Table of Contents Categories
  • Major cases of the Roberts Court
  • 2020 front page news
  • SCOTUS nomination, 2020
  • SCOTUS_vacancy:_Overviews
  • SCOTUS_vacancy:_Overviews
    •   Encyclosphere.org ENCYCLOREADER
      supported by EncyclosphereKSF

    Supreme Court vacancy, 2020

    From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 21 min


    SCOTUS Vacancy, 2020
    AmyConeyBarrett.jpg
    Nominee
    Amy Coney Barrett
    Former Justice
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    Coverage

    Process to fill the seat
    Confirmation hearings

    See also
    Supreme Court vacancy, 2018
    Supreme Court vacancy, 2017
    Supreme Court of the United States


    The U.S. Senate voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States 52-48 on October 26, 2020.[1]

    President Donald Trump (R) nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court on September 29, 2020.[2] The vacancy on the court was opened by the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020, at the age of 87.[3] Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton and confirmed to the court in 1993. She was the second woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

    Barrett was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 2017 by President Trump (R) and confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 55-43. Barrett previously clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She then practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C. from 1999-2002.[4] [5][6]

    Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President of the United States the authority to nominate Supreme Court justices, and they are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

    The average vacancy length on the Supreme Court since 1962—when defined as the length of time elapsed between a Justice’s departure date and the swearing-in of their successor—is 88 days. Four of these vacancies lasted for only a few hours each; the successor was sworn in the same day the retiring Justice officially left office. The longest vacancy under this definition was 422 days, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

    Timeline[edit]

    The following timeline lists major events following the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    • Oct. 26, 2020: The full Senate confirmed Barrett's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 52-48.[1]
    • Oct. 22, 2020: The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-0 to advance Barrett's nomination to the full Senate. Democratic senators did not attend the vote in protest of the proceedings.[1][7]
    • Oct. 12, 2020: Barrett's confirmation hearing began with opening statements from committee members and Judge Barrett. View the full hearing schedule here.
    • Sept. 26, 2020: President Trump announced his intent to nominate Barrett to the seat.[9]
    • Sept. 22, 2020:
      • Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said he was not opposed to the U.S. Senate considering a Supreme Court nominee before the election. Political observers said Romney's decision indicated that a nominee would have enough votes to be confirmed.[12]
      • President Trump (R) said he would announce his nominee on Sept. 26, 2020.[13]
    • Sept. 19, 2020:

    Nominating statement and reactions[edit]

    Statement[edit]

    Republican Party President Donald Trump (R)

    “

    Judge Barrett was confirmed to the Circuit Court three years ago by a bipartisan vote. Her qualifications are unsurpassed — unsurpassed — and her record is beyond reproach. This should be a straightforward and prompt confirmation. It should be very easy. Good luck. It’s going to be very quick. I’m sure it’ll be extremely non-controversial. We said that the last time, didn’t we? Well, thank you all very much, and thank you for being here. That’s really great. Thank you.

    I further urge all members of the other side of the aisle to provide Judge Barrett with the respectful and dignified hearing that she deserves and, frankly, that our country deserves. I urge lawmakers and members of the media to refrain from personal or partisan attacks.

    And the stakes for our country are incredibly high. Rulings that the Supreme Court will issue in the coming years will decide the survival of our Second Amendment, our religious liberty, our public safety, and so much more.

    To maintain security, liberty, and prosperity, we must preserve our priceless heritage of a nation of laws, and there is no one better to do that than Amy Coney Barrett.

    Law and order is the foundation of the American system of justice. No matter the issue, no matter the case before her, I am supremely confident that Judge Barrett will issue rulings based solely upon a fair reading of the law. She will defend the sacred principle of equal justice for citizens of every race, color, religion, and creed.

    Congratulations again to Judge Barrett. I know that you will make our country very, very proud.[20][21]

    		”

    Reactions to President Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court[edit]

    Democratic Party Former Vice President Joe Biden (D)

    “ Election Day is just weeks away, and millions of Americans are already voting because the stakes in this election could not be higher. They feel the urgency of this choice – an urgency made all the more acute by what’s at stake at the U.S. Supreme Court.


