Since 1895, GOP senates have NEVER allowed dem presidents to choose a SC pick.

[kag]

Holy Cow! This article in the Daily Kos is amazing. For 123 years the GOP has NEVER confirmed a democratic SC court pick nominated by a Democratic president.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/29/1776484/-The-real-answer-to-Supreme-Court-power-politics-that-no-one-acknowledges

But the issue, and the answer, is different from what it is reported. The simple fact is that in the modern era Republicans have never confirmed a Supreme Court justice nominated by a Democratic President. Contrary to popular belief, there has never been a bipartisan “norm” that Presidents get deference in appointing Supreme Court justices — that has been a Democratic “norm” under Republican Presidents, but that has never been reciprocated by Republicans.

I wrote about this previously. The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President’s Supreme Court nomination was 1895 — which was 123 years ago (and involved a Republican party with little connection to today’s party).

snip

In terms of today’s events, the first order of business is for Democrats to recognize and accept the above. The first result of which is that no Republican President will be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court justice if the Democrats control the Senate — at least not for the next 123 years.

That, btw, is not radical. It is called “parity.” Any Democrat arguing otherwise is an embarrassment.

I highly recommend reading the whole article. It's not very long, and it is fascinating!

[dalton99a]

1. Retake our government, and expand the court to nullify the fascists

[kag]

3. That's the plan I would advocate.

Or start impeaching corrupt judges like Clarence Thomas. Cheetoh has packed the courts (appellate, circuit, etc.) with right wing judges. If we don't do something our grandchildren will still be suffering from this in fifty years.

[snowybirdie]

2. Havent checked

but could this be because there have been very few Republican majorities over the years? Headline is misleading, although the repubs are awful anyway

[unblock]

4. doesn't much matter, though, does it?

if i have a friend that i give them a few bucks to whenever their short on cash, but they never do the same for me because i'm never short on cash, at some point i'm on firm ground to tell them i'm not going to lend them cash anymore.

especially if they never repay me....

[Igel]

6. There was one (R) president who didn't really nominate his own choices.

He prevetted his choices with the Senate, which was (D) controlled. That wasn't limited to USSC nominations. He got a lot of judges appointed, but there weren't confirmation fights because if a name wasn't identified by the (D) Senate leadership that it was acceptable to the (D) Senate the name simply wasn't submitted for consideration.

[kag]

5. Changed the headline.

Sorry it was misleading, but the story IS pretty fascinating.

[irisblue]

7. Wait. Abe Fortis & LBJ, 1965

As an associate justice?

[kag]

8. From the article...

"The only Supreme Court nomination to be filibustered was the Republicans’ filibuster of LBJ’s nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice."

On edit: in 1965 the Dems had a supermajority and confirmed Fortas easily. The filibuster came three years later when Johnson tried to elevate him to Chief Justice.

[tritsofme]

9. Until Scalia died,a Republican Senate hadn't faced a vacancy under a Democratic president since 1895

Democrats controlled the Senate for all but 10 years between 1932 and 1994, 8 of those years also saw Republicans control the presidency.

The question of whether previous Republican majorities would have acted as shamefully as McConnell did toward President Obama and Garland is purely a hypothetical one.

[onenote]

10. Misleading outrage

Garland represents the only time that a Democratic president's nominee for SCOTUS didn't get confirmed by the Senate when under Republican control. The fact is that there isn't another example of a Democratic president nominating a SCOTUS Justice while the Repubs controlled the Senate unless you go back to 1895.

On the other hand, nominees put forward by a Republican president while the Democrats controlled the Senate have failed to win confirmation (either rejected or withdrawn), on four occasions in recent history: Bork, Carswell, Haynsworth, and Ginsburg.

[kag]

11. Not at all misleading, and I'm not claiming outrage, only fascination.

The article states exactly what you describe, as does a previous commenter. But your citing of four cases where a Republican president's nominee "failed to win" IS misleading, because it ignores the fact that thirteen justices nominated by a GOP president WERE confirmed by Dem senates. And Dems NEVER refused to hold hearings or votes on a nominee of either party. Also, the ONLY filibuster regarding the SC (as the article states) was the GOP filibuster of Fortas, a sitting associate, as Chief Justice.

Just because the senate was controlled by Dems for so much of the 20th century doesn't negate the fact that once the R's DID get a chance to confirm a nominee by a Democratic president, they changed to rules so as not to allow it. And then, when they decided to confirm an extreme right winger, they changed the rules to disallow the filibuster.

The point is, as ever, the Dems play by the rules. The R's throw the rules out the window whenever they want to.

[mythology]

12. It's absolutely misleading

To put your claim in perspective it would be like saying Democrats are the party of slavery and that Republicans are the party that freed the slaves. Yes technically accurate but entirely missing the importance of change over time.

The Republican party has gotten vastly more conservative over the last 30 or do years. What happens today wouldn't necessarily have happened then. Look at how Republicans helped push Nixon out compared to covering for Trump now.

[NewJeffCT]

18. All those Republican justices

were able to get voted on in the senate.

garland never even got a hearing. Never in history had a nominee not even gotten a hearing & vote before. Justices have been rejected before or filibustered before, but to not even get a hearing or vote is shameful

[sl8]

13. Since 1895, how often has a GOP Senate rejected a Supreme Court Justice nominee? n/t

[onenote]

14. One rejection in 1930. And Harriet Miers withdrew in 2005

She was a Bush nominee when the republicans controlled the Senate.

[sl8]

15. Thank you.

Wikipedia - John J. Parker
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Parker

Wikipedia - Herbert Hoover Supreme Court candidates
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover_Supreme_Court_candidates

[NewJeffCT]

19. Miers was essentially rejected by Republicans

because she didn't have a track record (positive or negative) and had (gasp) donated to the Hillary to Senate campaign previously

[Persondem]

16. Interesting history. Thank you for the post. K & R nt

[jmowreader]

17. Would a larger Supreme Court bench allow for more cases to be heard?

If so, adding about ten good liberal justices would be a very good thing.

[NewJeffCT]

20. The problem is

that it has never really happened until Garland.

Abe Fortas was filibustered by the GOP, but that was in a Democratic senate and he was already on the Court - it was for the Chief Justice nomination.