Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Marthe48

(16,949 posts)
Sat Sep 22, 2018, 07:22 PM Sep 2018

Might have been asked about before

Are the procedures to select a supreme court justice laws? Or just guidelines, precedents, best practices? And all these other 'breaks with traditions' that we are seeing from nunes to mcconnell to trump-are they breaking laws, or just ignoring procedures?

If they are laws, why can't we ask someone with the authority to arrest every single person who has broken the law? And if these treasonous criminals are working for us why can't we make citizens arrests?

I was talking to my adult daughter the other day, and she thinks the lawlessness is trickling down, such as people thinking well, if so-and-so can beat on someone and get away with it, why should I bother obeying stop lights?



10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Might have been asked about before (Original Post) Marthe48 Sep 2018 OP
The only law is the Constitution, which says Justices are appointed by the president The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #1
It doesn't even say "confirmed" jberryhill Sep 2018 #4
True. "Advice and consent" implies some kind of confirmation but it doesn't specify how The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #7
so this gang has discovered the vulnerable underbelly Marthe48 Sep 2018 #5
Yes, pretty much. Laws, not to mention customs, practices and norms, The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2018 #9
Both FBaggins Sep 2018 #2
hope if there are other laws they are breaking Marthe48 Sep 2018 #6
Appointment and confirmation elleng Sep 2018 #3
Thanks for the information Marthe48 Sep 2018 #8
You're welcome. elleng Sep 2018 #10

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,683 posts)
1. The only law is the Constitution, which says Justices are appointed by the president
Sat Sep 22, 2018, 07:28 PM
Sep 2018

and confirmed by the Senate. That's it. Everything else is protocols, practices (Senate rules) and norms, which have been followed, for the most part. But there were no laws preventing the appointment of Clarence Thomas despite credible evidence he had sexually harassed Anita Hill and other women; no laws required the GOP Senate to consider the appointment of Merrick Garland; and no laws are preventing the confirmation of Kavanaugh.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,683 posts)
7. True. "Advice and consent" implies some kind of confirmation but it doesn't specify how
Sat Sep 22, 2018, 08:08 PM
Sep 2018

or when. It's all just what's been done ever since.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,683 posts)
9. Yes, pretty much. Laws, not to mention customs, practices and norms,
Sat Sep 22, 2018, 08:12 PM
Sep 2018

aren't worth crap unless there's some agreement, specific or tacit, to follow them, and some way of enforcing them. To the extent our system works at all it's only because there's an agreed-on set of rules that are consistently followed. But lately that structure is falling apart because there are people who don't want to follow the rules and there's no mechanism to make them do it.

FBaggins

(26,731 posts)
2. Both
Sat Sep 22, 2018, 07:28 PM
Sep 2018

Some are required by the Constitution, some are Senate rules, some are just the way things have been done lately (the lack of the ability to filibuster a nominee for instance)

But the precedent is clear that the Senate makes their own rules. You won't find "someone with the authority" to tell them what to do.

elleng

(130,895 posts)
3. Appointment and confirmation
Sat Sep 22, 2018, 07:31 PM
Sep 2018

The U.S. Constitution states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court."[79] Most presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions may end up being contrary to a president's expectations. Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a president may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate confirmation.

In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press and advocacy groups, which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee depending on whether their track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The committee's practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent. The first nominee to appear before the committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to Wall Street, and the modern practice of questioning began with John Marshall Harlan II in 1955.[80] Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees, most recently Robert Bork, nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a nomination, prior to 2017 a nomination could be blocked by filibuster once debate had begun in the full Senate. President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice in 1968 was the first successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. It included both Republican and Democratic senators concerned with Fortas's ethics. President Donald Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the seat left vacant by Antonin Scalia's death was the second. Unlike the Fortas filibuster, however, only Democratic Senators voted against cloture on the Gorsuch nomination, citing his perceived conservative judicial philosophy, and the Republican majority's prior refusal to take up President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy.[81][82] This led the Republican majority to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.[83]

Not every Supreme Court nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. A president may withdraw a nomination before an actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject the nominee; this occurred most recently with President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers in 2006. The Senate may also fail to act on a nomination, which expires at the end of the session. For example, President Dwight Eisenhower's first nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in November 1954 was not acted on by the Senate; Eisenhower re-nominated Harlan in January 1955, and Harlan was confirmed two months later. Most recently, as previously noted, the Senate failed to act on the March 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland; the nomination expired in January 2017, and the vacancy was later filled by President Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch.[84]

Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of the Department of Justice must be affixed, before the new justice can take office.[85] The seniority of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.[86] The importance of commissioning is underscored by the case of Edwin M. Stanton. Although appointed to the court on December 19, 1869 by President Ulysses S. Grant and confirmed by the Senate a few days later, Stanton died on Dec 24, prior to receiving his commission. He is not, therefore, considered to have been an actual member of the court.

Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because Congress sees justices as playing a more political role than in the past.[87] According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).[88][89]

>>>

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

Marthe48

(16,949 posts)
8. Thanks for the information
Sat Sep 22, 2018, 08:09 PM
Sep 2018

I read it. I guess we will have to make sure we have equal justice among ourselves. Senators are not the only ones who can ignore precedent.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Might have been asked abo...