Thurmond rule

The Thurmond rule in U.S. politics posits that, at some point in a U.S. presidential election year, the U.S. Senate should not confirm the president's nominees to the federal judiciary, except under certain circumstances.

[2]The 'rule,' which apparently dates to 1980, posits that, sometime after spring in a presidential election year, no judges will be confirmed without the consent of the Republican and Democratic leaders and the judiciary chairman and ranking minority member.

[9] Similarly, a 2008 Congressional Research Service report could not identify any "consistently observed date or point in time after which the Senate ceased processing district and circuit nominations during the presidential election years from 1980 to 2004.

"[9] Sarah A. Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, notes that although studies have shown "that there is no such formal 'rule,'" that "hasn't stopped senators from either party from talking about the practice as a rule or often even as a doctrine.

"[11] Glenn Kessler and Aaron Blake of The Washington Post note that senators of both political parties—such as Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy—frequently flip-flop on the issue of judicial nominations in presidential election years, alternately invoking the Thurmond Rule and denying its validity, depending on which party controls the Senate and the White House.

The Thurmond rule was first posited by Senator Strom Thurmond in 1968.
Stephen Breyer was appointed by President Jimmy Carter to the First Circuit Court of Appeals on November 13, 1980, and confirmed by the Senate on December 9, 1980, both during Carter's lame duck period . Breyer was later elevated to the Supreme Court .