Should Trump Replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Everyone’s a Hypocrite

Well, everyone saw this coming, but with the election so close and RBG, as she’s known, seemingly invincible, it’s still a shock that the Supreme Court Justice has passed.

But now we have the crazy situation where President Trump can nominate a judge just weeks before an election that he has already described as tainted, which sets up a legal challenge that would end up before that very same judge.

If we get a repeat of the Bush-Gore election of 2000, it could be ugly.

Joshua Douglas, a University of Kentucky law professor, said:

“People’s views of Bush v. Gore would be tame by comparison. It’s almost unimaginable what the reaction would be.”

The question on the table is whether or not Trump should nominate a replacement or let whoever wins the election do that. By law, the sitting president makes a nomination and the Senate takes up confirmation.

In the world of politics, over the course of just four years, both sides now get to be hypocrites.

In 2016, the Senate, led by Mitch McConnell, refused to take up Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland after Justice Scalia passed, insisting that the next president should be the one to make the nomination. Democrats howled, claiming that the law calls for the process of a presidential nomination and Senate hearing. Now the roles are reversed.

Today, McConnell has changed his tune and said that if the president nominates a justice the Senate will take up the process, while the Democrats are screaming that the process should be put on hold for the next president.

The only thing certain is that none of these people are sticking to a principle.

There’s good reason to move forward with a nomination. If the election is contested and goes before an 8-member Supreme Court, it could end up in a split decision, which would leave the lower court ruling in effect and make at least half the nation view the president as illegitimate, no matter who it is. But there’s also reason to wait. If the nomination is to be made by the person elected to lead the nation, and an election is just days away, wouldn’t it make sense to let the voters put in place the person to make the nomination?

If it were easy, it wouldn’t be a fight.

Roberts ‘Doesn’t Want to Touch This’

If a post-election case winds up before the Supreme Court and Ginsburg’s replacement is not yet in place, Democrats would likely aim to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts, who is seen as the court’s swing vote, to rule in their favor.

“I think just like everybody else in the country, Justice Roberts is really, really hoping the election isn’t close,” said Sylvia Albert, the director of voting and elections at the good government nonprofit Common Cause. “He does not want to touch this with a 10-foot pole.”

Roberts sided with the court’s liberal minority in several key cases earlier this year and has shown a desire to avoid turning the court into a partisan institution.

If he were to join the three remaining liberals, that would create a 4-4 split, which would leave in place any lower court decision but could undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court. Republican Senator Ted Cruz said on Fox News on Friday that Trump needed to replace Ginsburg to forestall the possibility of a deadlocked court and a “constitutional crisis.”

In 2016, Cruz was among Republican senators who refused to let Democratic President Barack Obama fill a court vacancy in an election year, leaving the court with eight members. Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch filled that seat the following year.

If a dispute around the 2020 election were to reach the Supreme Court and Ginsburg’s seat had already been filled by a Trump nominee, a ruling by the conservative majority that ensured Trump’s victory would be hard for many Americans to swallow, said Paul Smith, a Georgetown University law professor and vice president at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit voter advocacy group.

“It would be terrible for the country if you have at the same time a president who is viewed as illegitimate by a large percentage of the country and a court that is seen as complicit,” said Smith.

(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Daniel Wallis)

tagreuters.com2020binary_LYNXNPEG8J08L-VIEWIMAGE

tagreuters.com2020binary_LYNXNPEG8J08J-VIEWIMAGE

tagreuters.com2020binary_LYNXNPEG8J08K-VIEWIMAGE

tagreuters.com2020binary_LYNXNPEG8J08N-VIEWIMAGE

tagreuters.com2020binary_LYNXNPEG8J08M-VIEWIMAGE

See Comments (8)

Leave a Reply


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Comments (8)


  1. Fred bowen-smith
    Reply

    Of course the rules allow it so do it. It’s common policy. Unlike the Dems who would increase the court size so they could have their anti constitutional judges on it. You could see a SCOUTS as large as the senate. At what cost will liberals act to achieve socialism. As a any as Hitler did…

    • EMIL HINTERTHUER
      Reply

      Trump should replace the old Girl and get it over ASAP. Forget the DemoRats and Basement Roach Biden.

