world

Trump to make court pick by Saturday, before Ginsburg burial

104 Comments
By LISA MASCARO, JONATHAN LEMIRE and ALEXANDRA JAFFE

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.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.

104 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Trump admitted that politics may play a role.

Finally an honest statement from Trump. Unless he was being sarcastic or perhaps had something he calls 'the media' put words in his mouth.

Trump said the dreaded 'P' word, a pejorative for anti-democracy, pro-authoritarians who think something they call 'politics' is a dirty word.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

He has promised to nominate a woman, and his preference is for someone younger who could hold her seat for decades.

The mind boggles. Probably like one of those harpies who does his PR and press briefings.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

It’s not only abortion rights that are at issue here. Issues of money in politics, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, discrimination in the name of religious (i.e. Christian) expression, oversight of the executive, health care, etc will all be decided by the SC.

McConnell and the GOP have done a good job of neutering the legislative branch. As a dwindling minority, the only way for them to keep power is through a strong executive (if he’s Republican) and through the courts.

America probably would have been better off with a parliamentary system, and definitely better without the stupid electoral college.

Sad day in America. And to top it off, Trump and McConnell spit on RBG’s grave by negating her dying wish before she’s even buried.

3 ( +13 / -10 )

Republicans lack the decency to wait until RBG is even buried before they start their march to take our country back to the Stone Age.

Then again, if the senate and presidency are taken by democrats and house retained, they merely need to expand the court to 13 members and appoint 4 young, hardcore liberal justices.

Trump republicans have been destroying the traditions and attacking the institutions that form the bedrock of our democratic republic.

0 ( +14 / -14 )

Republicans are hilarious.

Obama: I would like to name a Justice appointee.

Republicans: The election is 9 months away and this would be considered a threat to democracy with the election so close.

Trump: I would like to name an appointee.

Republicans: the election is under 2 months away and we have more than enough time to go through the process.

9 months is a threat to democracy. Less than 2 months is just enough time.

4 ( +18 / -14 )

Kyle Griffin, producer on MSNBC had a great comment on twitter, that sums up how I am feeling right now.

"Why prioritize a SCOTUS vacancy and not COVID? More than 200,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus. Millions have lost their jobs. Congress hasn't passed a relief bill in months. And the Republican-led Senate is full speed ahead … on a Supreme Court fight?"

Pretty much says it all. The state of things is just so out of whack. Republicans. You do not deserve to be in elected office. Craven. We, THE PEOPLE, will never, ever forget.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

Finally an honest statement from Trump. Unless he was being sarcastic or perhaps had something he calls 'the media' put words in his mouth. 

Trump said the dreaded 'P' word, a pejorative for anti-democracy, pro-authoritarians who think something they call 'politics' is a dirty word.

The late great Justice Scalia said, the reason why politicians say what they say is because they want to get re-elected, so both sides will do what they need to do to get re-elected if not, why be a politician?

-10 ( +7 / -17 )

Please, everyone here knows that if the democrat party were in the same situation as Trump and his party, they wouldn’t hesitate to appoint a new justice. To argue otherwise is silly.

As for appointing a new justice before the election, what difference does it make? Even if Trump and his party lose in November, they will remain in office until January, and will certainly appoint a new justice by then.

As our first black president said in January of 2009, “Elections have consequences,” and two years later this president lost his party the most seats in modern history. Had this not happened, we wouldn’t be where we are now.

-4 ( +11 / -15 )

He's walked that back - not that you can trust anything he says, mind you...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The Avenger - Kyle Griffin, producer on MSNBC had a great comment on twitter, that sums up how I am feeling right now.

"Why prioritize a SCOTUS vacancy and not COVID? More than 200,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus. Millions have lost their jobs. Congress hasn't passed a relief bill in months. And the Republican-led Senate is full speed ahead … on a Supreme Court fight?"

Kyle Griffin, producer on MSNBC, sounds like a moron who is incapable of doing two things at the same time.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

Protesters are mobilizing for a wrenching confirmation fight

For sure, but they can count on a little help from the Donald who can always be relied upon not to say or do the right thing, which means that, by not respecting RBG's last wish, the Republicans will be following their leader over the cliff into the swamp. Even from her grave RBG will have the last laugh as Trump meets his Waterloo as he overreaches to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Time for more popcorn!

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Republicans lack the decency to wait until RBG is even buried before they start their march to take our country back to the Stone Age.

The President can make a nomination regardless of any persons passing, holding hearings is a different story, but the process and the country doesn’t stop when a politician dies and also RGB was an icon for the left, nothing is taken away from them, but she’s not an icon for the right like Scalia was.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

For sure, but they can count on a little help from the Donald who can always be relied upon not to say or do the right thing, which means that, by not respecting RBG's last wish, 

I’m not buying that garbage for a second. I’ve been around enough people that passed away and the majority people don’t talk politics at all in the last moments. I believe the granddaughter did this on her own, why would the woman want to politicize her death? She knew full well in saying that it would make liberals go nuts, it was intentional, it wasn’t sincere or heartfelt. Anyway, according to the Biden rule, Trump is fulfilling and following Joe’s advice, the process moves forward. If Obama were in the exact same situation, an activist liberal would already be appointed to the bench.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

The following is from Mitch McConnell.

