Brian Kalt Profile picture
Sep 19, 2020 11 tweets 2 min read Read on X
I checked the data on previous Supreme Court vacancies near an election. Here's what I found:

Latest vacancy filled before the election: June 10, filled July 24. This was exceptional, though: Justice Hughes resigned in June after the Republicans nominated him for president.

1/8
That outlier aside, the latest is March 23 (Waite), filled July 20.

6 other vacancies arose later than that. Of those, 5 were only filled after inauguration. The 6th was filled soon after an election in which the president was reelected.

But that's not the whole picture.

2/8
10 vacancies arose during the lame-duck (betw. election and inauguration). Of them:

4—filled after inauguration.
3—filled during the lame-duck after the election kept the president's party in power.
3—filled during the lame-duck after the election shifted party control.

3/8
Let's look at those last 3 cases:

1. After John Adams's defeat, Chief Justice Ellsworth resigned. Adams nominated John Marshall and he was confirmed unanimously on January 27 (back then presidential terms ended March 4).

2. The controversial exception: Justice Barbour...

4/8
...died on February 25, 1841. Van Buren (Democrat) had lost to Harrison (Whig). With under a week left in his term, Van Buren nominated Peter Daniel. Senate Democrats confirmed Daniel over strenuous objections from the Whigs, who were set to take the majority in a few days.

5/8
3. Justice Lamar died in February 1893, after Cleveland (Democrat) had defeated Harrison (Republican). Harrison nominated Howell Jackson, who was confirmed unanimously. Significantly, Jackson was a Democrat, appointed to the 6th Circuit by Cleveland in his previous term.

6/8
Honorable mention: Justice Thompson died in December 1843. President Tyler nominated 4 men between January and June 1844, all unsuccessfully. In February 1845, after his successor Polk's election, Tyler nominated the respected Samuel Nelson, who was confirmed unanimously.

7/8
So a Supreme Court confirmation now would be historically unusual. This late, we typically wait to see how the election goes.

With only one exception (Daniel), every contrary precedent involved a nominee who won unanimous Senate approval—an unimaginable prospect today.

8/8
(Postscript: this does not consider Earl Warren, who announced his retirement in June 1968, but only effective upon the confirmation of his successor. The nomination of Abe Fortas to replace him failed; Warren Burger was successfully nominated by Nixon after the election.)

9/8
(Post-postscript: this thread examined when vacancies were finally filled. But post-3/23 election-year vacancies also spurred 8 failed nominations.

Also, 2 lame-duck vacancies saw failed nominations; both nominees were re-nominated and confirmed after inauguration.)

10/8
Oops. It's 8 vacancies that arose during the lame-duck. Of them:

2—filled after inauguration.
3—filled during the lame-duck after the election kept the president's party in power.
3—filled during the lame-duck after the election shifted party control.

3a/8

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Brian Kalt

Brian Kalt Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ProfBrianKalt

Jul 13, 2021
This gambit is just the latest example of why the statutory line of succession shouldn't include the Speaker.

This isn't a partisan issue; it'd be nuts to have a D Speaker in the line of succession of a R administration, and equally nuts w/ a D administration and R Speaker.

1/5
Scholar-commentators (including me) have been arguing for reform here for decades, consistently—regardless of which party was in power.

It makes no sense to have a line of succession that could change partisan control of the presidency like this in the middle of a term.

2/5
The old statute had the Sec'y of State next in line. The current law passed in 1947, favoring the Speaker b/c of a notion that it should be someone elected, not appointed.

But that rationale was demolished in 1967, when 25A2 provided for filling VP vacancies by appointment.

3/5
Read 5 tweets
Feb 14, 2021
My initial tally (subject to change) of the 43 acquitters' post-vote statements:

16 relied entirely on jurisdiction, w/o criticizing Trump (Barrasso, Blunt, Crapo, Daines, Ernst, Fischer, Inhofe, Lankford, Lummis, Marshall, Risch, Rounds, Rubio, Shelby, Tuberville, Wicker).

