Except that is a thing that has actually been done multiple times in the past, but if, and only if, the President & the Senate were of the same party. @keithedwards should have consulted a history book before claiming that this is "making s**t up."https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1285954853936738312 …
-
Show this thread
-
Protip for folks at the Lincoln Project: please stop claiming that things have never been done before if Abe Lincoln actually did them.pic.twitter.com/DEvTpFbxLE
11 replies 47 retweets 210 likesShow this thread -
There is a long history of Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year; even in lame duck sessions. When the Senate is from the same party, they almost always get confirmed. When the Senate is from the other party, the seat almost always gets held open.
16 replies 25 retweets 106 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @baseballcrank @keithedwards
This is both true and a dramatic oversimplification. Most of these appointments happened at a time when the confirmation process was far quicker. Additionally they all happened before Fortas and the introduction of the so-called Thurmond rule.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brianros1 @keithedwards
Fortas nomination remains the only time in US history when one party had both WH & SEN, but failed to get the election year nomination through.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank @keithedwards
I summarized a lot of my thoughts here. Personally, I think given how long the confirmation process has gotten a defeated president & a Senate that flipped control forcing through a nominee in a lame duck would be unprecedented.https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/15/opinions/power-to-choose-new-justice-rosenwald/index.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Frankly, I think I’d support an amendment barring defeated presidents from making lifetime appointments in the interregnum.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brianros1 @keithedwards
I think that'd have to be packaged with some other things that reduce potential partisan mischief - i.e., capping the Court's size at nine - but I would not have a big issue in theory.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank @keithedwards
I mean, at this point, I think I could support a 20 year term for justices. It’s absurd that we’re stuck worrying about the health of an 87 year old like this.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
The looming crisis that really freaks me out is the inevitable replay of Douglas or Field, a Justice who is mentally incapable or worse but won't leave.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank @keithedwards
Yup. I agree. It’s not a partisan concern. Honestly, I think if Thurgood Marshall had had any sense Bush would lose in 1992, he might’ve been added to that list too. It’s not good for the country.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.