Lame-Duck SCOTUS Appointments

The United States Supreme Court Building

Barack Hussein Obama (dated February 13, 2016):

I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time.

As Obama declares that he will nominate a justice to the United States Supreme Court upon the passing the Justice Antonin Scalia, note that in August 1960, during a year of a National Election in which the President was not an incumbent, the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, passed Senate Resolution 334:

“Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

You see, by August 1960, President Eisenhower had already appointed five justices to the SCOTUS, and even though there was no vacancy on the bench, the Democrats were determined that President Eisenhower not appoint another justice.

Also recall this from the not-so-distant past: in 2007, Chuck Schumer called for blocking George W. Bush's SCOTUS appointments (hat tip to Bunkerville).

Forget about the past if you like, and now consider this, from a Washington Post article entitled "If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway":

...The court is not yet halfway through the 80 or 90 cases it deals with each term, but many of the most contentious have already been heard. Normally, justices meet the week a case is argued, and vote on the outcome. So they have most likely already voted on pending cases on apportionment and affirmative action, for example. But weeks or months can go by while the justice assigned the opinion circulates drafts. Any justice can change his or her vote at any point during that process, and often does. It’s all very hush-hush, so there is no way to tell how far along the cases Scalia heard are in the pipeline.

There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies. If the vote in a case that hasn’t yet been handed down was 5 to 4, as one might expect with these controversial rulings, can Scalia cast the deciding vote from beyond the grave to change the way America chooses every legislature in the land or integrates its public universities?...

Of particular interest to Conservatives:

Even if the GOP blocks [Obama's] nominee, the policy outcomes would be very similar to what they’d be if the court had a liberal majority....

Read the entire Washington Post article HERE.

Controversial issues before the SCOTUS, now comprised of eight members, relate to abortion, immigration, and unions.

With the death of United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the 2016 National Election's stakes have soared — not only for the reasons above but also because the battle over a vacancy on the SCOTUS may spill over into the 2016 Senate races.