NPR Roundup
Nina Totenberg's (excellent) Supreme Court roundup piece for NPR's Morning Edition is now available (in both audio and a transcript) here. Totenberg talks with a lineup of some of the usual academic (and other) talking heads (including yours truly).
Meanwhile, if you somehow missed my shameless self-promotion over the last few days, you can find the Talk of the Nation story here, and last week's All Things Considered story on executive privilege here.
Meanwhile, if you somehow missed my shameless self-promotion over the last few days, you can find the Talk of the Nation story here, and last week's All Things Considered story on executive privilege here.
posted by Michael C. Dorf @ 10:43 AM
2 Comments:
At 4:01 PM,
egarber said…
Mike,
In the forum with Olson, I don't recall you getting a chance to chime in on the feasibility of Bush being able to fill another SCOTUS vacancy.
Two questions:
1. Do you agree with the caller who said he's too damaged to get a candidate through? Lame duck, unpopular, or otherwise, I can envision Bush going bold, maybe to the hard right. And even with the majority (barely) and the public supposedly behind them, I'm not sure the Dems would be strong enough to defeat his pick (both because of the numbers and lack of spine).
2. For us non-lawyers, what happens if Bush were to nominate somebody, but the Senate puts off a vote until after the 08 election? It obviously happens all the time in the lower courts -- witness the stonewalling on Clinton's nominations.
But is there something unique about the SCOTUS?
At 12:36 AM,
Benjam said…
egarber:
its a fascinating question, but not really a legal one. in an earlier diary, i wondered if there was any precedent for a supreme court nomination "dying" at the end of a president's term. i have no doubt that the senate would simply refuse to replace stevens or ginsburg with another roberts or alito. a different dynamic could emerge if the seat belonged to thomas or scalia. your question was about what happens if the senate refuses to confirm a replacement...
answer: nothing happens. the supreme court stays at 8 justices. the power to NOT confirm seems apparent since there is no provision for a recess appointment in the face of congressional inaction as with other executive branch officials. remember that congress could change the number of justices to 8 (or 80) on a permanent basis.
and if bush tried to intervene, the court would almost definitely treat the matter as a non-justiciable political question. bush is a smart politician. were he to get another shot, he would appoint a very moderate conservative.
i was sorry that mike didnt get to answer the question about the smaller docket. political scientists are currently struggling to understand (a) why the confirmation process has become increasingly contentious and (b) why the court is taking less cases by historical standards. on the second question, nina rattled off a list of theories, but didnt seem to know which one she espoused. mike was about to bail her out but then she quickly cut him off. it was good stuff but i would have liked to hear more from ted and mike.
Post a Comment
<< Home