USA Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court

[Josiah]

The New York Times interviewed esteemed Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016. She was asked about her legal counsel concerning the replacement of Supreme Court Judge Scalia who had died. Some were suggesting all be postponed until after the election and a new president was in place. She was asked, "Should the president and senate proceed with the replacement, even in this election year?"

Here was her legal advice, as a constitutional expert and Supreme Court judge: "It's their job! There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president ceases to be the president in his last year."

I agree with the esteemed, late Ruth Bider Ginsburg. And I think that those who are so filled with praise for her should do as she directed and advised. This not only honors the Constitution but also the late Ruth Bider Ginsburg.




.

 

[Lamb]

Having an even number on the court would not benefit the county when we know that the election results will be questioned no matter who wins.

 

[tango]

My concern with RBG being replaced this close to the election isn't so much about whether it should happen in isolation but how it compares and contrasts with 2016.

When the Senate Republicans refused to consider Obama's nomination because the election was so close it smacks of a horrendous double standard to then insist that Trump's nomination can and should be pushed through when the election is even closer. Had the Senate Republicans even considered Merrick Garland in 2016 it would be consistent to consider Trump's nomination now. As things are it seems hugely inconsistent.

Even as one whose leanings are broadly Republican I'm feeling uneasy about this one. It would seem to strengthen the hand of a potential President Biden if he decided to add a couple more justices to SCOTUS.

All that said, I can't help agree that having an even number of justices going into an election that we all know is going to be contested every which way it's possible to contest it isn't a good thing. Whether allowing the incumbent seeking re-election to nominate an individual who could have the deciding vote in those contests is debatable.

 

[JRT]

My concern with RBG being replaced this close to the election isn't so much about whether it should happen in isolation but how it compares and contrasts with 2016.

When the Senate Republicans refused to consider Obama's nomination because the election was so close it smacks of a horrendous double standard to then insist that Trump's nomination can and should be pushed through when the election is even closer. Had the Senate Republicans even considered Merrick Garland in 2016 it would be consistent to consider Trump's nomination now. As things are it seems hugely inconsistent.

Even as one whose leanings are broadly Republican I'm feeling uneasy about this one. It would seem to strengthen the hand of a potential President Biden if he decided to add a couple more justices to SCOTUS.

All that said, I can't help agree that having an even number of justices going into an election that we all know is going to be contested every which way it's possible to contest it isn't a good thing. Whether allowing the incumbent seeking re-election to nominate an individual who could have the deciding vote in those contests is debatable.

I agree. The Republicans set a standard in 2016 and if they reverse themselves now that speaks to their immense hypocrisy.

 

[tango]

I agree. The Republicans set a standard in 2016 and if they reverse themselves now that speaks to their immense hypocrisy.

It would be a hideous double standard but I really wouldn't talk of hypocrisy as if it were something that only affected the Republicans.

 

[Josiah]

Politicians being hypocritical is something brand new?

Look, 2016 was the exception.... and because the Senate went along with it, because the Senate AGREED to the delay. It could decided to do that again this time but it didn't need to that in 2016 and it need not do so in 2020. The president and senate could do as the Constitution directs and as Ruth Bader Ginsburg directly counseled as a Supreme Court Judge.

We have the advise of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg... being upheld by Democrats as THE greatest jurist and constitutional expert ever. And she said holding up a replacement until after the next presidental election should NOT happen.... the president and senate should "do their job." As they did (prior to 2016 and as she publicly and directly advised them to do in 2016).




.

 

[JRT]

Politicians being hypocritical is something brand new?

Look, 2016 was the exception.... and because the Senate went along with it, because the Senate AGREED to the delay. It could decided to do that again this time but it didn't need to that in 2016 and it need not do so in 2020. The president and senate could do as the Constitution directs and as Ruth Bader Ginsburg directly counseled as a Supreme Court Judge.

We have the advise of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg... being upheld by Democrats as THE greatest jurist and constitutional expert ever. And she said holding up a replacement until after the next presidental election should NOT happen.... the president and senate should "do their job." As they did (prior to 2016 and as she publicly and directly advised them to do in 2016).

Which brings to mind the question concerning the SCOTUS. In 2016 could it have intervened to force the Senate to do their job?

 

[tango]

Politicians being hypocritical is something brand new?

Look, 2016 was the exception.... and because the Senate went along with it, because the Senate AGREED to the delay. It could decided to do that again this time but it didn't need to that in 2016 and it need not do so in 2020. The president and senate could do as the Constitution directs and as Ruth Bader Ginsburg directly counseled as a Supreme Court Judge.

We have the advise of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg... being upheld by Democrats as THE greatest jurist and constitutional expert ever. And she said holding up a replacement until after the next presidental election should NOT happen.... the president and senate should "do their job." As they did (prior to 2016 and as she publicly and directly advised them to do in 2016).




.

Interestingly the (Republican controlled) Senate didn't want to discuss the Democrat-nominated Merrick Garland in 2016 because the election was so close in the future but is now wanting to approve a Republican-nominated justice despite the elections being even closer in the future.

