|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 26, 2020, 10:49:03 PM

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  Senate votes on Supreme Court nominations
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Senate votes on Supreme Court nominations  (Read 2128 times)
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 17, 2013, 06:52:55 PM »
« edited: October 19, 2013, 12:58:35 PM by Nym90 »

For nominees of Democratic Presidents, red indicates both senators voted yes, blue indicates both voted no. For Republican Presidents, blue is yes, red is no. Grey indicates one Senator voted yes, one no. If one senator didn't vote, the state is shaded the way the remaining Senator voted.

First, President Obama's nominees:

Kagan:



Sotomayor:



Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2013, 12:52:34 PM »
« Edited: October 19, 2013, 12:59:00 PM by Nym90 »

I fixed an error in Sotomayor's map.

Now onto Bush 43:

Alito:



Roberts:

Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2013, 01:41:17 AM »

Clinton:

Breyer:



Ginsburg:

Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2013, 01:23:13 PM »

Bush 41:

Thomas:



Souter:

Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2013, 12:20:32 PM »

Reagan:

Kennedy, Scalia, and O'Connor were confirmed unanimously.

Bork:



Rehnquist:

Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2017, 12:07:56 PM »

Gorsuch:

Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2017, 12:36:56 PM »

As you can see the Senate has become much more polarized over time, and specificially Senators are much more likely to vote against a President's nominee if their state voted against the President in the most recent election.

No states that voted against Trump had both Senators vote for Gorsuch. Only three states (Maine, Colorado, and Nevada) that Trump lost even had one Senator vote for him. Conversely only one state that voted for Trump had both of its Senators vote against Gorsuch (Michigan).

Compare to Obama who had four states that he lost have both Senators vote for Kagan (West Virginia, Arkansas, North Dakota and Montana) and five states that he lost had both vote for Sotomayor (the above plus Missouri). And no states that Obama won had both Senators vote against either of his nominees. For Sotomayor, among states Obama won just three states (North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada) had even one vote against and only six had one vote against Kagan (the above plus Massachusetts, Florida, and Ohio).
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,262
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2017, 07:58:56 AM »

Souter got more Democrat votes against him than Scalia! lol
Logged
MarkD
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,650
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2017, 08:20:40 PM »

We have such deep divisions over the confirmation of the Supreme Court Justices because of these reasons: 1) the Supreme Court itself is too political, far too often basing its decisions on the personal values of the Justices themselves; 2) the Presidents keep picking people for appointment based on ideological reasons; 3) the Senators expect the Presidents to keep doing #2.
What is the Supreme Court supposed to be, ideally? It is supposed to be the nine most highly objective interpreters of law that can be found anywhere in the country. Consider what G.W. Bush said about 12 and a half years ago, at the Oct, 8, 2004 televised presidential debate between Bush and Sen. Kerry.
The debate moderator asked, "Mr. President, if there were a vacancy on the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?"
Bush's response began with, "I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States." He last remark (after rambling a bit) was, "No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution."
Those words were, to me, clearly correct, however Bush himself had no credibility on that topic because of the fact that he had already been known to say that Justices Scalia and Thomas were his favorite Supreme Court Justices.
We don't need more Justices like Scalia and Thomas, nor more Justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. We need more Justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black. I think if people like them were nominated, then the Senate would confirm them without controversy.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Moderators
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,720
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2017, 09:29:21 PM »

We have such deep divisions over the confirmation of the Supreme Court Justices because of these reasons: 1) the Supreme Court itself is too political, far too often basing its decisions on the personal values of the Justices themselves; 2) the Presidents keep picking people for appointment based on ideological reasons; 3) the Senators expect the Presidents to keep doing #2.
What is the Supreme Court supposed to be, ideally? It is supposed to be the nine most highly objective interpreters of law that can be found anywhere in the country. Consider what G.W. Bush said about 12 and a half years ago, at the Oct, 8, 2004 televised presidential debate between Bush and Sen. Kerry.
The debate moderator asked, "Mr. President, if there were a vacancy on the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?"
Bush's response began with, "I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States." He last remark (after rambling a bit) was, "No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution."
Those words were, to me, clearly correct, however Bush himself had no credibility on that topic because of the fact that he had already been known to say that Justices Scalia and Thomas were his favorite Supreme Court Justices.
We don't need more Justices like Scalia and Thomas, nor more Justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. We need more Justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black. I think if people like them were nominated, then the Senate would confirm them without controversy.

I doubt it. If Trump's next appointment was the another Hugo Black, he'd get voted down close to unanimously. Neither the people who voted for Trump nor the people who voted for Clinton would find him acceptable.
Logged
L.D. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2017, 12:25:45 AM »

We have such deep divisions over the confirmation of the Supreme Court Justices because of these reasons: 1) the Supreme Court itself is too political, far too often basing its decisions on the personal values of the Justices themselves; 2) the Presidents keep picking people for appointment based on ideological reasons; 3) the Senators expect the Presidents to keep doing #2.
What is the Supreme Court supposed to be, ideally? It is supposed to be the nine most highly objective interpreters of law that can be found anywhere in the country. Consider what G.W. Bush said about 12 and a half years ago, at the Oct, 8, 2004 televised presidential debate between Bush and Sen. Kerry.
The debate moderator asked, "Mr. President, if there were a vacancy on the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?"
Bush's response began with, "I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States." He last remark (after rambling a bit) was, "No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution."
Those words were, to me, clearly correct, however Bush himself had no credibility on that topic because of the fact that he had already been known to say that Justices Scalia and Thomas were his favorite Supreme Court Justices.
We don't need more Justices like Scalia and Thomas, nor more Justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. We need more Justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black. I think if people like them were nominated, then the Senate would confirm them without controversy.

I doubt it. If Trump's next appointment was the another Hugo Black, he'd get voted down close to unanimously. Neither the people who voted for Trump nor the people who voted for Clinton would find him acceptable.

One only need look at what happened to Merrick Garland.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,489
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2017, 12:46:42 AM »


We don't need more Justices like Scalia and Thomas, nor more Justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. We need more Justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black. I think if people like them were nominated, then the Senate would confirm them without controversy.

I doubt it. If Trump's next appointment was the another Hugo Black, he'd get voted down close to unanimously. Neither the people who voted for Trump nor the people who voted for Clinton would find him acceptable.
Black should be posthumously impeached for his decision in Oregon v Mitchell
Logged
MarkD
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,650
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2017, 08:27:59 PM »

"No Justice of the Court conscientiously and persistently endeavored, as much as Justice Black did, to establish consistent standards of objectivity in adjudicating constitutional questions." -- James J. Magee, "Mr. Justice Black: Absolutism on the Court," published 1980; page 194.

'[T]he Chief [Earl Warren], Brennan, Bill Douglas, Arthur [Goldberg], Thurgood [Marshall] are usually going to do the right thing. ... While they're around, we'll generally get a just judgment. But when they're gone and we get a McReynolds type, he's free to let go with his bad sense of right and wrong. I believe we've got to tie the judges of this Court and the subordinate federal courts to something lasting, even if we've got to sacrifice doing some good through the federal courts. We don't want this Court to be like one of these agencies -- one law when the Republicans are in and another when the Democrats are in. This Court's got to have some enduring principles." -- Hugo Black, quoted by Hugo Black, Jr., in "My Father; A Remembrance," published 1975, page 243.
Logged
mianfei
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2020, 09:47:05 AM »

Carter did not have any opportunity to nominate a Justice, as there was no vacancy between 1977 and 1980. This had the highly significant effect of no Justice being nominated by a Democratic President between 1969 and 1992 inclusive.

Stevens – Ford’s only nomination – was confirmed unanimously.

With Nixon, by contrast there are a few to look at closely.

William Rehnquist as Associate Justice (lighter shading indicates one Senator did not vote, otherwise as in other maps):



Lewis F. Powell:



Warren E. Burger as Chief Justice:



G. Harrold Carswell:



Clement Haynsworth:

Logged
mianfei
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2020, 06:57:24 AM »

For Lyndon B. Johnson:

Thurgood Marshall:


I think that, as James Loewen has shown (Sundown Towns) this result reflects how politicians are much less insular than the communities they represent, at all events federal politicians in rural states. In the Plains and Rocky Mountain States, where every voting Senator voted for Marshall, I have come to think that the actual populaces might have voted again him if a referendum could have been held.

Abe Fortas as Chief Justice:

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.