TexasDeac10
Alphonso Smith
Number of days taken to confirm SC nominations. Looks like 300+ would fall out of the norm.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/supreme-court-scalia-ideology.html
lol Harriet Miers
Number of days taken to confirm SC nominations. Looks like 300+ would fall out of the norm.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/supreme-court-scalia-ideology.html
Again, I don't think this is true at all. To the extent that a delay in appointments/confirmations significantly impedes the ability of the Supreme Court to function as an institution I think it would definitely be unconstitutional - maybe not justiciable, but certainly violating the clear implications in the Constitution that the Supreme Court must be a functioning branch of government and that any actions taken by other branches that prevent it from functioning would be a violation of separation of powers.
I am not convinced that leaving the Court at eight members for a significant period of time would constitute a constitutional violation, but there are definitely constitutional limits on what Congress or the President could do to prevent vacancies from being filled.
Additionally some ConLaw scholars believe that a nine-member Supreme Court has become so firmly established as an institution that it has become constitutionally mandated (i.e. that Congress no longer has the power to decrease or increase the number of members of the court as it did in the early days of the country). If this is true, then failing to confirm a ninth member within a reasonable time would also be a constitutional violation.
I'm not sure 4-4 ties necessarily favors the left. You'd have to look at the data more closely to figure it out. Although the many of the circuits lean left at present, it stands to reason that the Court has granted (and would have granted) cert. petitions from the right-leaning circuits like the Fifth Circuit.
E.g., think of the Immigration imbroglio that was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit 2-1.
I'm no literalist of the Constitution by any means, but where in the Constitution is an order that if something is "firmly established as an institution...it...becomeconstitutionally mandated?"
I'm not sure 4-4 ties necessarily favors the left. You'd have to look at the data more closely to figure it out. Although the many of the circuits lean left at present, it stands to reason that the Court has granted (and would have granted) cert. petitions from the right-leaning circuits like the Fifth Circuit.
E.g., think of the Immigration imbroglio that was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit 2-1.
Obama will nominate someone solid and the GOP will step all over themselves performing an unprecedented year long obstruction. The optics will be terrible for the GOP.
What about Watford makes it a price?
I'm no literalist of the Constitution by any means, but where in the Constitution is an order that if something is "firmly established as an institution...it...becomeconstitutionally mandated?"
I believe Akil Amar is one of the ones who endorses this theory, and I believe the theory is that at this point it would constitute impermissible meddling by Congress in the way the Supreme Court operates in violation of separation of powers. There is at least some merit to the argument. For example, Congress cancelled the entire Supreme Court term in the year before Marbury v. Madison because it was concerned with how the Court would rule in that case, but few would suggest that Congress retains the power to do that today.
I haven't done a ton of reading on it, so I'm not 100% sure of the particulars
There is zero merit to the argument that Congress is precluded from changing the number of SCOTUS justices.
I mean that's your opinion but people with far more Constitutional bona fides than you disagree
With an interpretive theory that accepts a "living constitution," it can mean anything you want it to.
Sure I guess it can, but I find that far more favorable than letting the dead hand govern us. Obviously people disagree.