On the flip side Ruth Bader Ginsburg apparently said in 2016 that the Senate should process a new justice to join SCOTUS but then apparently said in 2020 shortly before her death that she hoped it wouldn't happen until after the election.

Hmmm.... I wonder if either side is more concerned about politics than anything else.

On a related note it raises the issue of why Supreme Court justices should have a lifetime tenure. As one article I read put it, it seems odd to find that the balance of the Supreme Court could change based on the fact that RBG happened to die during the last months of Trump's term in office and, had she lived a few months longer, she could potentially have been replaced by a Biden-nominated justice with the balance of power in SCOTUS being different until the next justice died or retired.

 

[Josiah]

Which brings to mind the question concerning the SCOTUS. In 2016 could it have intervened to force the Senate to do their job?

No.

In 2016, the Supreme Court did NOT intervene. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as an esteemed Supreme Court Judge, TRIED to intervene to encourage the nomination and replacement to move forward, insisting "it's their job." But this was her personal counsel, not that of the Court. But the Senate decided it would not act before the election, which is within it's authority.

Here we are with another vacancy. IMO, we should do as Ruth Bader Gingsberg advised. The Senate COULD do as it did in 2016 and reject the counsel of Ruth Bader Gingsberg but I hope they don't.




.

 

[psalms 91]

I say vote them all out Repunlican and Democrat, they are terrible. Being hypocritical is only the beginning, they cant get along and dont know what the word compromise means, they are worrthless, I would go so far as to say dangerous since what they dont do affects all of us/

 

[Lamb]

I say vote them all out Repunlican and Democrat, they are terrible. Being hypocritical is only the beginning, they cant get along and dont know what the word compromise means, they are worrthless, I would go so far as to say dangerous since what they dont do affects all of us/

I would love some fresh parties because the 2 we have now aren't really going to help our country. I would like to see 5 parties in total.

 

[tango]

I would love some fresh parties because the 2 we have now aren't really going to help our country. I would like to see 5 parties in total.

The trouble with having too many parties is that you can have too many kingmakers. The two we have now seem to have totally lost the plot, it seems both of them are more interested in posturing and finger-pointing than in doing anything useful.

 

[NewCreation435]

I think some are noting the hypocrisy in those who are Republicans who wish to rush through a nomination now when Obama was in office and he nominated someone in his last year the Republicans wouldn't even consider the nomination. I believe Obama actually had more time before the election as well.

 

[Josiah]

I think some are noting the hypocrisy in those who are Republicans who wish to rush through a nomination now when Obama was in office and he nominated someone in his last year the Republicans wouldn't even consider the nomination. I believe Obama actually had more time before the election as well.

The Senate can take up a nomination.... or not. It has that authority in the Constitution. It has ALWAYS had that authority and as I understand it, exercises it every year and has for over 200 years (although not typically with SUPREME COURT nominees). In 2016, against the bold and public advise of Ruth Bader Gingsberg, the Senate chose to not take up the nomination until after the presidental election when we would have a new president (no matter who won); this was their choice (although repudiated by Ruth Bader Gingsberg).


It is STILL their choice. The Senate could take up the Supreme Court nomination immediately - as it has done in EVERY SINGLE CASE SINCE 1776 except one - or it could choose to not do so until sometime later. I am certain someone will propose not doing so, and we'll see what the Senate chooses to do: as it as done in every case (but one) since 1776 and as Ruth Bader Gingsberg so powerfully, publicly and boldly advised ... or do as the Senate in 2016 chose to do.



- Josiah



.

 

[tango]

I think some are noting the hypocrisy in those who are Republicans who wish to rush through a nomination now when Obama was in office and he nominated someone in his last year the Republicans wouldn't even consider the nomination. I believe Obama actually had more time before the election as well.

If RBG truly said two things attributed to her then she is no different. If she said that the Senate should process Obama's nomination in 2016 but then didn't want to be replaced until after the election that's no less of a double standard.

 

[tango]

Curiously, given Trump has now nominated a female judge to fill RBG's vacant seat I wonder if the Democrats will repeat their line from the 2016 presidential election and accept that the only reason not to approve a woman to fill the spot on SCOTUS is sexism. Surely they can't argue that disagreeing with HRC's stances is sexist but disagreeing with ACB's stances is a nuanced consideration, can they? Can they? Would they truly show such rank hypocrisy?

 

[Josiah]

I watched TV as some press person introduced the hearings for today.

The comment was (and I'm trying to verbatim quote him here): "No one disputes that this nominee is highly qualified and normally would be confirmed with little fanfare, but this is the Democrat's chance to turn this into a hearing on Donald Trump; he will be the subject of these hearings."
It's profoundly rare to hear any press person be so honest.



.

 

[tango]

It would be interesting to see the Republicans play the exact same card the Democrats played in 2016 and accuse anyone opposing ACB of sexism. After all there's little dispute she is very highly qualified and balanced in her outlook, so what reason besides sexism could anyone have if they oppose a highly qualified female candidate?

 

[Forgiven1]

As a conservative, I did not agree with the stance in 2016. OTOH, I did like the outcome. But then, Trump would have still had 2 to replace.