Photo by Colin Lloyd on

The Trump administration has drawn some controversy by appointing a Supreme Court Justice less than 90 days away from the presidential election. The president has declared Saturday he will publicly announce his replacement for longstanding Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Many pundits find this move distaste full for two main reasons.  First off, this decision is being made only eight days after the passing of Justice Ginsberg. The other concern is Trump selecting a justice within months of an election. Public sentiment seems to be leaning towards allowing the winner of the 2020 election to fill this vacancy. The issue with public sentiment is that it seldomly considers the law of the land. Often is fueled by visceral passions more so than reason.

However, I would be derelict in my duties as an armchair commentator if didn’t voice some criticism of the Trump administration. Let’s face it, even if Trump does not get reelected, filling the vacancy with another conservative justice will contribute positively to his presidential legacy. Help retain a strong right-wing influence even if Joe Biden is elected. Making the action of quickly selecting another justice before the election boldly strategic.  Before you dog-pile on trump, just remember this variety of behavior is common among presidents at the end of their term. Prior to Obama leaving office he passed a record-setting number of regulations. Why would any elected official do this? Because they are making a last-ditch effort to implement any agenda focal points that hadn’t been previously enacted. Once you hit the level of President of the United States you are no longer vying for money or power. You are vying for your legacy. Imagine what the paragraphs under your photo in a history textbook will convey. The portrait of a strong leader or that of a half-witted and cowardly buffoon.  

The real question should be is it legal for Trump to appoint a new justice this late in the election cycle? Formally, there isn’t anything legally holding him back. The decision of whether to make this selection is more a matter of adherence to social conventions than being a legal matter. Historically, there was only one other instance of a Supreme Court Justice passing away within 90 days of a presidential election.  This was the passing of Justice Taney 27 days before the election of 1864. Lincoln opted to delay the appointment until reelection. What most people express precedence dictating that the present should wait until the election is over before appointing a new justice is invoking the Thurmond Rule. This informal and dates back to Senator Thurmond blocking LBJ’s appointment of Abe Fortas to chief justice. When Antonin Scalia passed away in February of 2016 republicans cited the Thurmond Rule in their objection to Obama selecting a new Justice in an election year. Clearing there is nothing legally binding that prohibits Trump from making the appointment.

Considering that Trump’s decision is legal, any concerns are more aimed at him not respecting social conventions. If you are attempting to cultivate a positive public image, being so bold and brash might not be the best strategy. Then again we are discussing a president who ascended to his lofty perch by breaking ties with social conventions. Coincidentally, it has been somewhat effective. Then again, this may have been unique to the peculiarities of the 2016 American culture. Seldom does drifting away from a Nash-Equilibrium strategy ensure success.

20 thoughts on “Trump Appointing A Supreme Court Nominee Late in The Election Cycle: Is This Legal?

  1. Reblogged this on Cat Lyon's Reading & Writing Den and commented:
    This Cat Never Shares Much About Politics as many these days are SO Passionate about their choice of WHO should be running AMERICA. But this post caught my EYE and made me ponder a bit. I hope all my readers are Registered to VOTE in your STATE…
    WHO TO VOTE FOR? Well, I’ll leave that up to you. I will say though before you vote?
    I will offer this re-blogged post and?
    Is this the AMERICA you want to continue to LIVE IN?…


    Liked by 1 person

        1. Perfect recipe for a congressman who has served for thirty-years or more.

          Neither candidate is worth much in the way of moral currency. Then again , it may be political office selects for individuals with unsavory attributes.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. What if morality is “over-rated”? Personally, I don’t believe that, but then again, I am a “nobody” compared to say, a Mark Zuckerberg or a Donald Trump! In other words, what if there were an inverse relationship between worldly fame/success and morals!?


        3. This actually reminds me of an article from the latest issue of The Independent Review; The Rise of The Gamers (

          I have a print subscription to the publication and unfortunately, they do a free digital copy that is delay released nine months after publication.

          The crux of the article is how many successful people over the past decades have dispensed with morality. Now take a callously utilitarian approach to meeting their ends. Using the rules to their advantage. Gamers being an allusion to concept of game theory. Those who play the game best, not they most ethically tend to win. The author does list successful individuals who have resisted the temptation to become a “gamer”.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. It took me awhile, but I was finally able to track down (via Google Scholar) and print a non-gated of the article. I am presenting a talk on another topic tomorrow morning, but I will read it over the weekend and share my thoughts soon!

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.