Ginsburg: Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year!

[Thazgor]

But but but...

TRUMP IS WRONG!!

Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prompted key Washington figures to change their tune on whether a high-court vacancy should be filled so close to an election - and even the late jurist seems to have reversed herself on the issue.

www.foxnews.com

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prompted key Washington figures to change their tune on whether a high-court vacancy should be filled so close to an election - and even the late jurist seems to have reversed herself on the issue.


Ginsburg, whose death was announced Friday, reportedly told her granddaughter Clara Spera, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." That desire jibes with Democrats, including presidential nominee Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose initial statements included both tributes to Ginsburg and warnings to President Trump that the next nominee could only be named by the winner of the November presidential election.

But in 2016, when a lame-duck President Obama tabbed Merrick Garland to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, Democratic leaders had no problem with the move. And neither did Ginsburg.

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year," Ginsburg said in a 2016 New York Times interview in which she called for Garland to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate.

[/quote}

 

[Overitall]

Politicians! They suck.

 

[ElChupacabra]

What this thread omits is the point that McConnell decided a SC nominee shouldn't be decided during an election year.

 

[poweRob]

But but but...

TRUMP IS WRONG!!

Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prompted key Washington figures to change their tune on whether a high-court vacancy should be filled so close to an election - and even the late jurist seems to have reversed herself on the issue.

www.foxnews.com

So should be follow 2016 republican rules or 2020 republican rules?

 

[ElChupacabra]

So should be follow 2016 republican rules or 2020 republican rules?

It's hard to determine what that "rule" actually is because it's pretty arbitrary. The retort McConnell provided might as well be that a SC court justice can't be confirmed during an election year unless Mecury is in retrograde and the Senate majority leader has a birthday on the date a justice seat is vacated.

 

[BrotherFease]

Sorry, but the right-wing cannot logically weasel there way out of this one. McConnell and his pals made it clear in 2016 that the President shouldn't be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS during an election cycle. Lindsay Graham even said "hold the tape" in 2016 and 2018.

Ginsburg is correct that the Presidents should be allowed to exercise their constitutional powers and nominate somebody to replace a vacancy, but the problem here is that the GOP is betraying their own precedent.

Fox News can try their best and spin it, but it doesn't change the fact that GOP is trying it have it both ways.

 

[Perotista]

What this thread omits is the point that McConnell decided a SC nominee shouldn't be decided during an election year.

That could be considered payback for Schumer stating back in 2007, 18 months prior to the end of the Bush presidency that there wouldn't be a vote on any Bush nominee if an opening occurred in the SCOTUS. Then in 2016, Schumer switched to there should be a vote, in 2020 Schumer is switched again to where there shouldn't be a vote. Very true on McConnell, no vote in 2016, vote in 2020. Ginsberg, vote in 2016, no vote in 2020.

What you're seeing here is wholesale hypocrisy coming from both sides of the aisle. Neither side has any core beliefs or values. Both sides believe in doing and saying only what will give them a political advantage. That's the only thing they stand for.

 

[humbolt]

Sorry, but the right-wing cannot logically weasel there way out of this one. McConnell and his pals made it clear in 2016 that the President shouldn't be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS during an election cycle. Lindsay Graham even said "hold the tape" in 2016 and 2018.

Ginsburg is correct that the Presidents should be allowed to exercise their constitutional powers and nominate somebody to replace a vacancy, but the problem here is that the GOP is betraying their own precedent.

Fox News can try their best and spin it, but it doesn't change the fact that GOP is trying it have it both ways.

Both parties do what's politically expedient when such issues as replacing a SC Justice come up. If you can't see that, you'll need to check your objectivity. It could be a quart low.

 

[BrotherFease]

Both parties do what's politically expedient when such issues as replacing a SC Justice come up. If you can't see that, you'll need to check your objectivity. It could be a quart low.

There is no defense of what the GOP is doing. It's complete hypocrisy. Would the Dems have done the same thing, if the shoe was on the other foot, the answer is most likely. But the GOP cannot hold the high ground here.

 

[humbolt]

There is no defense of what the GOP is doing. It's complete hypocrisy. Would the Dems have done the same thing, if the shoe was on the other foot, the answer is most likely. But the GOP cannot hold the high ground here.

In politics, political power is the high ground. It's a simple matter. The GOP holds the high ground. Conflating politics with moral principles carries no weight in the matter, and both parties practice that. If you want to continue your line, be aware of the many instances the democrats have enthusiastically operated exactly the same way the Gop is operating now, with a healthy dose of character assassination thrown in as well. It's pure politics, and there's no moral virtue to be found.

 

[BrotherFease]

In politics, political power is the high ground. It's a simple matter. The GOP holds the high ground. Conflating politics with moral principles carries no weight in the matter, and both parties practice that. If you want to continue your line, be aware of the many instances the democrats have enthusiastically operated exactly the same way the Gop is operating now, with a healthy dose of character assassination thrown in as well. It's pure politics, and there's no moral virtue to be found.

