Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

One chart that shows how unusual Justice Scalia’s Supreme Court vacancy could be

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at a press conference.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at a press conference.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at a press conference.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

If Republican senators refuse a Supreme Court nominee to replace Antonin Scalia until President Barack Obama — or even a Democrat in general — is out of the White House, America could be looking at a historic length in a Supreme Court vacancy.

This great chart, from Sean McMinn at Roll Call, tells the story:

According to Roll Call, the longest length of time before a Supreme Court vacancy was filled — since 1900 — was 363 days.

But the Senate might refuse to appoint someone for much longer. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

If the Senate appointed someone the day (January 20, 2017) the next president takes office, the vacancy in Scalia’s seat would last 341 days.

But the process of accepting a nominee can last a lot longer than one day — especially if, say, President Hillary Clinton or President Bernie Sanders nominates a justice while Republicans still control the Senate and present a fractious confirmation process. So this vacancy could make records.

Besides, there’s reason to believe this vacancy could last far past this election year. Republicans have spun their opposition to any potential nominee by arguing that Obama shouldn’t nominate someone in an election year — because the final decision should be left to voters. But really their concern is that Obama will appoint a justice who’s far more liberal than Scalia, who was consistently one of the more conservative justices on the bench.

But if Clinton or Sanders is the next president, the exact same concerns over a liberal justice apply. If Republicans don’t budge, that could lead to a truly years-long vacancy.

More in Politics

The Logoff
Trump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictionsTrump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictions
The Logoff

How the Trump administration is still trying to rewrite January 6 history.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Donald Trump messed with the wrong popeDonald Trump messed with the wrong pope
Politics

Trump fought with Pope Francis before. He’s finding Pope Leo XIV to be a tougher foil.

By Christian Paz
Podcasts
A cautionary tale about tax cutsA cautionary tale about tax cuts
Podcast
Podcasts

California cut property taxes in the 1970s. It didn’t go so well.

By Miles Bryan and Noel King
Podcasts
Obama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwupsObama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwups
Podcast
Podcasts

Wendy Sherman helped Obama reach a deal with Iran. Here’s what she thinks Trump is doing wrong.

By Kelli Wessinger and Noel King
Politics
The Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything elseThe Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything else
Politics

McNutt v. DOJ could allow the justices to seize tremendous power over the US economy.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
The new Hormuz blockade, briefly explainedThe new Hormuz blockade, briefly explained
The Logoff

Trump tries Iran’s playbook.

By Cameron Peters