    They are voting because their health care hangs in the balance. They are voting because they worry about losing their right to vote or being expelled from the only country they have ever known. They are voting right now because they fear losing their collective bargaining rights. They are voting to demand that equal justice be guaranteed for all. They are voting because they don’t want Roe v. Wade, which has been the law of the land for nearly half a century, to be overturned.

    President Trump has been trying to throw out the Affordable Care Act for four years. Republicans have been trying to end it for a decade. Twice, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional.

    But even now, in the midst of a global health pandemic, the Trump Administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the entire law, including its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. If President Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19, like lung scarring and heart damage, could become the next deniable pre-existing condition.

    Today, President Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the successor to Justice Ginsburg’s seat. She has a written track record of disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act. She critiqued Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion upholding the law in 2012.

    The American people know the U.S. Supreme Court decisions affect their everyday lives. The United States Constitution was designed to give the voters one chance to have their voice heard on who serves on the Court. That moment is now and their voice should be heard. The Senate should not act on this vacancy until after the American people select their next president and the next Congress.[22][21]

    		”

    Republican Party Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R)

    “ President Trump could not have made a better decision. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an exceptionally impressive jurist and an exceedingly well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.

    First, Judge Barrett built a reputation as a brilliant scholar at the forefront of the legal academy. Then she answered the call to public service. For three years on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, she has demonstrated exactly the independence, impartiality, and fidelity to our laws and Constitution that Americans need and deserve on their highest Court.

    The Senate will evaluate this nomination on the basis of Judge Barrett's objective qualifications. But it cannot escape notice that this nominee has also already won national admiration for her shining example of strong female leadership at the very top of her field. As our nation continues to mourn Justice Ginsburg and honor her trail-blazing legacy, it does seem fitting that another brilliant and talented woman at the height of their shared profession would follow in her footsteps onto the Court.

    l look forward to meeting with the nominee next week and will carefully study her record and credentials. As I have stated, this nomination will receive a vote on the Senate floor in the weeks ahead, following the work of the Judiciary Committee supervised by Chairman Graham.

    The Court, the Senate, and the American people — not to mention the nominee and her family — deserve a fair process that is focused on Judge Barrett's qualifications. I hope all 100 Senators will treat this serious process with the dignity and respect it should command.[23][21]

    		”

    Democratic Party Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D)

    “ The American people should make no mistake—a vote by any Senator for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act and eliminate protections for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions. By nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, President Trump has once again put Americans’ healthcare in the crosshairs. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage, unabated by this Administration, healthcare was already the number one issue on the ballot in November. President Trump has promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will “terminate” our health care law and decimate the health care system for American Indians and Alaska Natives. In Judge Barrett, President Trump has found the deciding vote.


    Judge Barrett strongly criticized the ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act, claiming that if Justices read the law the way she does, they would “have had to invalidate” the entire health care law. Her record also makes clear that if she is confirmed, the reproductive freedoms that millions of women hold dear would be in grave danger. Should Judge Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed, a far-right majority on the court could also turn back the clock on women’s rights and a woman’s right to choose, workers’ rights, voting rights, civil rights, LGBTQ rights, environmental protections and more. The future for DACA recipients also hangs in the balance with this nominee.

    After holding a Supreme Court vacancy open for 8 months before a presidential election, and after failing for the last six months to address the tremendous pain the American people are feeling amidst this pandemic, President Trump and Leader McConnell are doing what no Senate has done before: shamelessly rushing to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat less than 40 days before a presidential election. Justice Ginsburg’s dying wish was that she not be replaced until a new president is installed. Republicans are poised to not only ignore her wishes, but to replace her with someone who could tear down everything that she built. This reprehensible power grab is a cynical attack on the legitimacy of the Court.

    I will strongly oppose this nomination.[24][21]

    		”

    Republican Party Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham (R)

    “ Judge Barrett is highly qualified in all the areas that matter – character, integrity, intellect, and judicial disposition. She is an outstanding Supreme Court nominee by President DonaldTrump. As the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I’m very committed to ensuring the nominee gets a challenging, fair, and respectful hearing. We move forward on this nomination knowing that the President has picked a highly qualified individual who will serve our nation well on the highest court in the land.[25][21] ”

    Reactions to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death[edit]

    Grey.png Chief Justice John Roberts

    “ Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her -- a tireless and resolute champion of justice.[26][21] ”

    Republican Party President Donald Trump (R)

    “ Today, our Nation mourns the loss of a trailblazer, not only in the field of law, but in the history of our country. Ruth Bader Ginsburg served more than 27 years as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was a loving wife to her late husband Martin, and a caring mother to her two children Jane and James.


    Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an inspiration to all Americans. Having lost her older sister and mother before graduating high school, she entered law school as both a wife and a mother, and one of the few women in her class. After graduating from law school in 1959, she worked tirelessly for more than 34 years as a litigator and jurist and, in 1993, she became just the second woman to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Renowned for her powerful dissents at the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg epitomized powerful yet respectful argument; that you can disagree with someone without being disagreeable to them. Justice Ginsburg’s work helped bring about greater equality for women, secure rights for the disabled, and will continue to influence our Nation for generations to come. In addition to her quick mind, she brought flair to the bench with her stylish jabots and her warm friendships among colleagues, even those with whom she often disagreed, most notably with the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

    A fighter to the end, Justice Ginsburg defeated cancer and the odds numerous times — all while continuing to serve on the Court. Her commitment to the law and her fearlessness in the face of death inspired countless “RBG” fans, and she continues to serve as a role model to countless women lawyers. Her legacy and contribution to American history will never be forgotten.[27][21]

    		”

    Democratic Party Former Vice President Joe Biden (D)

    “ Tonight our nation mourns an American hero, a giant of legal doctrine, and a relentless voice in the pursuit of that highest American ideal: Equal Justice Under Law.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for all of us. She fought for all of us. As a young attorney, she persisted through every challenge that an unequal system placed in her way to change the laws of our land and lead the legal charge to advance equal rights for women. It was my honor to preside over her confirmation hearings, and to strongly support her accession to the Supreme Court. In the decades since, she was consistently and reliably the voice that pierced to the heart of every issue, protected the constitutional rights of every American, and never failed in the fierce and unflinching defense of liberty and freedom. Her opinions, and her dissents, will continue to shape the basis of our law for future generations. May her memory be a blessing to all people who cherish our Constitution and its promise.

    Tonight, and in the coming days, we should be focused on the loss of Justice Ginsburg and her enduring legacy. But just so there is no doubt, let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg. This was the position that the Republican Senate took in 2016, when there were nearly nine months before the election. That is the position the United States Senate must take now, when the election is less than two months away. We are talking about the Constitution and the Supreme Court. That institution should not be subject to politics.[28][21]

    		”

    Republican Party Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R)

    “ The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life.

    Justice Ginsburg overcame one personal challenge and professional barrier after another. She climbed from a modest Brooklyn upbringing to a seat on our nation’s highest court and into the pages of American history. Justice Ginsburg was thoroughly dedicated to the legal profession and to her 27 years of service on the Supreme Court. Her intelligence and determination earned her respect and admiration throughout the legal world, and indeed throughout the entire nation, which now grieves alongside her family, friends, and colleagues.[29][21]

    		”

    Democratic Party Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D)

    “ Tonight, we mourn the passing of a giant in American history, a champion for justice, a trailblazer for women.

    She would want us all to fight as hard as we can to preserve her legacy.[30][21]

    		”
    To read the full statement on Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death from the U.S. Supreme Court, click "[Show more]" below.
    Show more

    Hearings schedule[edit]

    See also: Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings

    Senate Judiciary Committee[edit]

    The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled four days of hearings to consider Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court. Hearings were scheduled to begin at the following times:[31]

    • Monday, October 12, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. EST
    • Tuesday, October 13, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. EST
    • Wednesday, October 14, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. EST
    • Thursday, October 15, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. EST

    In his press release announcing the hearing schedule, committee chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the hearings would follow the same overall format the committee had used to consider Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Monday's hearing was reserved for opening statements from the senators on the committee and Judge Barrett. The questioning period began on Tuesday, October 13, followed by testimony from acquaintances of Judge Barrett.[32]

    The vote to advance Barrett's nomination to the full Senate took place on October 22, 2020.[7]

    Potential nominees[edit]

    See also: Complete list of Donald Trump's potential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court

    On September 19, 2020, President Trump (R) announced that he would nominate a woman to succeed Ginsburg. President Trump released four lists of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees; two in 2016, one in 2017, and one in 2020. The following table lists every woman included on President Trump's nominee lists.