Seems fair.

Let's be honest. If the shoe were on the other foot, the political left would be doing the same.

“We’re already hearing incorrect claims that there is not sufficient time to examine and confirm a nominee. We can debunk this myth in about 30 seconds,” the Kentucky lawmaker said, citing a handful of examples.“As of today, there are 43 days until November 3 and 104 days until the end of this Congress. The late, iconic Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed by the Senate 19 days after this body formally received his nomination — 19 days from start to finish,” he began: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, another iconic jurist, was confirmed 33 days after her nomination. For the late-Justice Ginsburg herself, it was just 42 days. Justice Stevens’ entire confirmation process could have been played out twice, twice, between now and November 3 with time to spare. And Justice Ginsburg herself could have been confirmed twice between now and the end of the year with time to spare.“The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination. History and precedent make that perfectly clear,” he continued.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

. . . both sides will do what they need to do to get re-elected if not, why be a politician?

Hey, call me old fashioned. How about this:

So you can create or support legislation and vote for what is in the best interest of the nation and not the interests of a few.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

It’s a spine test for the republicans, one shouldn’t be surprised if they come out spineless!!!

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Scalia was an ass clown who was a strict contectualist, until he wasn’t. He was a state’s rights supporter until he wasn’t. A Catholic who believed in the death penalty. A guy who thought he was higher than the law. He joked in open arguments that nobody should be tortured enough to have bothered to have read the ACA before voting on it.

Roberts told him to shut up.

He wasn’t fit to sniff RBG’s nylons.

And the hypocrisy of Ms. Lindsey and the GOP is shocking, but not surprising.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

Scalia was an ass clown who was a strict contectualist, until he wasn’t. He was a state’s rights supporter until he wasn’t. A Catholic who believed in the death penalty. A guy who thought he was higher than the law. He joked in open arguments that nobody should be tortured enough to have bothered to have read the ACA before voting on it.

Now, now, now, name calling won’t save or stop Trump from filling RBG’s seat, gonna happen and that’s pretty much it, no matter if the Dems or liberals want to slam Scalia. We can equally talk crap about RBG as well and all of her flaws and she had many, but that’s all irrelevant now. Democrats must be out of their mind if they think they can push and threaten this President or even McConnell, these people live and thrive for threats.

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

Um, no we cannot. RBG was consistent to her judicial philosophy. Antonio was not. Bush v Gore. State courts unanimously voted to continue the count. But Hey, screw states rights. Let’s put our finger in the scale.

Antonin wasn’t a fit to sniff RBG’s nylons. She was a lion, he was a midget.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

The GOP's jaw-dropping disrespect of the noble Ginsburg will be the final straw that broke the back of the hypocritical Republicans who will go down in flames with their rascally leader of the lowest morals.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

And the Constitution says nothing about how many members make up SCOTUS. So when (not if) Biden wins AND flips the Senate, he can ram 2-4 wonderful young minds down Mitch’s considerable gullet.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

And other news, Biden says 150 million Americans died in gun crime in the last 10 years and 2 million died from SARS-CoV-2.

Trump can do what he wants.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

bass4funk: "We can equally talk crap about RBG as well and all of her flaws and she had many"

YEah, body's still warm, but let's dance on it, right? Funny to watch the politicians you bend over backwards for being downright hypocrites (to put it mildly) all to lick Trump's backside pretend they cared about her, then in the next sentence not only go against the things they said, on tape, a few years ago, but spit on the woman's memory. I'd say it's beyond disgraceful, but it's just the norm for the GOP. Oh and you guys going to cry when the Dems increase the number of justices and fill them with their picks next year, among other things. McConnel will be gone, but we'll still hear his jowls slapping against the floor as he walks, and people like Jim Jordan and others, when he can stop allowing child molestation in locker rooms to go on for a second, criticize what's happening.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Um, no we cannot. RBG was consistent to her judicial philosophy

As was Scalia as a hardened and passionate constitutionalist.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

YEah, body's still warm, but let's dance on it, right?

You can mention a nominee and not hold hearings, so no one is stomping on her grave and again, Democrats wouldn’t sit and wait either, of course they wouldn’t, so it’s just all wasted breath liberals, this is going to happen after the mourning, deal with it.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Again, no. No he wasn’t. He was demonstrably Hypocritical.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

AOC claims RBG's dying wish was that "her vacancy not be filled until the new president takes office." That assumes Trump will not be re-elected. Biden's only a few points ahead in the polls now, which means he's i serious trouble, and that's before the first debate.

