The SCOTUS Nomination and Confirmation Thread

nsacpi said:
Clarence Thomas 52-48

William Rehnquist 68-26

William Rehnquist 65-33 (for Chief Justice)

Clement Haynsworth defeated by a 55 to 45 vote

Robert Bork defeated 42 to 58

Ideological animus toward justices goes back a long way. I posted the sign for Earl Warren's impeachment earlier. He was nominated by Eisenhower. Former Republican governor of California. He ended up siding with the more activist liberal wing of the court (which included Douglas, Brennan, Black ) and became the bête noire of conservatives who railed against the activist Warren court.

Brennan was also an Eisenhower appointee. So was John Harlan, who for me represents the best parts of the conservative tradition of judicial restraint. Bob Woodward wrote a book titled The Brethren, which looks at the court under Warren and Burger. I highly recommend it. Many of the cases that came before the Warren and Burger courts continue to reverberate.
Click to expand...

And Stevens was confirmed 98-0.

While partisan fights are nothing new, previously it wasn't the norm. Usually the SCOTUS confirmation would be a proxy fight over a different issue or else there would be an issue with the candidate themselves. They weren't the norm.

The idea of any SCOTUS justice getting confirmed 98-0 seems absurd these days. It was not always so.
 
striker42 said:
And Stevens was confirmed 98-0.

While partisan fights are nothing new, previously it wasn't the norm. Usually the SCOTUS confirmation would be a proxy fight over a different issue or else there would be an issue with the candidate themselves. They weren't the norm.

The idea of any SCOTUS justice getting confirmed 98-0 seems absurd these days. It was not always so.
Click to expand...

The first female justice was unanimous
 
striker42 said:
And Stevens was confirmed 98-0.

While partisan fights are nothing new, previously it wasn't the norm. Usually the SCOTUS confirmation would be a proxy fight over a different issue or else there would be an issue with the candidate themselves. They weren't the norm.

The idea of any SCOTUS justice getting confirmed 98-0 seems absurd these days. It was not always so.
Click to expand...

Souter also confirmed easily (90-9).

Anthony Kennedy (97-0)

O'Connor, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy. Interesting to see how that group fared in the nomination process and how their subsequent careers on the court evolved.
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
The first female justice was unanimous
Click to expand...

Souter was 90-9.

I'm pretty sure a reincarnated John Marshall would be a party line vote today. Souter probably wasn't qualified to be a SCOTUS justice. Oddly those voting against him characterized him as a far right justice and yet he turned out to be about as liberal as Ginsburg.
 
striker42 said:
Scalia was confirmed 98-0. Let that sink in.
Click to expand...

yeah that one was strange...i think after the Bork fight there might have been a period where no one wanted to see something similar...which allowed Kennedy and Scalia to sail through...although Kennedy should have been pretty acceptable even if he had not come hard on the heels of Bork
 
striker42 said:
If we strove to pick the wisest, most fair, and most intelligent justices we could find, we wouldn't have this problem. Instead, things like fairness and wisdom are ignored. We strive to choose the most partisan justices we can find. And so we end up with a court that acts as a super legislature instead of a body removed from the fray who can make the tough decisions.
Click to expand...

The naivety of this statement makes my head spin. We live in the world of duality where there are issues and intelligent people have opinions on these issues.
 
Runnin said:
The naivety of this statement makes my head spin. We live in the world of duality where there are issues and intelligent people have opinions on these issues.
Click to expand...

It's not naieve at all. One of the things an attorney is trained to do is divorce their personal feelings from an issue, see every side of an argument, and know what the strongest arguments are.

A judge is supposed to be a neutral decision maker who can take that objective view, decide what the best argument is, and so state what the law is.

To put it simply, a judge determines what the law is, a legislator determines what the law should be.

However, we pick SCOTUS judges who are the most partisan we can find and so who refuse to approach the case objectively. But the system is set up that way.
 
57Brave said:
Having said all of that
Would you have supported Robert Bork's nomination?
Click to expand...

I thought Bork was highly qualified back then and still do. He was a legal geek more than anything else. Generally, I think there should be a wide political spectrum of what is acceptable in a Supreme Court justice. And we need to get over the fact that the confirmation process is a political blood sport. It is great for fundraising for all parties concerned.
 
57Brave said:
Having said all of that
Would you have supported Robert Bork's nomination?
Click to expand...

That depends on if we're talking about operating in the system we have or in the system I want. In the system we have Bork was a fine nomination. Clearly qualified. Exactly the kind of partisan pick you'd expect.

In the system I want, one that seeks out the least partisan judges possible, I wouldn't want Bork. But I honestly have no idea how you achieve such a system. You'd need a world run by angels.
 
striker42 said:
It's not naieve at all. One of the things an attorney is trained to do is divorce their personal feelings from an issue, see every side of an argument, and know what the strongest arguments are.

