Skip to content
Subscribe

Senate Republicans May Have Historical Case for Waiting on SCOTUS Vacancy

Senate Republicans May Have Historical Case for Waiting on SCOTUS Vacancy
Published:

Since 1970, the average time to fill the 15 Supreme Court vacancies that have occurred has been 55 days, far shorter than the minimum time it will take for the Senate to fill the late Antonin Scalia's seat if the upper chamber waits for the next president (342 days minimum).

Part of this is because retiring justices have made the confirmation of a successor a contingency on their retirement -- the only real waits have come from seats filled because of a justice's death.

While we live in a hyper-partisan era of American politics, 19th century vacancies generally took much longer than any other period in American history -- often because of various extreme partisanship (including the Civil War) making compromise impossible.

Justice Henry Baldwin died in 1844, but the absolute hatred between President Tyler and Whigs controlling the Senate (his own former party--though expelled) kept the seat vacant until the next presidency, making it the longest vacancy at 841 days.

President Lincoln didn't have problems with the Senate, the 37th Congress was dominated by Republicans (61 percent in the Senate), but he sat on nominating three vacancies -- two from death and one Civil War resignation --for over a year.

It takes 5 members of the Supreme Court to form a quorum. At times, because of the failing health of other justices, the court could not even meet because of a lack of quorum.

It's not completely evident why Lincoln waited, especially since many of his war-time orders and practices eventually worked their way up to SCOTUS -- having it loaded with sympathetic justices would have helped his own cause. Possibly he waited until there was simply no chance for reconciliation between the North and South, not wanting to antagonize the situation any more than needed.

When Chief Justice Salmon Chase died, President Grant was left with a conundrum. It seemed like nobody wanted the job. His first three offers were turned down, then the Senate rejected several more.

Grant was left with nominating a political 'nobody,' so much of a nobody that a former Navy secretary quipped, "It is a wonder that Grant did not pick up some old acquaintance, who was a stage driver or bartender for the place."

Even with all the troubles, the seat only stayed vacant for 301 days.

Only 72 days into the wait on Justice Scalia's replacement, it's not been a completely popular or consequence-free political tactic.

Almost all votes are coming down to Justice Kennedy's crucial swing vote, so far siding with the liberal justices in the majority of cases. Essentially, they have placed the entire power of SCOTUS in the hands of the most moderate member of the bench.

With the balance of power in the hands of a moderate, the court has handed down some significant losses to businesses. Dow Chemical, for instance, chose to settle for almost $1 billion rather than face the moderate court.

This waiting game is probably hurting the immediate conservative cause more than liberal, but with life-tenure at stake, Senate leaders are hoping to sway the future of Supreme Court precedent if a Republican president wins in November -- or at least force a moderate if the Democrats win.

While the Republican-led Senate is doing a disservice to their calling by not even holding confirmation hearings (they have the power to reject almost anyone they want to), this is still the separation of powers at it's finest, using the system to ensure your own platform and agenda.

While they probably should give the famous Bush-era 'up-or-down vote' to President Obama's nominations, the Senate is really highlighting the importance of the president's power to nominate SCOTUS vacancies in this election year, something all voters should be considering in each presidential election.

Photo Credit: Bragin Alexey / shutterstock.com

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Senate Republicans May Have Historical Case for Waiting on SCOTUS Vacancy

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us