9/19/2020 11:45:13 PM
Section 4: National
Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Msg# 1098215
Seems pretty quick development of articles on both sides of this issue. Here's a source on the conservative side : History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020
Many of those sources you've quoted are not applicable -- because they're based on having one party in the presidency, and another controlling the Senate. Thus all those 2016 arguments of who said what are flawed. Whether its Mitch, or Lindsey or whoever.
You seem to be arguing that Trump should not be nominating a successor.. So here's some history, showing otherwise.
"Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate."
" what does history say about this situation, where a president is in his last year [of a current term] in office , his party controls the Senate, and the branches are not in conflict? , , , Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful, the only failure being the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas . . . . Nine times, presidents have made nominations after the election in a lame-duck session . . . Of the nine, the only one that did not succeed was Washington’s 1793 nomination of William Paterson, which was withdrawn for technical reasons and resubmitted . . . [later]"
This source discusses other specifics for any further delving into the weeds, for anyone who may wish.
The conclusion: "Republicans should not discard the rule of law or traditional norms to achieve their ends, but a Ginsburg vacancy, if one happens, would require Republicans only to act within the law and in accord with tradition."
PS This article was dated August 7, thus predating the death of Justice Ginsburg.
Reply | ReplyNewSubject
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where:|
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish:
"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
McConnell when Obama was president
Mitch McConnell (Feb 2016):
“The American people must have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. “
Feb. 16, 2016: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, write an opinion piece in the Washington Post, saying the nation has a "unique opportunity" to make an impact on the court by filling it along with the timeline of voting for a new president, "as they decide who they trust to both lead the country and nominate the next Supreme Court justice."
"(Democrats would) rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment by a president on his way out the door," they write.
Feb. 22, 2016: McConnell reaffirms his stance: "Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary."
Feb. 23, 2016: “The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they’ve already started making today."
March 16, 2016, with Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, McConnell stood his ground: It is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."
March 20, 2016: McConnell tells Fox News Sunday, "The Senate has a role to play here. The president nominates, we decide to confirm. We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential year is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision. Not this lame duck president on the way out the door, but the next president."
McConnell with Trump as president
Jan. 31 2017: A day before President Donald Trump nominates Neil Gorsuch for Scalia's seat, McConnell says, "the Supreme Court seat doesn’t belong to any president or any political party."
Lindsey Graham (2016):
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."
Lindsey Graham (2018):
"I'll tell you this – this may make you feel better, but I really don't care – if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election," Graham said during a forum with The Atlantic.”
Lindsey Graham (Sept 19, 2020):
"I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg," Graham tweeted.
Graham told people to "review these most recent statements" about filling a Supreme Court vacancy. Graham said in May that "Merrick Garland was a different situation."
"You had the president of one party nominating, and you had the Senate in the hands of the other party. A situation where you've got them both would be different. I don't want to speculate, but I think appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020," Graham said.