2 ms·
>> This was of course before confirmation hearings became rubber-stamps when the President's party held the Senate Souter was nominated in 1990. The President'
by rufus_foreman 1y ago
>> This was of course before confirmation hearings became rubber-stamps when the President's party held the Senate
Souter was nominated in 1990. The President's party held the Senate in 2005 when Harriet Miers nomination didn't even make it out of committee.
If you're talking about an actual vote for a nominee, looks like there were only four rejected candidates in the entire 1900's and 2000's so far (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...), and only one of those was when the President's party held the Senate. That was in 1930. Things don't seem to have changed much.
- senderista 1y agoI wasn't referring exclusively to SCOTUS nominees. You think RFK could have been confirmed 10 years ago even if the President's party held the Senate?
- DrillShopper 1y ago10 years ago? Yes. He's a Kennedy.
- rufus_foreman 1y agoIn the past one hundred years, only 2 cabinet position nominations have been rejected by a vote in the Senate, and neither occurrence was when the President's party held the Senate. If you look at nominations that were withdrawn rather than going to a vote and being rejected, President Trump has had 5 withdrawn so far which is the most of any President in US history. I see no evidence that the process is becoming more of a rubber-stamp than it was previously. If you've got some, I'd like to see it.