Why that age window specifically?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ending Life tenure on SCOTUS
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I think a Supreme Court Justice needs a LOT of experience. Most attorneys don’t finish law school until mid-20s.
They don’t go straight to a judgeship. By their 40’s they are only beginning a substantial career as a judge. By waiting to nominate at 60, the Pres and Senate will have a substantial history of judging to review.
Concerning retirement; Most people, even at their very best, begin to have diminishing mental ability by the time they hit 80. Twenty years is plenty of time to serve.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
You are correct. Early voting is a recent invention, so no prior nominee was confirmed during the early voting for Pres.
peace to you
Early voting is similar to "no-excuse" absentee voting.[24] In many U.S. states, the period can vary between four and fifty days prior to Election Day.[25] Early voting in person is allowed without excuse required in 33 U.S. states and in the District of Columbia (DC). Absentee voting by mail without excuse is allowed in 28 states and DC. In 20 states, an excuse is required. No-excuse permanent absentee voting is allowed in 6 states and in DC, and 3 states (Oregon, Washington and Colorado) conduct all early voting by mail.[26]
History of early voting in United States presidential elections
Actually, here's an excellent summary I found here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN11514.pdf
There was one other SC opening that occurred even closer to the election. The president was Abraham Lincoln. I would argue that was a highly unusual situation which occurred during the Civil War. The opening was filled in the election year after the election in which the people reaffirmed their support for Lincoln. This was quite a different situation than the one in 2020 in which Trump said he was confirming the nominee so close to the election because he had power.
There was one other SC opening that occurred even closer to the election. The president was Abraham Lincoln. I would argue that was a highly unusual situation which occurred during the Civil War. The opening was filled in the election year after the election in which the people reaffirmed their support for Lincoln. This was quite a different situation than the one in 2020 in which Trump said he was confirming the nominee so close to the election because he had power.
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Early voting is not reported prior to election day, thus a moot point. Trying to make it an issue in this matter is disingenuous.
The question is whether or not the President is president until the next inauguration and is thus in a position to appoint a justice when a majority in the Senate will confirm the nomination.
The answer is that the President is president until the next inauguration and he does have the power and authority to so appoint a justice and the Senate has the authority to so confirm. Claiming otherwise is also disingenuous.
Then why did Republicans refuse to even consider Obama's candidate? In fact they claimed in March of an election year we should wait until the people spoke in the election. Strictly partician politics of course. The issue was Trump appointing a SC justice much closer to the election.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Of course. The Senate was out of session and it would literally take several weeks, if not months, to get all the Senators back in Washington in the early 1860’s.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The GOP explained it this way. The Pres and Senate were of different parties.
There is no doubt the Dems would have done the same thing if in power.
peace to you
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
First, it wasn't because of early voting. That would have been disingenuous.
But a fair reading of my post provides the simple answer, and Dems would agree had it been the other way round, that is, had it been a Rep president and Dem senate majority.
When it came to replacing the constitutionally conservative Scalia, with opinions divided down party lines, and a ridiculous offering of a Dem Progressive Left nominee, it only made sense for the Rep senate majority to say, "Let the people decide this one." Enter Trump.
When Trump nominated Barrett, the senate majority was from his own party and in full agreement. In other words, the people had already decided that one. Enter Barrett.
Actually Lincoln's appointment came after the election so the people had already spoken. It's not the same thing as Trump's appointment.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The bottom line is the majority of election-year SCOTUS vacancies were more than 228 days before the election (early March). The vacancy due to Scalia's death (Obama's appointment) was in line with this precedent. Trump's was not at 46 days.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Nope. The only majority that matters here is that of the Senate, not the number of SCOTUS vacancies that were this or that. It would only take one case as precedent.
The bottom line is that Trump was president and the Senate majority was of the same party. Enter Barrett.
And if it has been the Dems, they would be so arguing now.
Might makes right.
Yep!! Who (??
) was it, a few years back, that said "I've got a phone & a pen --", or words to this effect?
President Obama made that statement in response to McConnell's stated objective of blocking everything he tried to accomplish.. The Republicans refuse to work together with the Democrats to resolve any of America's needs so this approach was necessary.Yep!! Who (??