Social Question

chyna's avatar

No matter your party or beliefs, shouldn't Trump be stopped from pushing through a Supreme Court Justice in less than a week of the death of Ruth Ginsburg?

Asked by chyna (44998points) 4 weeks ago

Shouldn’t a Supreme Court Justice be fully vetted since this is a very powerful position that is a lifetime appointment? Trump has had more turnover’s in his cabinet in his first term in office than any other president. Does this make you fearful of anyone he will be pushing through next week? Does this make you feel that he has not fully vetted people he appoints to high offices?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

27 Answers

canidmajor's avatar

Yes. All the talk of 2016 should apply today. Not that it will, but it should.

Darth_Algar's avatar

“Let the American people have their say.”

janbb's avatar

It is disgusting but predictable. We all know what a hypocrite McConnell is. Dirty politics will now be de riguer for both parties going forward if they weren’t already.

I do think he will nominate someone but I think there will have to be some hearings. And I have read that strategically they may put off the vote until the lame duck session so as not to hurt the chances of the vulnerable Republican seats. But they will almost definitely ram one through during the lame duck session.

It’s a definite win for those who have never raised children but feel they can make decisions about who should be forced to have one.

Zaku's avatar

Yes.

Borrowing from Bernie Sanders’ recent list of 2016 Republican statements on the issue:

Thankfully, not all Republicans agree with Mitch McConnell, especially if their past words from 2016 are any guide:

Senator Lindsey Graham

“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.”

Senator Ted Cruz

“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

Senator Cory Gardner

“I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

Senator Marco Rubio

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

Senator Rob Portman

“It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

And a number of senators have weighed in even more recently:

Senator Lisa Murkowski, just yesterday:

“I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. We are 50 some days away from an election.”

Senator Chuck Grassley in May

“You can’t have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents.”

Senator Susan Collins very recently:

“I think that’s too close, I really do,” when asked about appointing a justice in October.

Jeruba's avatar

> especially if their past words from 2016 are any guide

But they’re not. With Trump as their model, their past words from fifteen minutes ago are no guide.

Even those who are sickened by their own hypocrisy, and there must be one or two, will manage to swallow it in the name of expediency.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Duplicity and deceit – - GOP motto !

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I would like to hear what our own fright wing friends say on this matter.

Jeruba's avatar

A New York Times headline today (9/20/20) says:

”‘This Is Why We Wanted This Guy’: Conservatives Push Trump to Fill Court Seat Quickly”

If Trump does fill the seat quickly, then they can afford to vote him out—right?

seawulf575's avatar

It is a funny thing, isn’t it? When Obama wanted to push through Garland, the Dems all said YES! We need to do this! And the Repubs all said NO! Not in an election year! Both sides felt the other side was being partisan. Yet now, both sides have reversed their views 180 degrees. Both sides are being silly.

Jeruba's avatar

“Silly.”

 

 

 

 

canidmajor's avatar

@seawulf575, I am not at all surprised that you compare the timing of Scalia and the resultant replacement, nine (count ‘em 9) months out from an election to 45 days out. <eyeroll>

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Rules only count . . . for the Ruling Aristocracy and they change the rules.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@canidmajor No matter how sleazy the conservatives get wulfie will always bring up something the Dem/libs did to compare it to, but remember he never deflects.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

WHATABOUT ! ! !

seawulf575's avatar

@canidmajor They compare only with the excuses presented and being used now which boils down to “timing”. And since both sides have entirely reversed their stance on this, both sides are being hypocritical. I know…you want people to rant about the Republicans and shout Hate Trump things out. But I’m not really that guy. I will call ‘em as I see ‘em…you should know that by now.

Jeruba's avatar

Yes, @canidmajor, you should know that. By now. What in the world is wrong with you that you might have had some other idea? Did you expect fairness or something?

canidmajor's avatar

And yet, @seawulf575, I didn’t. So I guess “they” don’t “only”.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Zaku “Thankfully, not all Republicans agree with Mitch McConnell, especially if their past words from 2016 are any guide: ”

But their words aren’t anything to go by. I know that Lindsey Graham, at least, has already went back on his.

seawulf575's avatar

@Jeruba Yep…fairness. And since I’m the only one that called both sides on their hypocrisy, I guess I’m the most fair one on this thread. Not that I would expect anyone to be fair about that though.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So Obama trying to get a Judge put in 9months before an election, is the exact same as trying to ram one in 45days before an election?

And it was your beloved rep/cons that went nuts and said not in an election year, but now the ball is in their court and want to shove one in 45days before the election, and all you can say is both sides are being silly?
Ok @seawulf575 I would like your fair thoughts what are you going to think of your comrades if they do successfully get a judge on the bench before the election?

kritiper's avatar

You would think so, but there is no law against it. Maybe they need a law but it would be interesting to see how they went about enacting one…

Zaku's avatar

Perhaps chief justices should be elected by the nation’s judges, not appointed by the POTUS?

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I have already answered that twice now. I will think of them exactly what I think of their excuses now. They are hypocrites. You are pointing out the exact hypocrisy. But then, your precious Dems are doing the exact same thing. The Dems went nuts about how there is no rule of election year nominations and that they should be allowed to do a nomination even though it was election year. So now the Repubs are doing that and they are going nuts about it.

seawulf575's avatar

@Zaku No…many of the judges aren’t elected…they are appointed. I think the process is sound and fair. The problems come when the players involved start playing silly politics.

chyna's avatar

Total dick moves.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther