Volks, we know that on the eve of the Election, RBG's death has vastly altered the political landscape. Even if the polls do not yet reflect such, it appears to me it's "Advantage Trump".
We must not lose sight that The Fathers simply said that the President selects Justices to the SCOTUS to serve at their pleasure, a lifetime term. The Senate was there to "advise and consent". That term simply means a review of the nominee's qualifications. That means the Senate (which remember were once not popularly elected) could restrain a president from paying political favors by means of a Seat, much as he can with Cabinet seats and Ambassorships.
In modern times, and maybe even all times, it was the Democrats that first threw the mud. I think back to Robert Bork, an eminently qualified jurist, who the Democrats literally "trashed". As a result, he was not confirmed. Then there was Clarence Thomas - he too got trashed by Dems, but was confirmed.
Now time for "payback" Obama's pick about a year before the '16 Election where the Senate would not hold hearings. Kavanaugh appointment by Trump certainly became a mud slinging circus. Gorsuch fortunately was not.
In short, the matter of Trump having a nominee, and likely confirmed, on the eve of his first term expiring, is simply one more chapter in the game of "payback" - and that is a game the Democrats first played. Remember The Fathers said nothing about "within six months...." they simply said "The President..."
I wish RBG had said on her deathbed "follow The Constitution...."
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
If Ginsburg had wanted to be sure to be followed by someone with the liberal, the constitution is a flexible document mindset, she should have retired early in or about midstream in Obama's second term, or even in his first term. After all, she would have been 80 which would certainly made retirement a rational decision. (Even though 80 does not seem that far away for some of us on here.)
My viewpoint would be that Trump should appoint a youngish woman, and he has two prime candidates, this coming Saturday, and the Senate should vote on her next week and be done with it. There is going to be screaming and rioting anyway, and with a Republican majority in the Senate, confirmation should be a foregone conclusion, so why stretch it out?
After the way Kavanaugh, and Bork and Thomas were treated, the Republican side does not owe the Democrats the time of day and they should act accordingly so, again, why stretch it out.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, you are "on mark", in fact it sort of looks as if Obama tried to fire her:
When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined President Barack Obama for lunch in his private dining room in July 2013, the White House sought to keep the event quiet — the meeting called for discretion.
Mr. Obama had asked his White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to set up the lunch so he could build a closer rapport with the justice, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Treading cautiously, he did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Justice Ginsburg, at 80 the Supreme Court’s oldest member and a two-time cancer patient.
He did, however, raise the looming 2014 midterm elections and how Democrats might lose control of the Senate. Implicit in that conversation was the concern motivating his lunch invitation — the possibility that if the Senate flipped, he would lose a chance to appoint a younger, liberal judge who could hold on to the seat for decades..
Obama sensed the Senate could be lost during '14; RBG was of "get your game on, girl" mindset certain Hillary would win in '16.
Well, we all know how that turned out.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Amy Coney Barrett: I have written my two senators to say get this process over with as quickly as possible. My message to them is the following:
Justice Amy Coney Bryant confirmation: Get this to a vote as soon a practical. There is no point whatsoever in stretching things out. As to all the things the Democrats are trying to bring up: Given their actions on judges, and virtually everything else, we do not owe them the time of day. They are going to create an uproar regardless, so might as well get it started so we can get past it.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, considering that Cindy is considered "safe" this year, and Roger need not worry about those "natty little details" this cycle - until its time for Pence v. Harris, I'm sure your note will be met with empathetic ears.