      • Lotka Kowalczyk
        Reply

        I am a DemoRat and I am ashamed by the way these idiots have been behaving. You all can thank the “Old bag Hillary “Ratman” Clinton for dividing this country by her lies about President Trump. I am behind President Trump 100%. God Bless You, President Trump, and may we have 4 more years.

  2. Chaplain Rodger DeRamus
    Reply

    The difference is Obama was at the end of his term, having been elected for the two terms he was allowed. Trump could win his second term, and thus be allowed to nominate a replacement for Judge Ginsburg.

  3. Romanr
    Reply

    President Trump has a constitutional duty to fill a vacant seat of RBG.
    Discussion is over. Let’s go and do what the constitution obliged President to do!
    Simple, clear and double.
    Kick the dirty politics out of the process!

  4. Centurion
    Reply

    Obama nominated Merrick Garland in his last year. It’s just that the Senate did not like his nomination and thus did not confirm. They did their jobs. Trump will make a nomination and the Senate will either confirm or not. Everyone MUST do their jobs. And the communist-cRATS in congress had just better get over it!

  5. bill
    Reply

    It is the Presidents duty to fill the vacancy during his tenure and all that’s wrong is the sick despicable Dems have tried everything idiotic, stupid, ignorant and dumb underhanded attempts to unseat him. He is so much better for this country anyone of those jackasses.

  6. Dr. Kenneth Stephens
    Reply

    This is an interesting article, but it is disengenuous to suggest that the Republicans not proceed with the Barrett confirmation. The Constitution says that the President nominates and the Senate does or does not confirm. Anyone who believes that the Democrats (if the roles were reversed) would wait for the next President to do the nominating/Senate confirmation, would probably be a good candidate to purchase a bridge in Brooklyn (from me).

    The President is elected for four years–not 3 1/2. The people already spoke in 2016 on what they want done during his term. If he does not win re-election, then the Democrats will undoubtedly play the game their way. Yes, the Republicans blocked confirmation of the Democrats nomination the last time, but that was legal and constitutional. The Democrats would have done the same, if roles were reversed.

    There was a time in our country’s not-too-distant past, in which both parties worked across the isle, supposedly for the overall common good. (You will recall that many Republicans voted for Ginsberg’s confirmation, even though they didn’t like her policies. They simply believed that it was the Democrats’ decision to name her, and she, at least on the surface, did not have any fatal flaws.) Those days are over. The Democrats put the last nail in the coffin when they impeached the President on spurious charges and when they earlier tried unsuccesssfully to block confirmation of another justice by using unsubstantiated charges of sexual misconduct. The senator from Hawaii stooped to an all-time low when she had the unmitigated gall to ask an Appeals Court judge (Barrett) if she had ever raped anybody. Any confidence I might have had in the Hawaii electorate went out the window that day. Whatever happened to common curtesy in the Congress.

    If there is a Red Wave, and the President is re-elected by a landslide, the people will have spoken once again, and the Democrats will slink into the distance, lick their wounds, and plot some other nasty strategies. That is, unless they get thrown out for being BSC (a low-probability event).

    If Biden is elected, it will be an all time low in Presidential politics. Thirty years ago, he was caught red-handed in lies about where he went to school, his class standing, etc. Then, the mainstream media were appalled by his gall and blew the whistle. In a news conference, he admitted his lies and said that he had been stupid doing it. The media predicted it would be his political death knell. Yes, his Delaware constituents apparently did not care about truth or integrity, and he was allowed to spend many more years accomplishing nothing for the country. Now, we see that he was more recently guilty of criminal activities involving peddling influence for money. Admittedly, at this time they are only accusations. However, he and his deplorable son should be investigated and either acquitted or put in jail.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!