184

The Democrats were in favour of appointing Garland in 2016, but now that the Republicans have set a precedent that Supreme Court Justices should not be appointed in an election year, the Republicans are being asked to stick to it. The Democrats are simply asking the Republicans to stick to the principles they used four years ago. The Republicans are the ones ...


131

Why are the Republicans being criticized? Because in 2016 they didn't simply say it was party politics as the reason to oppose Obama's choice, nor even that they disagreed with his choice. They chose to portray this as a matter of principle. On principle, they declared that they believed a new Justice should not be appointed in an election year, because it ...


105

There are a number of reasons why people oppose Barrett, among them: Her stances on political issues: There is a fear that the bodily autonomy of women is under attack (see her stance on Roe v. Wade), as well as the human rights of LGBT+ people (see her stance on the rights of trans people and marriage equality), and that access to health care is in danger (...


65

The main reason for this is down to one question: who won the argument in 2016? Because the Republicans had a majority in the Senate in 2016, it was them who decided how Obama's nomination would be handled. The position of the Democrats would not have affected the outcome in any way. Similarly, in 2020, as the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they ...


59

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 ...


55

Most cases never go straight to the Supreme Court; it only has original jurisdiction over a very small subset of cases, as described in the US Constitution. Outside of those areas, they are always heard by at least one other court first before being appealed to the Supreme Court. If there is a tie in the Supreme Court, the ruling of the lower court stands, ...


54

Because the US Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on whether an impeachment is constitutional. That power lies solely with the US Senate, as part Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. It is worth remembering that the President is not the only position that is subject to ...


50

Very much so. 1. Last year, the supreme court struck down a 2017 law having to do with legalization of illegal housing built in previously Palestinian areas (New York Times source). Here is a quote from that article: In its 8-to-1 ruling, the high court declared that the 2017 law was lopsidedly unfair, saying it sought to make legal “unlawful acts ...


47

How political parties view things is not necessarily commensurate with reality. After all, they have a political agenda to push. In this case the view of (federal) judges—Supreme Court Justices or otherwise—as dyed-in-the-wool partisans is not really borne out by the reality. The type of 5-4 split decisions that attract so much attention are in fact a ...


47

There are no grounds for the President to declare the Supreme Court 'politically illegitimate' given that the Supreme Court is an institution that is directly established by the Constitution. Such a declaration would be grounds for the impeachment of the President, in my opinion. However, the online Constitutional Rights Foundation points out: President ...


46

which seems symmetrically inconsistent No, they're not. The Republicans are asking that precedent established by them be disregarded because it benefits them. Democrats are asking that precedent be respected. So it's not symmetric. There is a difference between arguing for A, then arguing for B, versus arguing for (A and B). Suppose your company offers you ...


44

There are several major reasons why various people would oppose her nomination. I'm afraid that no quantitative survey data available, but off the top of the recent news: The procedure. Republicans took a huge criticism on their flip-flopping regarding the very fact of electing a SCOTUS nominee during the last year of presidency — the Republicans introduced ...


44

@divibisan but this question isn't about reviewing impeachments. It's about whether impeaching a former president is constitutional. @divibisan I do not understand your question. OP asks why it is the Senate voting on the question as opposed to the Supreme Court. The supreme court never rules on the constitutionality of anything unless that question has a ...


42

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 ...


40

Others have answered about the hypocrisy angle, but I also see another difference this time. In 2016, the Democrats knew that they would face opposition from the Republican Senate. So Obama deliberately chose a moderate candidate, Merrick Garland. He was clearly trying to offer the GOP a compromise by not nominating a far-left justice. But the Republicans ...


34

Suppose you and your friend had been playing a game many times for years. One day your friend decided to change the rules in the middle of a session in a way that was very advantageous to them. The next time the two of you played, the rule change would benefit you. So you suggested that you do the rule change again. But your friend was absolutely against it. ...


29

The size of the Supreme Court can be changed by passing a law The size of the Supreme Court is set by statute: Title 28 § 1 of the United States Code. Under the necessary and proper clause, Congress has the power to pass legislation about how "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or ...


29

As you mentioned, Supreme Court Judges remain in office until they die or retire. That is typically many years or even decades after they are appointed, meaning that they will have a long time to argue their legal opinions whether it becomes the majority opinion or the dissent opinion. At least since the 20th century (but probably longer), judges appointed ...


29

The real answer to why there are protests is "because she's being appointed by a President of the opposite party of the people who are protesting." This happens pretty much every time anyone is nominated to the Supreme Court. For example, even a quick search can find protests after the nominations of each of the last 6 Supreme Court justices to be ...


28

The current size of the Supreme court was set by the Judiciary Act of 1869 and it would be changed by passing another bill through Congress setting a different size. This is just a normal bill, and would go through the same process as any other bill: it would need to pass a majority vote in the House and Senate, then be signed by the President, or have a ...


28

Any political system — and I'm using the term 'any' in the strong sense — operates on the basis of political norms. Political norms are not enshrined in laws, statutes, constitutions, or institutions. Political norms are attitudes we share towards those things: respect for the law, recognition of authority and delegated power, acceptance of community ...


25

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 ...


25

As the comments rightfully note, there's always a political force by whose opinion various decisions "can be seen" differently. For instance, there's a long-lasting political debate over Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In November 2020, Israel’s Supreme Court struck down a law that had retroactively legalized settlements built on privately ...


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 ...


23

The timing reinforces the case for waiting In 2016 the gap in the Supreme Court opened in February. That meant that waiting for the election left the seat open for an extra half a year. In 2020 the gap in the Supreme Court opened in September. In this case appointing a new justice before the election would require unusual haste, and delaying appointment ...


23

Supreme Court justices are assigned to each of the circuit courts (also known as the courts of appeals) by the Chief Justice, where they serve as circuit justices. This assignment has a number of duties and powers, but the relevant one here seems to be that the justices can either act on certain requests in a circuit themselves, or refer them to the full ...


22

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 ...


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