Home » Forum » Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

a Republican Senate and Democratic nominees for Supreme Court

PotomacBob

I heard on a radio political talk show, a fellow who claimed: No Republican Senate, in either the 20th or 21st century, has ever confirmed any nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president.
The point this guy was making was that, in general, Republicans care a lot more than do Democrats about who sits on the Supreme Court. He said Republicans tend to appoint people in their early 50s, and since they sit on the court for life, they stay there a long time. Democrats, he said, appoint some young people (50s is apparently considered to be "young" on the court) but also appoint those who are older.
My question is - does anybody here know whether this guy's claims are true, or just political BS? I tried to check online, but the only lists I could find listed the name of the president who nominated, but not which party controlled the Senate at the time.
Anybody? Bueller?

PrincelyGuy

It could be true. I went back comparing presidents and congressional control going back to the mid 1800's and found that the allegation was true until I just got tired comparing three separate websites for the info.

However, is that a Republican bias against confirming a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president or is that due to there being not that many Democratic presidents that got to make a Supreme Court nomination where the Republicans controlled the Senate.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@PotomacBob

Wikipeda has a list of all the Supreme Court nominations back to George Washington along with both the party of the sitting President and the party that controlled the Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Sorting the list by Senate control, There are only 4 nominations by Democratic Presidents while the Senate was under Republican Control.

3 were nominated by Grover Cleveland in the 1880s and 1890s, and Merrick Garland nominated by Obama. All three of Grover Cleveland's nominations made under a Republican controlled Senate were confirmed.

Switch Blayde

@PotomacBob

whether this guy's claims are true, or just political BS?


Political BS.

Recent appointees.
Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer at age 55.
Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor at age 55 and Elena Kagan at 50.

Even the old lady Ruth Bader Ginsburg was only 60 when appointed by Clinton.

The problem with the Supreme Court today is the justices vote based on their own beliefs. It's like voting on party lines in Congress.

Replies:   Ross at Play  PotomacBob
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

Recent appointees.
Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer at age 55.
Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor at age 55 and Elena Kagan at 50.
Even the old lady Ruth Bader Ginsburg was only 60 when appointed by Clinton.

You missed the point of the OP.

Presidents do not 'appoint' justices to SCOTUS; they only make nominations which the Senate must approve.

The question was when was the last nomination by a Democratic president approved by a Senate with a Republican majority. The answer, apparently, is late in the nineteen century.

PotomacBob

@Switch Blayde

It's like voting on party lines in Congress.


I beg to disagree. I WISH people in Congress would vote based on their own beliefs. Instead, too many vote the party line. There's always a theoretical question about how a member of Congress SHOULD vote: to represent the views of the people he represents, or vote his/her own conscience. People who vote the party line may not necessarily be doing either. I tend to admire people who feel so strongly about an issue that they are willing to risk almost certain defeat the next election because their vote flies in the face of what their constituents want. I'm talking about a personal belief here - not voting the party line. Sometimes, out leaders need to lead us, or die (politically) trying.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

The answer, apparently, is late in the nineteen century.


True, but there has only been one nomination by a Democratic President with a Republican majority in the Senate since then.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
PrincelyGuy

So what is the record going the other way? Republican President with a Senate controlled by the Democrats? I am too tired to go look it up.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  REP
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@PotomacBob


My question is - does anybody here know whether this guy's claims are true, or just political BS? I tried to check online, but the only lists I could find listed the name of the president who nominated, but not which party controlled the Senate at the time.

Anybody? Bueller?


Potentially true, but not for reasons you might be led to believe. For a Republican Senate to approve a SCotUS nominee from a Democratic President there must first be:

1) A Republican Controlled Senate (Democrats controlled it for most of the 20th Century, and further, they normally controlled it when "their guy" was in the White House)

2) A Democrat in the White House.

3) A vacancy in the Supreme Court. (And given most justices retire at a time of their choosing....)

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@PrincelyGuy


So what is the record going the other way? Republican President with a Senate controlled by the Democrats? I am too tired to go look it up.


A lot higher, Bush 41, Reagan, Ford, and Nixon all dealt with a Democratic Senate. Even Bush 43 had to deal with a (barely) Democratic Senate for the start, and conclusion of his term of office.

