RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Perry writes: "14 presidents have appointed 21 justices during presidential election years. A half-dozen presidents, classic lame ducks, filled Supreme Court seats even though their successors had been elected."

Sri Srinivasan. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Sri Srinivasan. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


One-Third of All US Presidents Appointed a Supreme Court Justice in an Election Year

By Barbara A. Perry, The Washington Post

29 February 16

 

minent Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously described his fellow judges as “nine scorpions in a bottle,” but now they are reduced to eight. Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing had hardly been made public when Republicans began proclaiming that President Obama should not appoint the late justice’s successor. President Obama countered that he would perform his constitutional duty and nominate a successor to Scalia, adding, “Your job doesn’t stop until you are voted out or until your term expires.”

The historical record supports that position: 14 presidents have appointed 21 justices during presidential election years. A half-dozen presidents, classic lame ducks, filled Supreme Court seats even though their successors had been elected.

These six lame duck presidents appointed Supreme Court justices – before their successors took office

President Benjamin Harrison had been defeated in his 1892 reelection bid by former president Grover Cleveland, for example, when Associate Justice Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar died in office in January 1893. At that time, and until 1937 (and the 20th amendment), presidents were inaugurated in March, not January. While running for reelection, Harrison had appointed his third justice the previous July; he made a fourth nomination to the high court, despite his dwindling White House tenure. But Republican Harrison bowed to partisan realities by nominating his Democratic friend, Howell Jackson.

The Senate was soon to change hands from Republican to Democratic control, and Harrison’s bipartisan gambit worked: The Senate unanimously approved Jackson one month before Cleveland’s inauguration.

This is why Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit is receiving so much attention as a potential nominee to the nation’s highest tribunal. He served his judicial clerkships for Reagan appointees and moderate conservatives, 4th Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, suggesting that he may have bipartisan appeal. He was born in India and grew up in Kansas, a compelling story of the American dream – and having the first Indian American justice replace the first Italian American on the Supreme Court would maintain a historic symmetry.

Further, the fact that Srinivasan is Hindu would add religious diversity to a bench populated solely by Catholic or Jewish justices for the past six years, and would follow a long presidential tradition of placing religious minorities on the Supreme Court long before that religion was represented in high elected office. Srinivasan more than meets the standard of exceptional merit, with his Stanford degrees and professional experience. And the Republican-controlled Senate approved him unanimously when Obama nominated him for the D.C. Circuit, a Supreme Court proving ground, in 2013.

Although Benjamin Harrison was the most recent lame duck to place a justice on the Supreme Court, five other presidents (Hayes, Tyler, Van Buren, Jackson and Adams) did so as well. All but Jackson, who named a justice on the last full day of his two terms, had been defeated or had withdrawn from the election. Adams’s last-minute appointment of his Secretary of State John Marshall to chief justice, a parting Federalist slap at the Jeffersonians, makes today’s partisan rows look tame by comparison. “That gloomy malignity,” as Thomas Jefferson inaccurately described Marshall, would preside over the court for 34 years, long after the Federalist Party faded from the scene. The Supreme Court labels him the “Great Chief Justice” for his masterful leadership and foundational interpretations of the Constitution.

One-third of U.S. presidents appointed Supreme Court justices during election years

Aside from genuine lame ducks, one-third of U.S. presidents appointed justices during presidential election years. A handful were, like Obama, not running for reelection. George Washington, who established precedents that shape the office to this day, declined to run for a third term, but he added an associate justice and a chief justice during the election year of 1786.

Jackson and Cleveland followed the two-term tradition, and each appointed two members of the Supreme Court in the election year before leaving office. Like Obama, Jackson faced an obstinate Senate, which had postponed a vote on his nominee Roger Taney for an associate justice position early in 1835. Old Hickory re-nominated Taney nearly a year later, this time to chief justice, upon the death of John Marshall. Taney, the Court’s first Catholic, assumed his seat just seven months before the 1836 presidential election.

Three presidents who appointed Supreme Court justices in an election year (Hoover, Taft and B. Harrison) were running for reelection but ultimately lost. If Hoover hadn’t replaced retiring Justice Holmes in February 1932, the court might have been denied the intellectual services of Benjamin Cardozo, by all accounts a stellar justice. Hoover faced a closely divided Senate, but Cardozo was so universally admired that his confirmation was unanimous.

William Howard Taft, who would lose his 1912 reelection campaign, achieved the position he most coveted, chief justice of the United States, when appointed to the high court by Warren Harding in 1921. In an interesting twist, Taft served on the Supreme Court with the associate justice, Mahlon Pitney, whom he had appointed in his last year before leaving the White House.