1/
4 said there was no jurisdiction but mentioned other objections, w/o criticizing Trump (Braun, Hyde-Smith, Kennedy, Sullivan).

3 said the trial was unconstitutional but were not specific, w/o criticizing Trump (Blackburn, Hagerty, R. Scott).

2/
2 rested on objections other than jurisdiction, w/o criticizing Trump (Graham, Young).

1 said the Senate could proceed but shouldn't have, and reached the merits, w/o criticizing Trump (Cruz) .

1 was unclear as to reasons, w/o criticizing Trump (Johnson).

3/
Read 9 tweets
Feb 12, 2021
Thread on late-impeachment related questions asked in the trial.

Q1. Given that some pre-1787 state constitutions provided expressly for late impeachment, does the Framers' failure to do so suggest they didn't mean to allow late impeachment?

1/
A1: No pre-1787 state constitutions expressly ruled out late impeachment. Some did later—using direct language.

The Framers ruled out *other* things using direct language.

Their silence here thus does not suggest an intent to rule out late impeachment.

2/
Q2: If disqualification is not derivative of removal, is it possible to disqualify a sitting president without removing him?

A2: No. Art. II, §4 requires removal of sitting officials, separate from anything Art. I, §3 says about DQ and removal.

(thread extended as needed)

3/
Read 8 tweets
Feb 8, 2021
Trump's brief cites my 2001 article on late impeachment a lot: int.nyt.com/data/documentt…

The article favored late impeachability, but it set out all the evidence I found on both sides--lots for them to use.

But in several places, they misrepresent what I wrote quite badly.

1/4
One odd thing they do is cite me citing other sources instead of just citing those sources (e.g., p.17 & n.47). Another more problematic thing: they suggest that I was endorsing an argument when what I actually did was note that argument--and reject it (e.g., p.21 n.57).

2/4
There are multiple examples of such flat-out misrepresentations. The worst is page 30. They write, "When a President is no longer in office, the objective of an impeachment ceases."79

N.79 starts: "Kalt at 66."

What I actually wrote on 66 (discussion continuing onto 67):

3/4
Read 4 tweets
Jan 9, 2021
I try to answer questions (25th amendment, impeachment, pardons) people tweet at me but this week I haven't been able to get to every one.

Here's an FAQ thread-of-threads. Some link my books for more detail, but obviously I'm happy to answer questions on Twitter for free.

1/5
25th AMENDMENT

* 25A4 flowchart:

* What happens if there are acting secretaries?

* If 25A4 isn't used now, what's it even for?

* Where is the bar set for things like this week?thehill.com/opinion/white-…

2/5
25A (cont.)

* Who is in charge while the president contests a 25A4 action?
The VP definitely is: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

IMPEACHMENT

* How can people be impeached if they've already left office?
(links only)

3/5
Read 7 tweets
Jan 6, 2021
For the "amazing demographic shifts" files:

It looks likely* that of the president, VP, and all 17 people in the line of succession, not one will be a straight white male Protestant.

* Assumes nominees are confirmed and front-runners are picked for Commerce and Labor.

1/3
Biden (Catholic)
Harris (Black/South Asian female)
Pelosi (Catholic female)
Leahy (Catholic)
Blinken (Jewish)
Yellen (Jewish female)
Austin (Black)
Garland (Jewish)
Haaland (Native American Catholic female)
Vilsack (Catholic)
Commerce front-runner Raimondo (Catholic female)

2/3
Labor front-runners Walsh (Catholic) and Su (Chinese female; don't know her religion)
Becerra (Latino Catholic)
Fudge (Black female)
Buttigieg (gay)
Granholm (Catholic female)
Cardona (Latino Catholic)
McDonough (Catholic)
Mayorkas (Latino Jewish)

3/3
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(