A judge is supposed to be a neutral decision maker who can take that objective view, decide what the best argument is, and so state what the law is.

To put it simply, a judge determines what the law is, a legislator determines what the law should be.

However, we pick SCOTUS judges who are the most partisan we can find and so who refuse to approach the case objectively. But the system is set up that way.
Click to expand...

It seems like the last few Republican justices (Roberts, Gorsouch, Kavanaugh) have not been partisan at all
 
I have read where the Clinton Impeachment was a reaction to the (D) response to Bork. Agree or disagree ?

Have also read that the current partisan stances over nominations to the court were born of the Bork nomination ?

/////

Memory reminds me there have ( in my life) been other nominees that were refused due to scandal involving corruption or everyday Nat Enquirer type allegations ?

But Bork was the first , to my knowledge , that was strictly a political/partisan nomination and the subsequent political/partisan fight.
Until the mid aughts nominations of Bush43

Meaning both Clinton and Obama tried to at least select jurists of little or no controversy. Whereas Bush43 and Trump seem to seek a fight.
Rile up the base if you will
Your thoughts ????
////////////////

edit:
I forgot Clarence Thomas
52-48
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
It seems like the last few Republican justices (Roberts, Gorsouch, Kavanaugh) have not been partisan at all
Click to expand...

They by definitions are not "Republican" justices.
And there lies the rub

Just like states that vote (D) or (R) are not to be viewed as (D) or (R) states.
Or cities for that matter
///////////////////

The above 3 have not been on the court ( to my mind ~ Roberts ~) long enough to have a body of work deciding which camp they will settle
 
57Brave said:
I have read where the Clinton Impeachment was a reaction to the (D) response to Bork. Agree or disagree ?

Have also read that the current partisan stances over nominations to the court were born of the Bork nomination ?

/////

Memory reminds me there have ( in my life) been other nominees that were refused due to scandal involving corruption or everyday Nat Enquirer type allegations ?

But Bork was the first , to my knowledge , that was strictly a political/partisan nomination and the subsequent political/partisan fight.
Until the mid aughts nominations of Bush43

Meaning both Clinton and Obama tried to at least select jurists of little or no controversy. Whereas Bush43 and Trump seem to seek a fight.
Rile up the base if you will
Your thoughts ????
////////////////

edit:
I forgot Clarence Thomas
Click to expand...

Clinton perjured himself. Had nothing to do with Bork.
 
The fire that led to that perjury was lit in retaliation for Bork
Whitewater , Travelgate, Russiagate I etc etc etc

I believe Gingrich has said as much
///

Like I said, I have read some historians make that point
Personally have no idea whether it was or wasn't jsut something I read
That seemed plausible
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
I have read where the Clinton Impeachment was a reaction to the (D) response to Bork. Agree or disagree ?

Have also read that the current partisan stances over nominations to the court were born of the Bork nomination ?

/////

Memory reminds me there have ( in my life) been other nominees that were refused due to scandal involving corruption or everyday Nat Enquirer type allegations ?

But Bork was the first , to my knowledge , that was strictly a political/partisan nomination and the subsequent political/partisan fight.
Until the mid aughts nominations of Bush43

Meaning both Clinton and Obama tried to at least select jurists of little or no controversy. Whereas Bush43 and Trump seem to seek a fight.
Rile up the base if you will
Your thoughts ????
Click to expand...

I think what we've seen is an ever descending spiral into ever increasing partisan fighting. So it's been a constant back and forth. I can't say whether the Clinton impeachment was a reaction to Bork but it was definitely part of that partisan spiral.

I'm also not sure about controversial picks of 43 and Trump vs Clinton and Obama. Ginsburg was clearly an extreme partisan when she was nominated. With her work for the ACLU there was no secret about that. But she was still confirmed by a massive margin. Roberts was about as non-controversial as you can get. Alito was more partisan than Roberts but was clearly qualified and should have been no more controversial than Sotomayor.

I think the biggest factor helping Sotomayor and Kagan to more votes than Alito was just a different makeup of the Senate. The Dems controlled more seats.

With Trump the controversy hasn't really been of his making. Gorsuch was as good as the Democrats could have hoped for but his was the seat that was viewed as having been stolen from Garland. Kavanaugh (hand picked by Kennedy) had the controversy of the accusations with Dems hoping to derail a pick until after the mid-terms to see if they could take the Senate.

Whatever the case, court confirmations are clearly subject to more partisan bickering these days. There's no reason Roberts, Altio, or Sotomayor should have gotten less than 90 votes (I exclude Kagan as she had never been a judge before, so there was at least that as a valid question as to her fitness).
 
Looks like Romney is on board to vote before the election. That looks to make 51.

I'm legitimately concerned all of this may end up with packing the court. I hope that's a line neither party would cross but it seems to be on the table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top