Tag: Supreme Court

Stevenson’s army, September 19

The death of Justice Ginsburg will confront the Senate with the task of choosing a successor. While the end to possible filibusters of such nominations makes it likely that Leader McConnell will be able to get approval of the president’s nominee before Thanksgiving, you can expect contentious debate, clashing Constitutional arguments, and parliamentary maneuvers. This CRS report has good background on the process. But note this historical point: Before 1916, the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court nominations behind closed doors. Thus, until that year, there are no entries in the “Public hearing date(s)” column. Rather, committee sessions on Court nominations typically were limited to committee members discussing and voting on a nominee in executive session, without hearing testimony from outside witnesses. In 1916, for the first time, the committee held open confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nomination—that of Louis D. Brandeis to be an Associate Justice—at which outside witnesses (but not the nominee) testified. More days of public hearings (19) were held on the Brandeis nomination than on any Supreme Court nomination since. The Brandeis hearings, however, did not set immediately into place a new policy of open confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominations, since each of the next six nominations (during the years 1916 to 1923) was either considered directly by the Senate, without referral to the Judiciary Committee, or was acted on by the committee without the holding of confirmation hearings.
From 1925 to 1946, public confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominations became the more common, if not invariable, practice of the Judiciary Committee. In 1925, Harlan F. Stone became the first Supreme Court nominee to appear in person and testify at his confirmation hearings. During the next two decades, the Stone nomination was one of 11 Court nominations that received public confirmation hearings before either the full Judiciary Committee or a Judiciary subcommittee, while five other nominations did not receive public hearings. One of the five nominees not receiving a public confirmation hearing was Senator James F. Byrnes, whose nomination in 1941, as noted earlier, was considered directly by the Senate without referral to the Judiciary Committee. From the first Supreme Court appointments in 1789 to 2017, Presidents have made 162 nominations to the Court. Table 1 shows, in the “Final action by Senate or President” column, that the Senate confirmed 125 of these nominations, or roughly three-fourths. Of the 37 nominations that were not confirmed, 11 were rejected by the Senate (all in roll-call votes), 11 were withdrawn by the President, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress without a Senate vote cast on whether to confirm. The 37 nominations not confirmed by the Senate represented 32 individuals, some of whom were nominated more than once. Six individuals whose initial nominations were not confirmed were later renominated and confirmed for positions on the Court.

WSJ says the Saudi Royal Family is divided over policy toward Israel.
The other day I sent a story about how rich the Taliban is. WSJ today says ISIS is also flush with cash.
A think tank study says the Intelligence Community doesn’t really know what its customers want.
A Columbia law prof uses the occasion of the dedication of the memorial to Dwight Eisenhower on the National Mall to reflect on Ike’s view of war powers.
I think Eisenhower should be praised for insisting on congressional approval of major military actions.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , , , ,

Stevenson’s army, July 9

– Supreme Court finishes announcing decisions for the year at 1000. Follow it on Scotusblog.
-HASC has 1pm hearing with SecDef Esper and CJCS Milley. Expect questions about Lafayette Square operations and Vindman retirement.
– Hopkins has new tracker of school reopening policies nationwide.
– Big clash over who controls NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) budget. SASC gave DOD more power in its authorization bill, but House Appropriators forbid that in their Energy approps bill. It’s a lot harder to resolve disagreements that can’t come up in a conference committee because of the different legislative vehicles.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , ,

Stevenson’s army, June 15

Iran threatens retaliation if US interferes with tankers to Venezuela.
-At Lawfare, a writer talks about conflict resolution opportunities in Africa.
-Jonathan Swan of Axios details Trump’s loyalty purge across executive branch
– Today, and other Mondays in June, the Supreme Court is slated to release opinions. Follow them on Scotusblog.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , ,

Stevenson’s army, April 24

– In preparation for next week’s discussion about the Supreme Court, be sure to read Linda Greenhouse on the dispute over keeping precedents and this piece guessing how Justice Kagan is working to gain allies.
– Bureaucratic politics: USAF and Space Force fight to control NRO.

– Great powers work to control Arctic.
Political appointees pushed HHS on hydroxychloroquine
– NYT tells how the president spends his days and nights.
– FP says US-Saudi alliance is collapsing.
– Constitutional point: president’s can’t veto bills until the signed copies come over from Congress. Hence this situation [from Politico]:

STILL WAITING FOR A VETO — What ever happened to the Iran war powers resolution? The Senate and House passed the measure in February and March, respectively, aimed at limiting Trump’s ability to go to war with Iran without Congressional approval. But, quite unusually, the bill has yet to reach the president’s desk. The House finally enrolled the bill earlier this month and sent it to the Senate. It’s largely a procedural action, but the Senate has yet to enroll the bill so that it can be sent across Pennsylvania Avenue. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) recently told reporters after presiding over a pro forma session that he wasn’t even asked to sign it. Trump is expected to veto the bill anyway; so what gives?

Well, now we know: Aides in both parties tell us that Senate leaders are trying to iron out an agreement on when a vote to override the president’s expected veto would take place. With floor time so valuable these days amid the coronavirus pandemic, both sides want to ensure they are not causing problems for themselves down the line. So, for now, the bill is being held back. Both sides rejected the notion that any behind-the-scenes drama is preventing the resolution from advancing to the White House. Democrats and Republicans alike appear to be OK with this arrangement because they want Covid-19 to remain Congress’ top priority.

Why not the best? No, instead, the president wants the number 3 official at Defense to be the person with this flawed past: [from D Brief]

Anthony Tata will probably be named the Pentagon’s next policy chief. Bloomberg and Politico are reporting this morning that Tata, a retired Army brigadier general turned Fox talker, will be nominated as defense undersecretary for policy. “If confirmed by the Senate, Tata would replace John Rood, who was forced out in February as part of President Donald Trump’s loyalty purge after two years in the job,” Politico writes.
A West Point grad who became a Ranger and deputy commander of the 10th Mountain Division, Tata has a master’s degree in international relations and served as a fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. 
Tata retired in 2008, a year after Army investigators concluded that he had had at least two adulterous affairs and as they were looking into a false document he provided to courts. In retirement, Tata became a superintendent of schools in South Carolina’s Wake County and was fired by the county school board after 20 months on the job.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , , , ,
Tweet