Eisenhower was more mixed, IIRC control bounced around a bit for both houses in the 50's.

REP

@PrincelyGuy

Out of 20 nominations:

13 confirmed
4 rejected
1 no action
1 withdrawn
1 declined

Replies:   PrincelyGuy  Oh_Oh_Seven
Switch Blayde

@Ross at Play

You missed the point of the OP.


I addressed the second point — that Republican presidents choose young people while Democrat presidents choose old people. That's just not true.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

True, but there has only been one nomination by a Democratic President with a Republican majority in the Senate since then.


Details, you're not supposed to notice that.

AmigaClone
Updated:

@PotomacBob

While the guy's claims are true there was only one person nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic President with a Republican Congress.

If that individual wanted to be considered even halfway unbiased he would have mentioned that detail.

On the other hand, there were 15 nominees by a Republican President with a Democratic Senate during the 20th and 21st centuries. Of those one withdrew, and three were rejected by the senate.

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

I addressed the [OP's] second point

Fair enough. I did not get from the words you quoted.

Ross at Play
Updated:

What is the score for a Senate refusing to fill a SCOTUS vacancy?
One, I believe. Shame on the senators of the majority party at that time.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Switch Blayde

@PotomacBob

I beg to disagree. I WISH people in Congress would vote based on their own beliefs.


Supreme Court Justices should not vote based on their beliefs. Their job is to uphold the Constitution.

But they do. The votes are typically split by the same groups. You can guess how they will vote beforehand.

Both the liberal justices and the conservative justices. Just look at how the votes are split each time.

Replies:   REP
Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

What is the score for a Senate refusing to fill a SCOTUS vacancy?
One, I believe. Shame on the senators of the majority party at that time.


You believe incorrectly. Merrick Garland was the 11th Supreme Court nomination on which the senate took no action. This too is covered in the Wikipedia article I provided.

Most of the no actions were in the 19th century, but there was one in the 1920s nominated by Harding and one
nomination by Eisenhower in the 1950s that the Senate did not act on.

A few of these were later confirmed after being re-nominated by the next president.

PrincelyGuy

@REP

Thank you REP and Not_a_ID. Appreciate the info.

REP

@Switch Blayde

In the legal profession it is about interpreting the law. That brings opinions into play. :(

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Oh_Oh_Seven

@REP

And 1 was Borked by that paragon of virtue Sen. Chappa... and his buddy from Scranton.

StarFleet Carl

@REP

In the legal profession it is about interpreting the law. That brings opinions into play.


At the SCOTUS level, it's about interpreting the WRITTEN law that is in the Constitution as it applies to a specific case. That's where we're having 'fun' right now. Article IV, Section 1 & 2, guarantee that each state will recognize a valid drivers license issued by another state. And the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. So why is it that, even after the House passed a bill in December regarding reciprocity for concealed carry permits, do we still have issues with certain states not recognizing that citizens of another state might want to carry weapons for personal protection?

After all, a drivers license is a privilege granted by the state - carrying a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and not granted by any state.

Replies:   JimWar  PotomacBob
JimWar

@StarFleet Carl

At the SCOTUS level, it's about interpreting the WRITTEN law that is in the Constitution as it applies to a specific case. That's where we're having 'fun' right now. Article IV, Section 1 & 2, guarantee that each state will recognize a valid drivers license issued by another state.

That can't be right as there were no drivers licenses when the constitution was written. These articles are more to keep criminals from moving from one state to another to avoid prosecution and for one state to honor court orders from another state. States honor other states drivers licenses because of a Reciprocity Agreement between the states. That, however, doesn't mean that you can avoid tickets in one state because the motor vehicle laws in your state are different. Also, laws concerning at what age you can get a drivers license varies by state.

By the same token all states allow handgun ownership but their are procedural differences in how you obtain a carry permit and different rules for carrying handguns after you obtain a permit. Even after you obtain a permit a citizen can't carry handguns on any military base, in a sports stadium, city hall, courthouse or airport terminal.

