Insights on President Trump’s Supreme Court Appointments in 2021
As the political landscape shifts, the possibility of Supreme Court justices stepping down or retiring has raised questions about the future of the court. President Trump has had a significant impact on the Supreme Court, but how feasible would it be for him to secure more appointments by the end of his term?
Current State of the Supreme Court
Currently, the Supreme Court consists of nine justices, a balance of five conservatives and four liberals, with two seats that may be open. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has been a pivotal force on the court, has recently expressed her frailty, inspiring speculations about her potential retirement. The age of Justice Breyer, who is 82, also adds to the uncertainties. Both Ginsburg and Breyer have shown resilience, but their advanced age and health concerns raise questions about their future on the bench.
Implications of Justice Departures and Nominations
For President Trump to fill a vacant seat, he would need to nominate a new justice and secure Senate approval. This process is notoriously difficult, especially within the political climate of the current Congress.
Technically, it is not impossible for both Ginsburg and Breyer to serve another five years. However, it is increasingly unlikely given their ages and health. If both serve the full five-year term, Trump will likely appoint his last Supreme Court justice. With Clarence Thomas at 72 years old, he is expected to remain active on the bench for the foreseeable future, although this is not certain.
Political Challenges and Senate Approval
The appointment process is fraught with challenges. A nominee would need to navigate the Senate's approval process, which is influenced by party dynamics and public opinion. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, led to a heated debate. McConnell argued that it was not customary to confirm Supreme Court justices in the final year of a president's term. This decision was met with criticism and was a significant point of contention during the subsequent election.
Given this precedent, any effort to rush through a nomination near the end of the term would likely face significant opposition. Moreover, health rumors and potential retirements may not align precisely with the timeline required for a new justice to be confirmed.
Presidential Ambitions and Constitutional Authority
President Trump's desire to shape the Supreme Court is well-documented. He has already appointed two justices to the bench and has expressed his wish to appoint a third. However, changing the number of justices to expedite this process is problematic. Making such a change would potentially undermine the integrity of the court, the Constitution, and the rule of law. This is a non-starter for Republicans who value these principles highly.
Even if Trump could secure a temporary emergency vote, the long-term impact on the court's legitimacy would be serious. Democrats, who hold significant power in the Senate, would not likely support such a move, especially if it means bypassing the constitutional process.
Conclusion and Improbability of Multiple Nominations
Given the current dynamics and political challenges, it would be virtually impossible for President Trump to secure more than one additional Supreme Court justice nomination by the end of 2021. The Senate's approval process and the current health and age of potential candidates create significant obstacles. Even if there are retirements or departures, the nomination process is fraught with political turmoil and public scrutiny.
The conservative justices who believe in a more expansive interpretation of the Constitution may not be as receptive to such a move. The 2026 cycle will be crucial, but by then, Trump may have already served his term and left office.
It's important to consider the constitutional and political constraints when evaluating the likelihood of additional Supreme Court justices. The sustained conflict over the court’s composition underscores the need for a more balanced and cooperative approach to judicial appointments.