    2020 Potential Supreme Court nominees
    Name Current Position Year Nominated Nominated By Undergraduate institution Law school
    Bridget Bade United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2018 Donald Trump (R) Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University
    Amy Coney Barrett United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2017 Donald Trump (R) Rhodes College Notre Dame Law School
    Allison Eid United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2017 Donald Trump (R) Stanford University University of Chicago Law School
    Britt Grant Georgia Supreme Court 2016 Gov. Nathan Deal (R) Wake Forest University Stanford Law School
    Barbara Lagoa United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2019 Donald Trump (R) Florida International University Columbia Law School
    Joan Larsen United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2017 Donald Trump (R) University of Northern Iowa Northwestern University School of Law
    Martha Pacold United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 2018 Donald Trump (R) Indiana University University of Chicago Law School
    Sarah Pitlyk United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri 2019 Donald Trump (R) Boston College Yale Law School
    Allison Jones Rushing United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2018 Donald Trump (R) Wake Forest University Duke University School of Law
    Margaret Ryan United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 2006 George W. Bush (R) Knox College Notre Dame Law School
    Diane Sykes United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2004 George W. Bush (R) Northwestern University Marquette University Law School
    Kate Comerford Todd Deputy White House Counsel - - Cornell University Harvard Law School

    Process to fill the seat[edit]

    Although the rules for appointing and confirming a U.S. Supreme Court justice are set out in the U.S. Constitution, the process for choosing nominees is not codified in law. Past presidents have received lists of recommendations from the White House counsel, the attorney general and lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Justices have often been friends or acquaintances who shared ideological views with the president.[33]

    The nominating process is also influenced by individuals and organizations outside of the administration. The American Bar Association (ABA), through its 15-member Committee on Federal Judiciary, rates nominees as "well qualified," "qualified" or "not qualified." Others also lobby the president to choose nominees sympathetic to their views or to oppose those with whom they differ.[34]

    Some presidents have required that a nominee hold a specific position on a key issue in order to be considered for nomination, sometimes referred to as a litmus test. Such a test is typically on an important social issue. But a nominee's views do not always conform to their future opinions. Some justices have ruled in ways that surprised the presidents who nominated them. Notable examples are Justice Tom C. Clark (nominated by President Harry S. Truman), Chief Justice Earl Warren (nominated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower) and Justice David Souter (nominated by President George H. W. Bush).[35]

    Supreme Court confirmation[edit]

    • The usual nomination process starts with the president choosing a nominee. It is not uncommon for the president to consult Senate leadership and the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee before deciding on a nominee.[36][37]
    • The Senate Judiciary Committee then considers the nominee. The committee conducts a rigorous investigation into the nominee’s background, gleaning a sense of his or her judicial philosophy and temperament, which helps inform whether the senator will support the nominee. During this part of the process, the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary reviews the nominee. The nominee also visits with senators in their offices in order to help win support for nomination. The most public aspect of the process is when the nominee testifies before the Judiciary Committee and takes questions. The hearing, which is kept open at the discretion of the chairman, can last more than a day, as members, particularly opponents, verbally spar with the nominee. Having the nominee appear before the committee became a part of the process beginning with the nomination of John M. Harlan in 1955. The first televised Supreme Court nomination hearing took place in 1981 for Sandra Day O’Connor.[36][37]
    • Typically, a week after the hearing is adjourned, the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a vote on the nominee. The committee’s practice has been to send the nomination, whether or not the nominee wins a majority, to the full Senate to allow the chamber to decide whether he or she should be confirmed.[36][37]
    • The debate in the Senate is scheduled by the Senate majority leader in consultation with the minority leader. On April 6, 2017, during the process of confirming Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the Senate lowered the threshold to close debate on Supreme Court nominations to a simple majority from 60 votes. According to the Congressional Research Service, "The practical effect of the Senate action on April 6 was to reduce the level of Senate support necessary to confirm a Supreme Court nominee."[36][38]
    • The president also may choose to make a recess appointment, which would avoid the need for Senate confirmation. But the justice's term would end with the end of the next session of Congress, rather than the lifetime appointments provided by Senate confirmation. There have been 12 recess appointments made to the Supreme Court, most in the 19th century, according to the Congressional Research Service. The most recent was made by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who gave Justice Potter Stewart a recess appointment on October 14, 1958, to a seat vacated by Justice Harold Burton. Justice Stewart was nominated by Eisenhower to the same seat on January 17, 1959, and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 5, 1959.[36][37][39]