It's interesting to me that in almost every case the same people that argue that an individual state should have the right to decide whether a same sex couple married in another state is legally married in their state will argue that they should have the right to carry a pistol in their hip pocket in any state they want.

richardshagrin

You can wear a short sleeve shirt because you have the right to bare arms.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@richardshagrin

You can wear a short sleeve shirt because you have the right to bare arms.


Correction: You have the right to not shave your arms because you have the right to bear arms.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin

@Not_a_ID

bear arms.

And the right to arm bears.

Jim S

@JimWar

By the same token all states allow handgun ownership but their are procedural differences in how you obtain a carry permit and different rules for carrying handguns after you obtain a permit. Even after you obtain a permit a citizen can't carry handguns on any military base, in a sports stadium, city hall, courthouse or airport terminal.

It's interesting to me that in almost every case the same people that argue that an individual state should have the right to decide whether a same sex couple married in another state is legally married in their state will argue that they should have the right to carry a pistol in their hip pocket in any state they want.


Regarding the prohibitions mentioned in the first paragraph, that's not completely accurate. One state recently permitted gun carry in government buildings (can't remember which). The prohibitions against carry in schools is rapidly weakening also.

Your second paragraph is interesting. I could go full libertarian and claim the state as an entity has no right to tell me whether or not I can carry. Neither New York, nor California, nor Texas for that matter. Licensing carry is nothing more than a revenue grab. It costs me $110 every renewal now (every four years). Why? The government is already taxing me (county level) for the employees that handle the paper work. Just another way to squeeze the tax payer. And if a state or locality (if not preempted by state law) wants to eliminate carry, that is their right under the IX and X Amendment. If they want to handle it the way Michigan does, that's their right. Don't like it and it's important to you? Move.

But, for the sake of argument, let's accept that the state can license. Why should another state honor concealed carry when it violates their own laws? Does that mean that whatever is passed in one state automatically becomes the law in every state? So that when I fly out to California from Michigan, I can transport my weapon per Federal regulations then load up and carry while I'm there? Okay, assume that's legal. What about the residents of the state? Can they now carry? If they can't, doesn't that run afoul of Equal Protection Under The Law in XIV Amendment? Personally, I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned one state driving the country. Ever.

Same argument regarding gay marriage, til SCOTUS made that argument moot. Or Roe v. Wade for that matter. If both those atrocities get reversed, the power revolves back to the states. Where it belongs. So you could expect to see both gay marriage and abortion legal in some states and not others. Which is as should be. The PEOPLE decide. Not the Feds. So, absent the heinous SCOTUS ruling, should one state's law obligate another state to recognizing said "marriage"? Nope.

I'll go full libertarian again and question whether the state even belongs in regulating marriage. Marriage is a contract. Think not? Don't both parties have to sign a marriage certificate at the time of or shortly after the ceremony? Why is that? Because it's a contract and by signing, you agree to certain obligations, e.g. children, asset obligations, etc. Different states have different views of said obligations under the marriage contract. Which, again, is as should be.

You might argue that terms of contracts should be honored among the states but I think that is for them to decide, certainly NOT the Feds.

By the way, someone brought up the Reciprocity passed the House of Representatives. My answer is --- so? Did it pass the Senate? Did Trump sign it? The fact that it passed the House, along with about $4 will get you a cheap cup of Starbucks.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@Jim S

Not that I disagree with you, but you most definitely dropped a turd in the pool with that post.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Remus2

Not that I disagree with you, but you most definitely dropped a turd in the pool with that post.


Well, sometimes you just gotta create a stink (pardon the pun).

StarFleet Carl

@JimWar

That can't be right as there were no drivers licenses when the constitution was written.


Actually, it is. It's the wording of those articles. Specifically - Article 1 - Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state; and then in Article 2 - The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

In common language, if state A, through a public act, issues something to it's own citizens, then it's legal in the other 49 other states. Welcome to the 5th and 14 Amendment - due process.

Also, laws concerning at what age you can get a drivers license varies by state.


Which does NOT invalidate a drivers license issued to someone issued a license in State A if he is traveling through State B, where the age of issue is higher. State B MUST recognize the license from State A as valid.