High ground = showing morality and character. The GOP's push to get a nominee through the court shows lack of high ground.

If I were a Senator, I would have allowed Garland to get a hearing AND whoever Trump picks. That's called character and morality.

 

[Moderate Right]

But but but...

TRUMP IS WRONG!!

Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prompted key Washington figures to change their tune on whether a high-court vacancy should be filled so close to an election - and even the late jurist seems to have reversed herself on the issue.

www.foxnews.com

Guess she took her hypocrisy right to the grave.

 

[Moderate Right]

What this thread omits is the point that McConnell decided a SC nominee shouldn't be decided during an election year.

I think we should listen to what Ginsburg says. Bring on the vote!

 

[Moderate Right]

It's hard to determine what that "rule" actually is because it's pretty arbitrary. The retort McConnell provided might as well be that a SC court justice can't be confirmed during an election year unless Mecury is in retrograde and the Senate majority leader has a birthday on the date a justice seat is vacated.

We should follow what the Constitution says, the president picks a nominee and the Senate votes on the nominee. Nothing else matters.

 

[Moderate Right]

Sorry, but the right-wing cannot logically weasel there way out of this one. McConnell and his pals made it clear in 2016 that the President shouldn't be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS during an election cycle. Lindsay Graham even said "hold the tape" in 2016 and 2018.

Ginsburg is correct that the Presidents should be allowed to exercise their constitutional powers and nominate somebody to replace a vacancy, but the problem here is that the GOP is betraying their own precedent.

Fox News can try their best and spin it, but it doesn't change the fact that GOP is trying it have it both ways.

We're going with Ginsburg's 2016 wishes.

 

[Moderate Right]

There is no defense of what the GOP is doing. It's complete hypocrisy. Would the Dems have done the same thing, if the shoe was on the other foot, the answer is most likely. But the GOP cannot hold the high ground here.

The GOP is following Ginsburg's own thoughts on the subject.

 

[OrphanSlug]

These threads are all worthless, and a waste of time.

The Constitution has specificity around how this works, and there is no qualifier around "election year." I do not care who said what about this wrapped up in political opportunism and hypocristy.

Elections have consequences, President OrangeGlow is still President and he has a complicit Congress to seat another Justice and all of it is within the confines of what should happen in terms of Constitutional intentions. Even if we politically do not like it.

 

[Moderate Right]

High ground = showing morality and character. The GOP's push to get a nominee through the court shows lack of high ground.

If I were a Senator, I would have allowed Garland to get a hearing AND whoever Trump picks. That's called character and morality.

If you were a Democratic Senator.

 

[ludin]

What this thread omits is the point that McConnell decided a SC nominee shouldn't be decided during an election year.

which has no bearing on anything honestly. It is a shitty move that he did yeah but then again politics is shitty business.
all of the people complaining about him doing this now had the opposite tune in 2016 including schumer.

however that didn't stop obama from nominating someone. the president is allowed to nominate however it is up to the senate to confirm or deny the nomination.

 

[ludin]

High ground = showing morality and character. The GOP's push to get a nominee through the court shows lack of high ground.

If I were a Senator, I would have allowed Garland to get a hearing AND whoever Trump picks. That's called character and morality.

politics is shitty business.
you might not like it but then again nothing says you have to go into politics.

 

[Candyman]

It doesn't change the fact that New Republicans are hypocrites. That's the whole argument. Moscow Mitch is just a typical lying dirtbag politician.

 

[humbolt]

High ground = showing morality and character. The GOP's push to get a nominee through the court shows lack of high ground.

If I were a Senator, I would have allowed Garland to get a hearing AND whoever Trump picks. That's called character and morality.

Clearly, as recent events across the country demonstrate, there is no close association between morals, character, and politics. Perhaps on the grand scale of global politics the association is closer, but throughout history it's easy to see that even at best, such an association is tenuous.

What you or i might do has nothing to do with this event. The GOP has been waiting for many decades to establish a conservative majority in the SC. I don't expect them to pass it up. Were the democrats in that situation now instead, they wouldn't pass it up either. In short, don't expect a horse to act like a cat.

 

[jonny5]

But but but...

TRUMP IS WRONG!!

Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prompted key Washington figures to change their tune on whether a high-court vacancy should be filled so close to an election - and even the late jurist seems to have reversed herself on the issue.

www.foxnews.com

Yep, everyone's a hypocrite, left or right. If they were honest they should just say whoever is President gets to nominate. And the majority of the Senate gets to advise and consent, or not. Hey, that sounds familiar.

 

[jonny5]

It doesn't change the fact that New Republicans are hypocrites. That's the whole argument. Moscow Mitch is just a typical lying dirtbag politician.

Well, the WHOLE argument is that they all are hypocrites. The only thing they all are consistent on is that whoever has the power should use it.

 

[BrotherFease]

If you were a Democratic Senator.

I am a lifelong Republican. I am not interested in switching to the Democrats. If I were to switch, I would be an Independent.

Simply because I don't worship Trump and think the GOP has poor leadership, doesn't make me a Democrat.