    Historic context[edit]

    Vacancies: departure date to swearing-in of successor[edit]

    The average vacancy length on the Supreme Court since 1962—when defined as the length of time elapsed between a Justice’s departure date and the swearing-in of their successor into the position—is 88 days. Four of these vacancies lasted for only a few hours each; the successor was sworn in the same day the retiring Justice officially left office. The longest vacancy under this definition was 422 days, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

    The second longest vacancy in that time was 391 days after Justice Abe Fortas retired on May 14, 1969, in the wake of a series of ethics scandals.[40] First-term president Richard Nixon (R) nominated two different successors for Fortas—Clement Haynsworth, a Fourth Circuit Appeals Judge, and Harold Carswell, a Fifth Circuit Appeals Judge. The Senate rejected both. Nixon’s third nominee, Eighth Circuit Appeals Judge Harry Blackmun, was confirmed on May 12, 1970, and sworn in on June 9, 1970—391 days, after Fortas’ retirement.[41]

    The third longest vacancy in this time frame was between the terms of Lewis Franklin Powell and Anthony Kennedy. Powell retired on June 26, 1987. The Senate confirmed Kennedy on February 3, 1988. He was sworn in on February 18, 1988, making for a 237 day vacancy from Powell's retirement to Kennedy's swearing-in. Like Blackmun, Kennedy’s confirmation by the Senate followed two rejections. President Ronald Reagan (R) nominated him on November 30, 1987.[42]

    Vacancies: departure date to confirmation of successor[edit]

    When vacancy is defined as the length of time between a Justice’s departure date and the confirmation date of their successor, the average is 77 days. The vacancies between Scalia and Gorsuch and Fortas and Blackmun are still the longest, at 419 and 363 days, respectively. The third longest is between Lewis Powell and Anthony Kennedy, at 222 days.

    Vacancies: announcement of retirement to confirmation of successor[edit]

    When vacancy is defined as the length of time between the date at which a Justice announced his or her retirement and the confirmation date of their successor, the average length is 136 days. The longest vacancy is, again, between the terms of Scalia and Gorsuch at 419 days, followed by Fortas and Blackmun at 363 days. But the third longest, under this definition, is between the terms of Earl Warren and Warren Burger, at 361 days. Warren announced his retirement on June 13, 1968, almost a year before he officially left the bench on June 23, 1969.

    In cases where a Justice died and no retirement announcement took place, we used their departure date. On several occasions, Justices officially retired on the same day as their announcement.

    Vacancies prior to 1962[edit]

    Prior to the 1960’s, there were two much longer vacancies on the Court. A seat sat vacant for almost two-and-a-half years during the presidencies of John Tyler and James K. Polk in the mid-19th century. Justice Henry Baldwin died in office on April 21, 1844. His eventual successor, Robert Grier, was confirmed by the Senate and sworn into office on the same day, August 10, 1846. In the interim, the Senate rejected four nominees. Another lengthy vacancy took place following the death of Justice Peter Daniel on May 31, 1860. Daniel’s seat was left unoccupied until President Abraham Lincoln’s (R) nominee, Samuel Miller, was confirmed and sworn in on July 21, 1862.[43]


    See also[edit]

    Footnotes[edit]

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 The Wall Street Journal, "Amy Coney Barrett’s Nomination Advanced by Senate Judiciary Committee," October 22, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Congress.gov, "PN2252 — Amy Coney Barrett — Supreme Court of the United States," accessed September 30, 2020
    3. ↑ The New York Times, "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87," September 18, 2020
    4. ↑ University of Notre Dame Law School, "Amy Coney Barrett," accessed June 29, 2018
    5. ↑ United States Congress, "PN 369 — Amy Coney Barrett — The Judiciary," accessed October 31, 2017
    6. ↑ ‘’CNN’’, “Trump to announce Supreme Court nominee,” September 26, 2020
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 National Public Radio, "Senate Judiciary Committee Sets Date To Vote On Barrett Nomination Next Week," October 15, 2020
    8. ↑ Fox News, "Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing to begin Oct. 12 as Senate ramps up COVID precautions," October 5, 2020
    9. ↑ ‘’White House’’, “President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States,” September 26, 2020
    10. ↑ The New York Times, "Trump Selects Amy Coney Barrett to Fill Ginsburg’s Seat on the Supreme Court," September 25, 2020
    11. ↑ CNN, "Sources: Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court," September 25, 2020
    12. ↑ CNN, "Mitt Romney backing of Supreme Court vote paves way for election-year confirmation," September 22, 2020
    13. ↑ CNBC, "Trump says he will announce Supreme Court nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday," September 22, 2020
    14. ↑ CNBC, "Murkowski becomes 2nd GOP senator to oppose a vote on Trump Supreme Court nominee before election," September 20, 2020
    15. ↑ CNN, "Trump on Supreme Court nominee: 'It will be a woman'," September 19, 2020
    16. ↑ Politico, "'Nothing is off the table': Supreme Court fight could reshape the Senate," September 19, 2020
    17. ↑ Politico, "Susan Collins says Senate should not vote on SCOTUS nomination before election," September 19, 2020
    18. ↑ The New York Times, "McConnell vows to vote on Supreme Court nominee four years after blocking one." September 18, 2020
    19. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court Office of Public Information, "Press release regarding Justice Ginsburg," Sept. 18, 2020
    20. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "Remarks by President Trump Announcing His Nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States," September 26, 2020
    21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.8 21.9 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    22. ↑ ‘’JoeBiden.com’’, “THE U.S. SUPREME COURT – STATEMENT BY VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN,” September 26, 2020
    23. ↑ ‘’Twitter’’, “Mitch McConnell on Twitter on September 26,” September 26, 2020
    24. ↑ Senate Democrats, "SCHUMER: A VOTE FOR JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT IS A VOTE TO ELIMINATE HEALTH CARE FOR MILLIONS IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC," accessed September 26, 2020
    25. ↑ ‘’Twitter’’, “Lindsey Graham on Twitter on September 26,” September 26, 2020
    26. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "STATEMENTS FROM THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING THE DEATH OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG," accessed September 22, 2020
    27. ↑ White House, "Proclamation on the Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg," September 19, 2020
    28. ↑ Joe Biden 2020 campaign website, "STATEMENT BY VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN ON THE PASSING OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG," September 22, 2020
    29. ↑ U.S. Senate, "Mitch McConnell -- McConnell Statement on the Passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg," September 18, 2020
    30. ↑ Twitter, "Chuck Schumer on September 18, 2020," accessed September 22, 2020
    31. ↑ Senate Judiciary Committee, "Home," accessed October 13, 2020
    32. ↑ Senate Judiciary Committee, "Chairman Graham Announces Hearing Dates for Judge Barrett’s Supreme Court Nomination," September 26, 2020
    33. ↑ NBC News, "A guide to the Supreme Court nomination," accessed February 13, 2016
    34. ↑ CQ Press, "The Selection and Confirmation of Justices: Criteria and Process," accessed February 13, 2016
    35. ↑ New York Times, "Presidents, Picking Justices, Can Have Backfires," July 5, 2005
    36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 CRS Report for Congress, "Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate," July 6, 2005
    37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 CRS Report, "Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and Floor Procedure," March 9, 2015
    38. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief," April 14, 2017
    39. ↑ Federal Judicial Center, "Biographical directory of federal judges," accessed January 26, 2017
    40. ↑ New York Times, "He could never have enough," July 31, 1988
    41. ↑ Politico, "Republicans, Beware the Abe Fortas Precedent," February 15, 2016
    42. ↑ ScotusBlog.com, "Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years," February 13, 2016
    43. ↑ C.Q. Press (2010). American Political Leaders: 1789 - 2009, Washington, DC: C.Q. Press
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial
    Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Original source: https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_vacancy,_2020
    Status: cached on November 18 2021 14:56:41
    Encyclosphere.org EncycloReader is supported by the EncyclosphereKSF