9/21/2020 12:05:54 PM
Section 4: National
Subject: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Msg# 1098329
|The statistics here need to be read. Democrats believe Trum is the ‘ only ‘ President facing unique circumstances.|
Reply | ReplyNewSubject
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where:|
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 Of the nine, the only one that did not succeed was Washington’s 1793 nomination of William Paterson, which was withdrawn for technical reasons and resubmitted .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.