Hot answers tagged

36

The reason for the first three increases in the size of the Supreme Court was related to the size of the country's boundaries growing. The decrease in 1866 was, reportedly, more an attempt by the Supreme Court to convince Congress to raise the salaries of the justices. When that failed, the number of justices returned to nearly where it was before. In ...


24

There have been 29 total Supreme Court nominations during an election year throughout US history. In 19 of those cases, the President and the Senate were of the same party, and the nominee was confirmed 17 of those times. In 10 cases, the President and the Senate were of opposite parties, and only 2 were confirmed. So there is a lot of historical precedent ...


20

I'm assuming this is most likely because of the time where something like this almost happened, namely the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. The idea, as Wikipedia puts it, was the following: The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 19371 (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President ...


19

tl;dr: Yes, all vacancies that occurred in an election year while one party controlled both presidency and Senate were filled by that party, regardless of whether the vacancy occurred before or after the election. One vacancy in 1968 did not actually occur due to the way the resignation letter was phrased. A candidate was nominated nonetheless but a ...


17

There haven't been very many election year nominations in history, particularly not recent history. Going back to 1900, there have only been six nominations to the Supreme Court during election years: 2016, 1940, 1932, 1916 (twice), and 1912 (excluding two of Johnson's nominations that were ultimately withdrawn) 1. Five of those were of the same party, and ...


17

The founders had two models in particularly in mind: the Ancient Roman Senate, and the UK parliament of Monarch/Lords/Commons. In the UK, the House of Lords functioned as a Supreme Court. The founders wanted to separate the powers of the court from the Upper house, but they still wanted the upper house to have a role in approving justices. The expectation ...


12

There's a lot of moving parts here to understand Roe v Wade changed the politics of the court No matter which side of the aisle you're on Roe v. Wade still looms large in any SCOTUS appointment. Ginsburg's death reiterates that If Trump is able to install his nominee in that seat, both sides agree there’s a better chance than ever that Roe v. Wade — the ...


7

The Supreme Court is supposed to be an apolitical and impartial body. This perception currently hangs on the edge as the political divide and polarization in the country is reaching new heights every single week. It can be argued whether it figuretively takes another drop or another glass to shatter what is left of the perception of impartiality, but ...


7

The framers didn't trust democracy or the people (at the federal level) A shocking sentiment to many, perhaps, but a fact nonetheless. They often saw direct democracy on any given matter as either too onerous a burden on the people (believing they should put in great diligence to exercise the power wisely, but fearing they wouldn't due to lack of time and ...


5

Yes, for example in the 1976 Labour Leadership election, Jim Callahan narrowly beat Michael Foot in the run-off (having lost to him in the first round of voting) Michael Foot went on to win the 1980 election (This time Healy won the first round, but Foot won the run-off) So Michael Foot was rejected in ’76, but succeeded in ’80. Similarly, Callaghan had ...


5

As Mark Twain once quipped: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes." There are obvious parallels between the Reichstag fire and the 9/11 attacks — as well as between the resulting Reichstag Fire Decree and the Patriot Act — but there are obvious differences as well: The Reichstag Fire was ostensibly the act of a 'lone wolf' that the Nazi ...


3

It's not. The Reichstag event was either a false flag operation or the act of one person, willfully misrepresented as a Communist plot. In any case, we know the Nazi penchant for false flag operations, such as pretending Poland had attacked them. There is no doubt the Nazis were not being honest about the actual danger to their state. The WTC attack was ...


3

Differences in the events themselves There is some doubt about the origins of the Reichstagsbrand among historians & a false flag operation is a legitimate theory. No reliable source attribute 9/11 to a false flag operation. Differences in impact The Reichstagsbrand was used to persecute political opponents - including elected representatives -, which ...


3

It's difficult to provide a substantive answer to this, as the Court basically never explains why it takes or refuses any given case. But we can observe an obvious correlation. Before 1990, your graph shows an upward trend, but it suddenly falls by a lot over the next couple of years, and then starts trending downward. This coincides almost precisely with ...


3

Not a comprehensive answer but three main reasons: First, the United States has not had an established religion and competing religious sects for hundreds of years. This means that religious denominations in the U.S. have had to compete to survive with little room for anything that makes them less relevant to their members. In contrast, the vast majority of ...


3

The deputising convention was broken again in September 2020, when Sir Keir was unable to attend PMQs due to a member of his household exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19. Angela Rayner, Labour's deputy leader stood in for him at the session, facing Boris Johnson at the despatch box in another breach of this convention. As reported by The National: It is ...


2

The existing answers are good, but I think they miss one element of why the Senate performs this function and not the House: Senators were originally appointed by state governments. The scope of federal law was originally quite slight, and a substantial amount of federal court business was naturally anticipated to deal with disputes between states. Having ...


2

So, as William has mentioned, the fact that the Senate's consent is required in court appointments is established in the U. S. Constitution, Article II, section 2: He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with ...


1

To add to the list, Yasser Arafat was jointly awarded the Noble Peace Prize with two others in 1994, and has been later accused formally and informally of war crimes, terrorism, etc. For example: Seven French relatives of Israelis killed by Palestinian suicide bombers filed a complaint against Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in a French court. They ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible