Razor-Thin Confirmation Votes Could Be New Normal for SCOTUS
The expected narrowness of the Kavanaugh vote “reflects the modern polarization of the Congress, and so may be the future of all nominees,” said Tonja Jacobi, a Supreme Court scholar at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.
October 05, 2018 at 02:55 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
No matter what last-minute switches take place over the weekend, the Senate's vote margin on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation is likely to be the closest in modern American history.
And it may not be the last.
The cloture vote on Friday favored Kavanaugh by 51-49. That tally may not be repeated precisely in the actual vote for confirmation, but it is expected to be similar. If that is the case, the margin will still be closer than the 52-48 vote in October 1991 that confirmed Justice Clarence Thomas, also a target of allegations of sexual misconduct.
The anticipated narrowness of the Kavanaugh vote “reflects the modern polarization of the Congress, and so may be the future of all nominees,” said Tonja Jacobi, a Supreme Court scholar at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. She said the margin could be very close “even when there are not such extreme policy views at play and even when there aren't multiple sexual assault allegations and claims of perjury.”
Until now, the Thomas margin appears to be the closest in recent years. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. was confirmed 58-42 in 2006—a 16-vote margin—and last year, Justice Neil Gorsuch was confirmed 54-45, a nine-vote difference.
Going further back in history, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Stanley Matthews by a 24-23 vote in 1881, a one-vote margin. He had been nominated earlier that year by President Rutherford Hayes, but was not acted on because of “his past support of Hayes … and the fact that he had served as attorney for powerful railroad and corporation interests,” according to Britannica.com. President James Garfield re-nominated Matthews who was then confirmed by the narrowest margin in court history.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAm Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Health Care Giants Sue FTC, Allege Lina Khan Using Loaded Process to Vilify Pharmacy Benefit Managers
3 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250