should Ginsburg (and maybe Breyer) retire

[krazen1211]

Wouldn't matter. The Schumer rule kicked in a few months ago; Obama's power to appoint Supreme Court justices expired on July 27th, 2011.

[krazen1211]

Of course not; no nominee appointed now will get out of the Senate until January 21, 2013.  The Republicans would see to that.

Bingo!! But as I said above, I bet Obama would still have a 2-3 month window from now. Once that passes the process takes to long. You go to recess and once you're out between Republicans thinking their so close, if they can just hold out a little longer and some Dem senators that would, but prefer not to vote on SCOTUS nomination a couple weeks before they face election and the nominee would be held up until the new congress took over in 2013.

Anthony Kennedy was nominated in November 1987. Beyond that you 're not going to find examples of election year nominees succeeding; Fortas of course failed.

Schumer changed the rules anyway.

[krazen1211]

What is the specific rules change? If a vacancy happens, isn't the President supposed to fill it as soon as he/she can get a nominee that the Senate will confirm?

That said, I think it would look like a power grab (not to mention Obama will probably win in 2012 anyway).

The stated Schumer policy is that no Supreme Court nominee should be confirmed after  July 27th of the 3rd year of a Presidential term except under 'extraordinary circumstances'.

He said so himself on  July 27th, 2007.

[krazen1211]

How did Schumer "change the rules"?  There were no Supreme Court retirements in Bush's term after 2006 anyway.  Reid probably couldn't get a vote at this time, but what does it have to do with Schumer?

That having been said, I think the Dems would be in a vengeful mood over 2009-10 if the Republicans have full control in 2013.  I'd expect them to vote unanimously against basically anything a President Romney proposes beyond the naming of a monument (remember, the average House Dem would be way left of Obama after more seats are lost).  That probably also means using the filibuster as liberally as the GOP did under Obama if they still have 41.  

Quite simple.He stated that in the unlikely event of a vacancy after July 2007 any nominee should be automatically rejected.

[krazen1211]

How did Schumer "change the rules"?  There were no Supreme Court retirements in Bush's term after 2006 anyway.  Reid probably couldn't get a vote at this time, but what does it have to do with Schumer?

That having been said, I think the Dems would be in a vengeful mood over 2009-10 if the Republicans have full control in 2013.  I'd expect them to vote unanimously against basically anything a President Romney proposes beyond the naming of a monument (remember, the average House Dem would be way left of Obama after more seats are lost).  That probably also means using the filibuster as liberally as the GOP did under Obama if they still have 41.  

Quite simple.He stated that in the unlikely event of a vacancy after July 2007 any nominee should be automatically rejected.

Did the Senate Democrats formally adopt this as their policy?  Could it ever have been enforced in a vote?

On a slightly unrelated note, I wonder if we will ever have a future president ignore the supreme court like Andrew Jackson did.

Not formally, no. But he is in leadership and on the Judiciary Committee, so I presume it still holds.