THAT has NOT been done since 1896….
Once someone else wins….
The President in office stops hiring as a professional courtesy ….
Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are NOT about this…..
The judges will stay…
The others will just get the titles for their resumes…
Less than two months remain in the Trump administration, and Senate Republicans are doing something not seen in a century — confirming judges and other nominees after their party lost the White House. That norm-breaking rush to get GOP-approved picks through could get tricky, though, if lawmakers continue missing time because of COVID-19.
With only one exception, post-election confirmations of judges nominated to lifetime appointments by a president whose party has lost the White House hasn’t happened since the election of 1896 when William McKinley was elected and the Senate confirmed Grover Cleveland’s picks.
So far in this lame-duck session, the Senate has confirmed six nominees to U.S. district courts and one to the Court of International Trade, starting on Nov. 10 and before leaving town on Nov. 18.
“It’s unprecedented to confirm lame-duck presidents’ nominees after the election,” said Russell Wheeler, president of the Governance Institute and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.
During previous presidential election years, senators have invoked the so-called Thurmond rule, an unwritten agreement named after the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., that calls for the chamber to stop approving circuit court nominations in the few months before Election Day.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is following through on a leave-no-vacancy-behind promise. He vowed, “We’re going to run through the tape” in an October appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show. “We go through the end of the year, and so does the president,” the Kentucky Republican said….
Because Republicans are too pussy to confront Trump.
Republicans like to say they are just using “straight talk” when they tell poor minorities they are lazy losers (probably from shithole countries)
But with Donald Trump and his merry band of MAGA bigots? Gotta tread lightly.
Suddenly the same crowd who said “fuck your feelings” can’t handle having their fragile feelings hurt by the very routine prospect of Trump leaving the office he was fired from. Yep gotta waste time and money to avoid a nasty Tweet that will get the red hat Confederate flag waving crowd mad.
Indeed Scott….
They are punks….
related to confirming judges?
I do not see an issue with that, since they were nominated to fill vacancies some time ago. I did of course back the Democrats out of a sense of fairness on the sudden SCOTUS vacancy but we can all see how the standards for that have already changed.
What might be historically different here is that the Presidency is changing parties away from and not towards the party that has the Senate majority (and is favored to keep it.) If the Presidency were changing from Democrat to Republican and Democrats had the Senate, they would also be doing the same thing. The last time this would have been in effect would have been after the 1980 election and is perhaps the “one exception” that this article references.
After Jimmy Carter lost and even with the Senate having flipped from D to R, he nominated Stephen Breyer to the federal bench and Breyer was easily confirmed by the lame duck Senate. Was that an outrage?
So yes. something like this did also happen the *last* time the Presidency changed parties *away* from the Senate majority.
The differences though were that the defeated President made a nomination *after* he lost, which has not happened here (and I do not believe should happen) as well as it being a given the Senate majority was changing parties the next year.
Perhaps a caveat needs to be made to james statement at the top that this has done been done since 1896,
It was done in 1980, which was the *last* time the Presidency was about to switch parties away from the party that held the Senate majority.
I have not done the research, but perhaps 1896 was the last time before 1980 when that happened as well.
You and James need to do a lot more “ research”
Jimmy Carter is the only President in modern times who had no Supreme Court nominees .
There was no “ deal”
Breyer was nominated by Bill Clinton thirteen years after Carter left office.
There is no need for any Uh “ outrage.”
Breyer was nominated to the Court of Appeals in 1980 by the lame duck Carter and approved by the lame duck Senate.
I believe everything I said is historically accurate.
Thanks Jack….
Then the damn place i saw this screwed up….
My bad….
The Roll Call piece said “one exception.” Well, it is a pretty big and relevant exception because 1980 was the last time before 2020 that the Presidency was about to change parties but the incumbent’s party controlled the Senate.
When was the last time before that? It might very well have been 1896. I am not sure, but it was probably rare.
So, it makes sense that what Democrats did in 1980 when this was last applicable, Republicans would do in 2020.
Again, the big difference is that Trump is not actively nominating judges just now after his loss, like what Carter did.
Beyer was a deal….
Trumo/McConnell is doing no such thing…
They have the right and power to do so…
But McConnell KNOWS better …
A “deal?”
No, this happened in 1980, whether one thinks is fair or not. Your statements are not historically accurate. That was the last time historically that the circumstances would have been similar.
The difference though as noted, is that Carter nominated Breyer after he already lost. These confirmations are nominations seemingly made months ago by Trump
It WAS a deal nevertheless CG….
McConnell’s deal is with party with Trump staged along
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The bottomline is that even jack agrees with me (as painful as he finds it) that 1896 was not the last time this happened.
It happened in 1980 and would happen any other time a President was out the door but his or her party controlled the Senate majority. They are going to empty their “in box.”
I will say again that a post-defeat nomination, such as how Carter nominated Breyer in 1980 is an even more “aggressive” matter and I would be opposed to Trump doing something. like that.
Let’s also remember that Democrats decided to nuke the filibuster over Neil Gorsuch and thus cannot stop this. If this means that much to them now, maybe they should have kept that option for themselves.
So let me get this straight James, you point out that no president or Congress since 1896 has continued to hire Department Staff and appoint judges after a declared winner of the presidential election, yet the leader of the Republican Senate is going forward with everything and you some how think in January the switch will just turn in the opposite direction and their will be a coombyya love fest and the Republicans are going to work with Democrats…Maga is here to stay…the true beleivers run that party…Look at his son, he could bitch smack McConnel right now in front of everyone and McConnel with a bruised ego, a bruised hand and a bruised chin would just sit there and accept it…I guess McConnel likes Golden Showers…
I agree.
James wants desperately to believe that when Trump leaves the White House , Republicans are all of a sudden going to awake from the past four years, act like nothing has happened and become cooperative and compromising.
It would be unusual and undemocratic for their not to be some conflict and disagreements amongst political parties regardless of whom is President. Why would we act like this does not go both ways?
I will say Biden is far less likely to be impeached (even if Republicans win the House in two years) than Trump was.
Generally speaking, in terms of his experience and personality, Biden will be a lot more collegial with Members of Congress (of both parties) and will work more effectively with them than either Trump or Obama.
No Bdog …..
He, he, he….
I KNOW and have said READILY that Joe Biden HAS his work cut out for him….
But he WILL be the President and the dynamic for McConnell IF GOOer’s hold both georgia Senate seats will change …
Republicans WILL need things also…
But yea McConnell could be a pain
If Dem’s get the two seats we are talking about something completely different ….
I’m not convinced Biden and his core people do not want the Republicans to win those runoffs deep down…
I truly believe that our democracy as we know it would have ended if Trump won in 2020. But our democracy is still in trouble, and it is in trouble because Republicans refuse to stand up to Trump. This year Republican Secretary of States certified the votes in states where the vote was relatively close, like Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania, but these people have received death threats for doing so. Why would we expect that these Republican officials will still be in office in 2024 when 77% of Republicans feel (or at least tell pollsters that they believe) that the election was stolen from them. We positively need more than a handful of Republican leaders to say that Trump lost, the election was fair, and he needs to go away. By now, it should be obvious to all, including any Republican with moral values, that this refusal to stand up to Trump is putting our democracy at risk.
Any Republican Secretary of State who runs on the platform in 2022 that the election was stolen from Trump will win the GOP nomination over a Republican who certified Trump as the loseer. And people on this site who have criticized me for saying that most Republicans are stupid or evil need to look objectively at what is going on in this country and acknowledge that there is at least some truth in what I have stated. What more evidence do you possibly need?
For it to actually happen, for one thing.
And only GA of the three states mentioned has a Republican Secretary of State.
The attacks on him (and the Governor of GA) for not being willing to cheat on behalf of Trump are of course completely disgusting, but it remains to be seen if they would actually lose primaries in 2022 or not for those reasons.
Where are the Republicans coming to their defense,particularly Raffensperger, an honorable man who was just doing his job..
holding their tongues until the Georgia runoffs for obvious reasons.
What obvious reason?
All they have to say is that they know him(he’s apparently been involved in the Republican Party for quite awhile) and they don’t believe he did anything other than his job.
It’s very simple.
Republicans, while perhaps historically favored in those runoffs, are doing everything possible to lose them right now due to the Trump mess.
They all know that Trump can call on his supporters to boycott the runoffs or vote Democrat out of protest and its all over.
The only Republican elected officials who have attacked the GA SOS are Trump himself and the two Georgia Senators/hostages.
And those threatening his life.
Maybe they’re “independents “ or (gulp) Democrats?
That wouldn’t make much sense but hey here in Trumpworld ?Anything goes!
I don’t see that Republicans are trying to lose the runoffs.Indeed they remain the favorites.I don’t think it will be particularly close .
Those threatening his life are as horrible (and should be subject to prosecution) the same was as those who threatened Katharine Harris’s life in Florida when she certified the results of that state.
I do not think such extremist actions define either party though.
Those runoffs would be a double coin toss right now.
You are always publicly doubting Democrats electorally. I suppose it at least provides balance from some others here.
I’m just going by past elections and the down ballot results from this one.
In my view, Georgia remains a Republican State although the Democrats are gaining and have made inroads.
In my view a sufficient number of suburban voters who generally lean Republican were fed up with Trump,found Biden acceptable, and that accounted for his narrow victory.
Further the Black turnout is usually down in these runoffs.Without that “base” a Democratic victory is highly unlikely.
If Democrats take one or both Senate races Georgia IS on its way to be purple….
Republicans would have the edge if they could run a campaign of “Biden is going to be President. Pelosi is going to be Speaker. We MUST keep the Senate to have the appropriate checks and balances, etc…..”
Instead, Trump is in Crazytown and saying that elections are rigged and our own FBI and his own Justice Department may be in on it and his Kool Aid drinkers in Georgia may not even vote because of it.
All it takes is for him to call for a boycott of the runoff and its over and you guys win. Of course you all want that to happen. I don’t blame you at all.
Ah? CG?
Pelosi WAS mentioned ALL during the last election cycle
The OTHER part about the Trump Justice Dept also….
It actually seemed to work against Trump
I don’t see that happening.
Indeed, he’s talking about coming down there to campaign for the Republicans.
His RNC Chairperson was down there this weekend putting out fires.
Further,if Trump is even thinking about running again in 2024 ,such an action would be giving ammunition to any of his likely numerous opponents.
The Republicans will likely win say 53/47 or thereabouts.
I presume you are supporting the Republicans .
I have already posted on this. I am agnostic.
I do not live in Georgia and do not have to vote there.
Purdue and Loeffler deserve to lose and I would not feel sorry for them if they do.
I also have concerns about Ossoff and Warnock.
So I really do not care, but generally speaking, I think divided government is better for the country and would be more in line with stopping what I would consider to be the ideological excesses of single party rule.
And in many ways, Biden may appreciate the “excuse” that will keep from going too far left.
Only one early Ga poll out so far and that had things as tied…..
Not sure what you are trying to say james.
Clearly, the House results this past cycle, with as many incumbent Dems losing as did (and zero incumbent Republicans) might have had something to do with Pelosi in those districts.
Yup….
So?
Dem’s ARE ALREADY running against her….
But THAT didn’t matter on Trump’s level…
The big guy LOST….
Maybe the Biden admin could start locking up those who threaten bodily harm to those who are doing their jobs?
A few stories in the media ?
Jack, CG is correct that most Republicans would be willing to risk the reputation and life of an elected Republican who went against Trump than potentially damage their election hopes to the Senate of two Republicans by simply telling the truth and standing up for someone who was unwilling to cheat. From all we have seen from the GOP these past four years, why would you NOT think that is obvious what the Republicans would do?
I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.
It seems to me that you should be concerned about losing our democracy before it actually happens – while we have the chance to do something about it.
And in the scheme of things, this is more far important than your objection (for example) of replacing certain police roles with others who are more equipped to do certain tasks.
I am not concerned about losing our democracy. I think we always need to defend it against those who threaten norms, etc, but that our democracy works just fine and the loss of Trump, as an elected incumbent President, is proof of it.
We should be thankful that 2020 is ending as “normally” as it is.
And also, those concerned about “democracy” should perhaps think twice before siding with Iran over Israel.
I don’t consider myself as siding with Iran. I just don’t think we should treat Israel any differently than other countries that promote terrorism. And killing of scientists of countries that you are not at war with is terrorism.
Palestinians do not have the same rights in Israel as Jews. So, while it is fashionable in the US to call Israel a democracy doesn’t necessarily make it so by 2020 standards.
Your comment reminds me of how many Republicans used to claim that South Africa was a democracy during Apartheid, and opposed US efforts to end Apartheid. The situation in Israel is not quite as bad as Apartheid, but that doesn’t mean we should be silent while we would be critical if it happened anywhere else in the world.
As an American, you can believe what you want. Israel is not a terrorist state however, and you are definitely on the fringes of American society by believing so.
The very act of agreeing with Iranian propaganda that Israel is guilty of this (along with anything else they have accused Israel of), as they preach for the outright destruction of Israel, shows you are siding with Iran.
In regards to the rights of Arabs in Israel, they are greater there than they are in any Arab state. They have the right to vote and to serve in office and everything else.
There is only one legal distinction in Israel between Jews and Arabs. Jews are required to serve in the Israeli Army and Arabs are not required to do so.
Israel is definitely a democracy. That does not mean that everybody has to agree with everything they do but agreeing that they should not exist or siding with those that say they should not exist is of course anti-democratic.
No one here is defending the Arab countries.
I can understand why Jews would not want Arabs in their military. But I find it amusing how you present it in a way to suggest that Arabs have certain rights in Israel that Jews do not have. How intellectually dishonest can you get?
As I have understood it:
(1) While Arabs may (at obvious peril from their own) enlist in the IDF, they are not required to do so;
(2) I’m pretty sure that conscription applies equally to Jews living on either side of the Green Line;
(3) Jews living outside pre-1967 Israel can vote in Knesset elections. although I doubt they have (or, with a few exceptions, want) the dubiously-significant right to vote for the Palestinian Authority. Arabs without Israeli citizenship living in the same area, per contra, can vote for the PA, but not the Knesset. I don’t know about the rights of those who belong to other communities living there (e.g. Bedouin, Druse, Samaritans);
(4) Everyone living within Israel’s pre-1967 borders can vote for the Knesset;
(5) Some benefits and some positions are only open to IDF veterans;
(4) Many Druse and I think many Bedouin (Muslim but not ethnically Arab) do enlist and/or have enlisted in the Israeli Defence Forces. I don’t know about the microscopic remnant of the Samaritans.
Thanks DSD….
Just common sense….
I’m sure there ARE Arab jews in the Israeli Army…..
Arabs do make up a decent part of that county’s population
Not all Israeli’s are hard against Arabs…
Some one peace ….
I’m sure there is even intermarriage …
The country could use some peace for it’s economy i would think
The not being conscripted into the Israeli military relates to Muslims.
“Arab Jew” is sort of a contradictory term, unless it means specifically Jews who have always lived in Arab countries.
Israel is of course a Jewish country, where the same rights are extended to all and of course Jews and Muslims in the Middle East are all Semitic cousins and whatnot.
Nope CG….
There ARE true Arabs in Israel
Actually ?
I believe a LOT of them….