Another example - in Oklahoma, the Indian tribes can issue their own tags (license plates). There are different interpretations even within the tribes about which vehicles qualify for those tags, but the net result is that those vehicles are perfectly legal to drive on all roads in the United States.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  JimWar
Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

In common language, if state A, through a public act, issues something to it's own citizens, then it's legal in the other 49 other states. Welcome to the 5th and 14 Amendment - due process.


That's only true if what you're talking about is something that is automatically given to a citizen of that state, then they must give that same right to citizens of other states while within their borders. The sections of the US Constitution you cite do not apply to non-citizens and they do not apply to anything where the state issues them as a special privilege, such as a driver's license or vehicle registration. The reciprocal arrangements about diver's licenses and vehicle registrations come about via other agreements between the states, not the US Constitution. Those agreements are in place and active.

However, while a driver's license allows a person from state A to drive in state B it does not automatically provide all other forms of identification needed in state B for other reason than driving a motor vehicle.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
JimWar

@StarFleet Carl

In common language, if state A, through a public act, issues something to it's own citizens, then it's legal in the other 49 other states.

So by that reasoning a hunting license issued in my state is legal in any other state. I think not. The point is that a license to drive allows you to drive in any state respecting the laws of that state. The only thing that reciprocity would give you would be the right to carry a gun in that state respecting that states laws which may say no open carry, etc. I seem to recall that even in the last century in the wild west most towns outlawed the open carry of handguns except by peace officers because the citizens got tired of having the town shot up every Friday and Saturday night.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  PotomacBob
Not_a_ID

@JimWar

So by that reasoning a hunting license issued in my state is legal in any other state. I think not.


Most states have it more tightly regulated than that. But it depends in part on what is being hunted.

Certain animals, you don't even necessarily get a license, but rather "a tag" for use when you find/kill your prey.

That tag may only be valid for a specifically defined region within the state, not the entire state at large.

StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

That's only true if what you're talking about is something that is automatically given to a citizen of that state, then they must give that same right to citizens of other states while within their borders. The sections of the US Constitution you cite do not apply to non-citizens and they do not apply to anything where the state issues them as a special privilege, such as a driver's license or vehicle registration.


You're quite correct - except in one minor regard. Having a drivers license issued to you by a state is a privilege that is offered by the state, and is not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutional RIGHT in this country. Makes a bit of difference.

And you're also correct - non-citizens of the United States do not get protection under the Constitution.

And you're also correct - if California issues a driver license to an illegal alien, while that license may be valid to drive in Oklahoma, that still does not confer upon the illegal alien the right to vote OR the right to legally be here in this country in the first place.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@StarFleet Carl


And you're also correct - non-citizens of the United States do not get protection under the Constitution.


In an article written for the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (home of the Scalia School of Law), are these 3 paragraphs:
• • Immigration restrictionists sometimes claim that noncitizens have no rights under the Constitution, and that the US government is therefore free to deal with them in whatever way it wants. At least as a general rule, this claim is simply false.
Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.
Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution.

Ross at Play

@PotomacBob

Indeed, within the borders of the United States, [non-citizens] have most of the same rights as citizens do.

There's a reason those being held at Guantanamo Bay have never been allowed to enter the United States: the Supreme Court would hold its nose and decree they must be set free.

StarFleet Carl

@PotomacBob

Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.
Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution.


Shall we parse this? Because being a non-citizen does not mean that you're violating the laws of this country - which is what an illegal alien does. A non-citizen of the US is simply someone visiting here - or a legal resident of another country who is working here on a work visa or through other legal means.

The Constitution and Supreme Court rulings have recognized that illegal aliens are considered persons under the law and are to be treated that way, but they do not have the full constitutional rights of citizens. There is a big difference in this.

Also note that many of the Supreme Court cases that are used to support these issues were ruled upon PRIOR to legislation from Congress being passed regarding immigration laws. Two of the major cases supporting 'illegal alien rights' were in 1886 and 1896. Those cases were invalidated by Congress later with additional immigration legislation.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl

The Constitution and Supreme Court rulings have recognized that illegal aliens are considered persons under the law and are to be treated that way, but they do not have the full constitutional rights of citizens.


There is only right actually enumerated in the constitution that does not apply to non-citizens generally, the right to vote. And one more that applies to legal resident aliens but not illegal aliens, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.


Two of the major cases supporting 'illegal alien rights' were in 1886 and 1896. Those cases were invalidated by Congress later with additional immigration legislation.


Congress can not invalidate Supreme Court decisions on constitutional maters by ordinary legislation. If Congress wants to invalidate a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law, they can do so only by means off a constitutional amendment.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  Not_a_ID
StarFleet Carl

@Dominions Son

Congress can not invalidate Supreme Court decisions on constitutional maters by ordinary legislation. If Congress wants to invalidate a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law, they can do so only by means off a constitutional amendment.


Not exactly.

Keep in mind what the jobs of the three branches of government are: Executive, enforce the law; Legislative, make the law; Judicial - interpret the law

The Supreme Court cannot (or isn't supposed to, anyway) make law, they can only rule if a written law is actually legal and constitutional. If Congress writes Law A, which has one effect, and the Supreme Court rules that law is unconstitutional, Congress can write Law B that may cover a similar topic to Law A, but is substantially different from Law A, and until or unless it goes back to the Court, then Law B IS valid. What you're thinking of is if Congress wants Law A back on the books, THEN they have to amend the Constitution.

I freely admit that this may seem like a fine point of distinction, but from a legal perspective it's correct.

Now, the other point where things come into play is that many of those early cases were due to state or local law, NOT Federal law. While Federal law was being violated in bringing the Chinese to the U.S. to work as cheap labor, the actual cases that went to the Supreme Court were where the Chinese were arrested for violating LOCAL ordinances, NOT Federal ones.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@StarFleet Carl

There is only right actually enumerated in the constitution that does not apply to non-citizens generally, the right to vote.


And just where in the Constitution is it enumerated that citizens have the right to vote? I haven't been able to find it.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

And just where in the Constitution is it enumerated that citizens have the right to vote? I haven't been able to find it.


Apparently you haven't looked very hard. There 4 amendments specifically about voting rights and one more that mentions it, but it's not the whole amendment.

14A section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


15A

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


19A

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


24A

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.


26A

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

Congress can not invalidate Supreme Court decisions on constitutional maters by ordinary legislation. If Congress wants to invalidate a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law, they can do so only by means off a constitutional amendment.


That would depend entirely on the nature of the decisions rendered. SCotUS has "sent stuff back" to the legislature before, it's rare, but it happens.

Basically they render X to be null while Y is valid. If Congress wants X, they don't necessarily need to amend the Constitution, they simply address whatever Y was.

PotomacBob

@StarFleet Carl

arrying a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Constitution...


Has that assertion been confirmed by a ruling of the Supreme Court? (There are many opinions about the intended meaning of the second amendment, but not many of them are written SCOTUS opinions.) In the one opinion with which I have a basic, but not extensive, understanding, Justice Scalia wrote that a locality (in this case the District of Columbia) could not simply ban ALL guns - but that there could be some restrictions on ownership. My question has to do with your use of the word "carrying"? Did the court rule you have a constitutional right to carry a gun. I thought I remembered that the ruling said you have an individual right to possess some types of gun in order to protect your own home. In my very non-legal mind, that is not the same thing as "carry."

PotomacBob

@JimWar

We can argue all we want and assert all we want, but the fact is that whoever is on the Supreme Court at the moment a case comes before it will decide whether or not they will hear a case and, if they do, they alone will decide the outcome. Chances are great that the 9 justices may well disagree among themselves. And constitutional scholars will debate the decisions endlessly.

PotomacBob

@JimWar

And the right to purchase pot in Colorado makes it legal to purchase pot in Mississippi?

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@PotomacBob

And the right to purchase pot in Colorado makes it legal to purchase pot in Mississippi?


Colorado licenses the right to sell pot within the borders of Colorado.

Which is different than licensing the right to buy pot.

Besides which, they're probably scrupulous of the whole "once it leaves the state, it becomes federal" so they're going to ensure such things are explicitly stipulated as being within their borders only.

Back to Top