Here
and
Now

opinions

What happens with the Supreme Court vacancy?

15 Comments
By MARY CLARE JALONICK and LISA MASCARO

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


15 Comments
Login to comment

Trump nominates another judge with impeccable credentials who will make rulings abiding by the Constitution and the Senate confirms him or her.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

There will be no confirmation before the election because there won’t be enough votes for in the Senate. Senators want to keep their seats.

However, after the election is entirely different. A lame duck president could still get his choice confirmed. Even if a Republican held Senate seat is lost - or more - those lame ducks might still be able to vote to confirm.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Trump's going to do this. He knows he is losing in the polls. He knows his base expects him to do this. It will dishearten his base if he wimps out. So this will be another big roll of the dice in the Trump Casino. Whether Cocaine Mitch can deliver is a different story.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In 2016, Justice Ginsberg was asked by the NYT if the "Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland's qualifications."

Ginsberg replied: "That's their job. Theres nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Unless four or more Republican Senators side with Democrats in letting the winner of the American Presidential Election nominate the next Supreme Court Judge, then I expect Trump will nominate someone, hopefully qualified.

Given that Trump is corrupt and unqualified, and that birds of a feather......

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Let's hope he nominates and the Senate approves a compassionate judge that will help overturn Roe v Wade and thus put a stop to the ongoing slaughter of innocent babies in the womb. 50 million so far.

Unborn babies have the human right to enjoy a life like the rest of us.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/reality-check/2015/03/06/million-abortions-claim-checks/24530159/

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Foetuses are not legally considered unborn babies unless they have reached the developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb, by which time it is illegal in the US to perform an abortion, except to save the life of the mother.

The improper and indiscriminate use of the words unborn babies does not lead to a useful conversation of the issue.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Foetuses are not legally considered unborn babies unless they have reached the developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb, by which time it is illegal in the US to perform an abortion, except to save the life of the mother.

The improper and indiscriminate use of the words unborn babies does not lead to a useful conversation of the issue.

spoken like a true parent...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican party do not adhere to the "standard" they set when President Obama nominated a replacement for Justice Scalia upon his death, then they are nothing but lying hypocrites, the worst of the worst. It isn't what the US Constitution says or doesn't say on the matter, because the Constitution is silent on this particular situation. It is a matter of what Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate Republicans said the last time this situation occurred. It has never been for them about the Constitution or even what is right, but rather about the unfettered accumulation of wealth and power for then and their wealthy donors including a narrow slice of what calls themselves Christians but whom have long since abandoned the Gospels of Jesus for the raw accumulation of power. A more disgusting mob would be hard to describe. More corrupt and degenerate than the CCP ever was.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@1glenn

Foetuses are not legally considered unborn babies unless they have reached the developmental stage where they can survive outside the womb, by which time it is illegal in the US to perform an abortion, except to save the life of the mother.

The improper and indiscriminate use of the words unborn babies does not lead to a useful conversation of the issue.

You were a foetus once and are enjoying your life today because of it. Do you think it's fair that you were protected and nourished to birth but condone the denial of that right to others via Roe v Wade?

Do unto others.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems unethical to choose the U. S. Supreme Court nominee by a President who is running for re-election and behind in the Presidential election polls.  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump's going to do this. He knows he is losing in the polls

Heh, Harris-Biden's only up by like 5 or 6 points now and this is before the first debate, if it takes place. He would have to be up by at least 15 points to... oh wait, I keep forgetting about all the fraudulent unsolicited universal mail-in ballots. OK, they might still pull it out.

Given that Trump is corrupt and unqualified

Corrupt? Compared to who? Harris-Biden? Give me a break. Unqualified? Because he doesn't have 47 years of living on taxpayer money while raising taxes on the people paying his salary?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It seems unethical to choose the U. S. Supreme Court nominee by a President who is running for re-election and behind in the Presidential election polls. 

It seems a dereliction of duty for the current president not to nominate a candidate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy ( it's basically been vacant for some time but the elderly and ailing Ginsburg refused to step down ) and the Senate to vote to confirm or not. It's in the Constitution.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You were a foetus once and are enjoying your life today because of it. Do you think it's fair that you were protected and nourished to birth but condone the denial of that right to others via Roe v Wade?

This is so silly.

To answer for 1glenn: yes, I am glad that my mother chose to carry me to term.

As a foetus, no-one has a right to be carried to term, that comes later during the pregnancy.

Roe v Wade didn't take rights from children, it gave them to women.

Overturning Roe v Wade will not stop abortions. It will only stop safe abortions.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Unborn babies have the human right to enjoy a life like the rest of us.

That argument would carry more weight if the people putting it forward were more active in ensuring access to safe, cheap, reliable contraception for all, instead of relying on purity rings and 'just say No' sex education; and if they took it on themselves more to care for and support (by adopting?) the unplanned, unwanted babies, the results of rape and incest, the congenitally infirm, so that all those babies could enjoy their life, instead of spending it in poverty and/or an institution.

If you're not prepared to go that far, don't attack others who also aren't prepared or able to take on the burden.

(I'm not 'pro-abortion'; every abortion represents a failure, and is to be deplored; but sometimes a person is compelled to choose the lesser failure)

As for this obscene rush to fill Ginsberg's Supreme Court seat while it's still warm, it's another smh aspect of US politics.

You're in the middle of an election campaign and a pandemic, the incumbent is dashing around holding maskless meetings of thousands... get the election over with, then give your full attention to the Supreme Court appointment. Have a bit of decorum.

Invalid CSRF

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites