Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Its a good question. I always assumed it was because there would have still been sufficient time for Obama to nominate a replacement (even more than one replacement) before the election and that eventually the political pressure to approve one of the nominees would become too strong? I don't know though. Is there a precedent in US history where a Senate just refused to approve any of a President's nominees for the Supreme Court bench?
|
I think Garland was, by far, the longest nominee without a confirmation vote.
It's very uncommon for a senate to confirm the nomination when the president is from another party [edit: in an election year]. I think the last time was in the 19th century or something like that. Obama was playing a political game with the nomination, just like the GOP played a game by ignoring it. I don't think either side thought that Trump would win at that point.
That's why comparing 2016 to today is a bit misguided, as it was a fundamentally different situation. History has shown that the parties will behave basically the same as each other when they are faced with either situation.
[Ninja edit for clarity].