We now know that conventions/norms about Supreme Court nominations are fluid (perhaps -- I hope to write something about this later this semester -- this occurs in times of regime instability/transition). We also know that politicians need to justify departures from existing norms by invoking some general principle ("no nominations in the final year of a second-term president"). So, here's a principle for Senate Democrats, at no charge: For more than 125 years, the Senate has not confirmed a Supreme Court nominee chosen by a president who lost the popular vote.
(George W. Bush didn't nominate anyone during the term resulting from his popular vote loss; the last time such a nomination occurred was in 1893 -- by Benjamin Harrison, who was already on his way out of the Presidency [Howell Jackson -- remember him? -- was nominated on February 2, 1893 and took his seat on February 18; Grover Cleveland took office for the second time on March 4, 1893]. And, though Harrison was a Republican, he nominated Jackson, who had been a Democrat when he served in the House of Representatives.)
What are the conditions for taking this "principle" seriously?
(George W. Bush didn't nominate anyone during the term resulting from his popular vote loss; the last time such a nomination occurred was in 1893 -- by Benjamin Harrison, who was already on his way out of the Presidency [Howell Jackson -- remember him? -- was nominated on February 2, 1893 and took his seat on February 18; Grover Cleveland took office for the second time on March 4, 1893]. And, though Harrison was a Republican, he nominated Jackson, who had been a Democrat when he served in the House of Representatives.)
What are the conditions for taking this "principle" seriously?