“The Jews” in Israel allow Muslims in the military and many serve. They just are not forced to serve as those who are Jewish are, because Israel does not want to force them to have to take up arms against people who might be relatives, etc.
Seems like a compassionate thing to do.
Screw the compassionate thing….
They need bodies and since some of their enemies might be Arabs?
WTF NOT have people living IN ur country serve and defend it?
The Arabs in Israel are generally Muslims who were kicked out and displaced from the Arab countries they originally came from.
As for the military thing, yes, not being forced into conscription ,a right we as Americans have, would be considered a benefit, would it not?
Israel is actively recruiting Muslims to join the Army.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37895021
They want a more diverse military. Of course, there is a lot of pressure on Muslims there to not join from their own communities.
We should ALL be vigilant about someone trying to enslave our country,…
That WAS one the reasons Trump got his ass in trouble …
Israel has no problem getting “bodies” to serve in the military, as it is required for all Jews, male and female. Most understand and welcome the duty, but it is a bit hard for those of us who are Americans to understand such a thing.
It is also of course sad that such a thing would be needed, but with Israel fighting for its survival on a perpetual basis, it clearly is.
One of my best friends from childhood, whose family came to America from the Soviet Union, moved to Israel and joined the Army. Unfortunately, I lost contact with him.
U might want to do some digging CG like u have in the past….
I’m sure they have those who get out of serving in the military for the required time…
Just about everyone of a certain age (who is Jewish) serves in the military in some capacity. I am sure there are exceptions for those with developmental disabilities, etc.
Well I will say that anybody who simply based on unproven statements by Trump,Guiliani or any other members of the “legal team” that the election was “corrupt” is yes
“Stupid.”
If the polls are to be believed then that is about three fourths of the Republican Party.
I actually do not and Zreebs seems to allude to this as well, that all those Trump voters actually “believe” that he won, but for cultish reasons they feel the need at this time to refuse to admit he did not.
Well that’s pretty “stupid.l”
To you and me it seems that way, but we should maybe re-vist some polls and how many Democrats refused to acknowledge the legitimate wins by GWB in 2000 and 2004 or by Trump in 2016.
I think it will be interesting to see if any House yahoos try to object to the reading of the Electoral Votes in Congress when they do that, which of course is what happened after all three of those Republican wins.
Well Al Gore and John Kerry both conceded .
Kerry the day after the election .
2000 was totally different as the entire election hinged on 500 votes.
Those aren’t apt comparisons at all.
We have never had this type situation as you well know and trying to equate the situations is inaccurate.
As to yahoo’s?Paging Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan etc.
Sure, but the blogger types did not.
In regards to 2000, even after GWB took office, many Democrats refused to acknowledge he was legitimately elected which of course also applied to Trump.
Certainly, people remember the House Democrats (even in 2005) who tried to object to the certification of the Electoral Votes during the ceremonial joint session.
And you had some left-wing media figures who were trying to bribe or blackmail actual Electors to not vote for GWB as well.
I don’t remember anyone who mattered trying to stop GW Bush from being certified the winner or being inaugurated in 2004-2005.
And Buden will win by 20 more electoral votes and a wider margin in the popular vote. My Senator Roy Blunt couldn’t call Biden the actual President Elect on the Sunday shows yesterday. If some blogger refused to do the same for Bush jn 2004 who gives a shit?
Democrats HAVE accepted GOP wins CG…
Gore conceded….
pulled it back …
Then in the end did so again…
Name one Dem That pulled any shit like Trump?
Stacy Abrams still has not conceded the 2018 Gubernatorial election .
I don’t share CGs belief that most of these Republicans are just liars, although I suspect there are some.
Democracy IS STRONGER than one Real Estate snake oil salesman from Queens, NY….
In regards to Senate confirmations, I should repeat or state what I should have stated more definitively before — about whether the Senators confirming Justice Barrett’s appointment represent a majority of the people.)