Franklin Roosevelt and four other presidents (Nixon, Eisenhower, Wilson, Cleveland and Jefferson) placed justices on the Supreme Court during election years that led them to a second term. Ike faced an opening just three weeks before the 1956 election when Justice Sherman Minton left the bench in ill health. Looking for support from the electoral-vote rich Northeast, Eisenhower immediately selected William Brennan, a New Jersey Catholic, in a recess appointment. Catholics, a key component of the FDR’s New Deal coalition, were also represented in FDR’s 1940 election-year nomination of Frank Murphy to fill the seat of deceased Catholic justice Pierce Butler.

Nixon’s two appointments in 1972 of William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell carried out his campaign promise to reshape the court to counter the liberal Warren-era decisions, and contributed to his landslide victory over George McGovern. Nixon couldn’t have predicted that a mere two years later, his reshaped bench would unanimously rule against him in the Watergate tapes case, with only Rehnquist recusing himself.

Two other presidents (Lincoln and Grant) named Supreme Court members after they had been reelected but before their second inauguration. When Roger Taney died in late 1864, after 32 years on the bench, Lincoln happily replaced the Jacksonian chief justice with his Republican Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase.

The founding fathers debated how Supreme Court justices should be appointed

Justice Scalia’s 30-year tenure confirms President Gerald Ford’s observation that “few appointments a president makes can have as much impact on the future of the country as those to the Supreme Court.” That truism, even more apposite now when the Court is evenly split on the most contentious political issues of the day, explains why the Founding Fathers spent so much time debating the process of selecting justices.

Nearly silent on judicial qualifications, the founders gave considerable thought at Philadelphia’s 1787 constitutional convention to the best method of choosing them. The delegates initially considered appointment of federal judges by the national legislature. Pennsylvania’s James Wilson, a future member of the Court, opposed the proposal, arguing that “[i]ntrigue, partiality, and concealment” resulted from judicial appointments by legislatures.

Future president James Madison, often called the “Father of the Constitution,” added that members of the legislature “were not judges of the requisite qualifications” for jurists. Wilson thought that the newly created office of the president should have sole authority to choose judges, but John Rutledge of South Carolina thought that plan too monarchical.

As so frequently happened at the convention, perhaps because it operated in secret, the delegates reached a compromise, eventually settling on nomination to the Supreme Court by the president, with appointment contingent on the Senate’s prerogative to advise and consent.

While the exact nature of that prerogative has been endlessly debated, the original intent of the Constitution’s framers, which the late Justice Scalia squarely embraced, was to produce qualified Supreme Court justices by checking and balancing the “ambitions” inherent in the chief executive and Congress’s upper house. It was not to allow the voter (even the white, male, landed-gentry electorate of that era) a direct role.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+12 # guomashi 2016-02-29 09:47
Republicans have broken the social contract.
War is the next step, indeed we have already seen armed insurrection in the two Bundy cases.

Obama has the power to make a recess appointment. He has been reticent to discuss this, but it may be the last available option.
 
 
+10 # PABLO DIABLO 2016-02-29 11:41
Nominate Elizabeth Warren. She is smart and fair minded. How dare the Congress block one of their own during an election year. She could accomplish far more on the Supreme Court than dealing with 99 members in the Senate and running for re-election every six years
Or, Impeach Clarence Thomas now. His wife has taken $5 Million from corporations appearing before the Court. Then we can have a 4 to 3 majority while Congress fusses about.
 
 
+8 # heiko12 2016-02-29 11:47
We should all tell the republicans in the senate to DO THEIR JOBS! Either that, or the a leave of absence, and furlough their staff too. I'll even send McConnell my mailing address so he can send me my refund check...
 
 
+9 # JSRaleigh 2016-02-29 11:54
The two Bundy cases have as much to do with the "social contract" as a bunch of coyotes waiting to scavenge the corpse of a dying Bison.

While Obama does have the power of recess appointment, he should not use it until the GOP has had plenty of time to demonstrate their true contempt for the Constitution to the American People.
 
 
+4 # guomashi 2016-02-29 12:18
Quoting JSRaleigh:


While Obama does have the power of recess appointment, he should not use it until the GOP has had plenty of time to demonstrate their true contempt for the Constitution to the American People.


he can't do it until the end of the year when congress ends its session, and before the next congressional session is initiated.
 
 
0 # GreenBee 2016-03-01 10:54
Do you really think the Republicans in the Senate will allow a recess to happen? They only have to keep a very small number of people in the chamber to avoid creating a "legal" recess.
 
 
+5 # jackvandijk 2016-02-29 12:28
Of course the real problem is that americans cannot write a law. When you say: the president appoints a new judge, you should write: "within thirty days". The Senate will confirm or not within twenty days.
 
 
+4 # NickAnast 2016-02-29 13:29
"Jackson and Cleveland followed the two-term tradition, and each appointed two members of the Supreme Court in the election year before leaving office."

Oops. Cleveland sought a third term in 1896, but was so unpopular as a result of the Panic of 1893 that he failed to win the Democratic nomination.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN