say, be careful what you wish for. Republicans re-captured the judicial appointment process by winning the Senate in 2014 and the White House two years later. In April 2017, they used the same nuclear option to prohibit filibusters of the one position left alone by Democrats: the Supreme Court. As a result, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh will be serving for decades to come, and President Trump may be able to appoint another justice in the next two years.”

  18. I direct all the responders to this post to “The Federalist 76” The Appointing Power of the Executive, April 1, 1788.

    I have attached just one paragraph

    …”To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.”…

Comments are closed.