The number of votes for each party in U.S. Senate elections has to be totalled up over six years, because each state only votes twice in six years for Senate, and every election year misses a third of the states, thus omitting e.g., Californians, Texans, New Yorkers and/or Floridians.
A Republican Senate majority in 2/3 of the states in 2010 or 2014 or 2018 means very little in terms of a mandate.
When I did the totting-up of all the partisan votes for Senate over several six-year spans, more voters chose Democrats over Republicans in almost every case.
Details may (or may not) follow.
CG, will your web-site offer any prognostications about the Georgia Senate races before January 5th ?
I will post predictions after Jan 1
Since it is a runoff, I have the right to change what I had right before the November election which was Tossup wins for Ossoff and Loeffler.
As of today, I would probably say Tossup wins for both Republicans
By the way the 6th district of Georgia has a runoff tomorrow to pick which Democrat is going to Washington D.C. (and get a pension) for like two weeks to succeed John Lewis, before the woman who was elected to serve the full two years takes over in January.
With history-making high court, [Mass. Gov. Charlie] Baker shows an embrace of lived experience, not ‘activist judges’
By Matt Stout [Boston] Globe Staff,
Updated November 29, 2020, 6:15 p.m.
The Supreme Judicial Court built by Governor Charlie Baker will be unlike any high bench before it, crafted with unprecedented diversity and an impressive breadth of experience. But philosophically, it could hew closely to its architect.
Afforded a historic opportunity to name all seven of the court’s justices, Baker has prioritized collegiality and life and legal experiences over Ivy League credentials and hardened ideology in his four-plus years of picking nominees.
The approach, legal observers say, appears to have molded a centrist court — or, to some, a notably unideological one — that has already begun to reflect the moderate Republican’s own preference for pragmatism, collaboration, and, sometimes, caution.
“He doesn’t want activist judges by any means,” said Martin W. Healy, the chief legal counsel of the Massachusetts Bar Association and a member of Baker’s SJC nominating commission. “The governor hasn’t really been that interested in trying to make appointments on any type of a political leaning. He’s looked for judges that were more going to add to what the needs of the courts were.”
Baker’s nominations, the most by a single governor in centuries, could also solidify the reputation of a court that often rules with little dissent and has long eschewed the overt ideological divisions that define the US Supreme Court and its own nomination process….
Perhaps in a bit of irony, Baker’s picks marked sweeping change in and of themselves. Kimberly S. Budd — confirmed earlier this month as the court’s new chief justice, replacing the late Ralph D. Gants — will be the first Black woman to hold the position. Wendlandt will be the court’s first Latina, and the confirmation of Georges, who is Haitian-American, would ensure the SJC includes three jurists of color for the first time ever….
They also buck what attorneys say has been the long-held trend of justices filtering through Ivy League institutions.
Indeed, of Baker’s seven nominees, only Budd attended an Ivy League school; she graduated from Harvard Law in the same class as former president Barack Obama. Gaziano, Cypher, and Georges all graduated from Suffolk Law — a school that Sheriece M. Perry, the former president of the Massachusetts Black Lawyers Association and a Suffolk Law grad, said is “focused on a lot of public government work.”
“When you look at many of the justices from the past, oftentimes you’ll see Ivy League backgrounds and scholars,” Perry said. The current judges and nominees, she said, “are more thoughtful and more creative about how they enter their decisions. The way they have been writing and their analysis and their legal reasoning, it’s come not only from legal scholarship but just life.”
They also buck what attorneys say has been the long-held trend of justices filtering through Ivy League institutions.Indeed, of Baker’s seven nominees, only Budd attended an Ivy League school; she graduated from Harvard Law in the same class as former president Barack Obama. Gaziano, Cypher, and Georges all graduated from Suffolk Law — a school that Sheriece M. Perry, the former president of the Massachusetts Black Lawyers Association and a Suffolk Law grad, said is “focused on a lot of public government work.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/29/metro/with-history-making-high-court-baker-shows-an-embrace-lived-experience-not-activist-judges/