I actually heard her dying wish was Trump 2020.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Trump went so far as to disparage reports that Ginsburg had told her granddaughter it was her wish that a replacement justice not be confirmed until the inauguration of a new president. Providing no evidence, Trump suggested that Democratic political foes were behind the report,

When I first read that shortly after ginsburg passed away I thought it was horse hockey.

Sounds like a typical ploy of the political left to emit emotions just like the headline if this writing.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Yes, please do. I'm grabbing the popcorn waiting for Dems meltdown for the nth times.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

Politics be damned. This issue is about saving lives.......the 600,000+ slaughtered in the womb per year.

I hope the Senate confirms a merciful judge who will help overturn the human rights destroying Roe v Wade.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

The late great Justice Scalia said, the reason why politicians say what they say is because they want to get re-elected, so both sides will do what they need to do to get re-elected if not, why be a politician?

You mean politicising politics? I thought you were against that.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

yep, you guessed it. The vast majority were for her. Hmm, go figure.

What exactly is the conspiracy that you're insinuating here?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

RGB stating that her dying wish was for the next president (that would be Joe Biden) to fill her seat isn’t a conspiracy. It’s documented, witnessed fact.

You conspiracy theorists here are talking out your buttocks. And making about as much sense as well.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Before Ginsburg's burial? That's beyond ugly.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

When I first read that shortly after ginsburg passed away I thought it was horse hockey.

Call it what you want; horse hockey, phoney baloney...you’ll still be wrong.

Ginsburg’s wish is witnessed documented fact. It wasn’t written by “shifty Schiff”. The only ‘horse hockey’ on this one is coming from trump

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Yep, tells me all I need to know in the title that this isnt going to be a fair article.

Not sure since when it takes more than 1 week to bury someone, but this is becoming common when necessary to advance an agenda/keep something in the news cycle.

Trump to make court pick by Saturday, before Ginsburg burial

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Not sure since when it takes more than 1 week to bury someone

Not sure, clearly.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

If Donald was so confident he'd win the election, there should be no reason that he and the Senate Republican Musketeers are trying to jam this in last minute.

Let's be clear, this is the sign of a bunch of nervous politicians trying to assert control of the courts in years to come by breaking their own precedent, which was SHOUTED at the American people exactly 4 years ago with Obama's nomination. That's probably because, should Trump lose, he'll have 3 appointees in the Court to possibly dispute the election. Trump has even indicated he may fight the results if he loses...

The Republican held Senate also removed the requirement of a 60 vote super majority to confirm a Supreme Court Justice in 2017. As citizens, we should be more concerned about either party using the nuclear option to vote their will in the Senate. Sixty votes was meant to ensure a slim majority couldn't ever overturn long-standing laws.

Lastly, you're going to keep hearing the defense "That's because in 2016 the Executive and Legislative branches were split (Obama - D, Senate - R), now Republicans control Executive and the Senate"

Let's remember, in the 2018 Midterms, the American people swapped 41 seats in the House, however, the Senators have 6 year terms. Their lingering control of the Senate does not give them the 60 votes required to appoint a justice as it would have been required before they changed the rule in 2017. They knew exactly what they were doing!

We should all be shaking our heads at the hijacking of these nomination proceedings.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Absolutely despicable. Trump showing once more he has zero compassion, zero integrity, and zero decency - he is just a hollow vessel full of hate.

I rarely use the word evil - but Trump embodies evil - every sin and vice.

If he wins on Nov, the America we've known for 240 years is over - authoritarianism will have won - and we will experience what Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have experienced for decades...

America become Amerika...

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Republicans lack the decency to wait until RBG is even buried before they start their march to take our country back to the Stone Age.

You must have missed this:

Trump: Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an inspiration to all Americans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogf9zYgqac4

Before Ginsburg's burial? That's beyond ugly.

People's burials don't come before the nation's business. Ginsburg understood that.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Absolutely despicable. Trump showing once more he has zero compassion, zero integrity, and zero decency - he is just a hollow vessel full of hate.

What a bunch of malarkey.

I rarely use the word evil - but Trump embodies evil - every sin and vice.

That would be Nancy Pelosi. And that's no malarkey.

Hillary was fine with the Electoral College being as how she was guaranteed the biggest prize of California.

No she wasn't, she has been calling for electoral college reform since the '90s. It's all on public record, but we know your team just makes stuff up without bothering to fact check it.

She wasn't complaining about it in 2016, with the polls saying she was going to win an electoral landslide. It's all on public record.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

Not sure since when it takes more than 1 week to bury someone, but this is becoming common when necessary to advance an agenda/keep something in the news cycle.

Just to help you out a little bit. Scalia’s funeral took a week. It’s usual for the body to lie in repose for public viewing (as Scalia did) or in state (as Ginsburg will).

Imagining there is a political conspiracy behind someone’s last wishes and funeral arrangements is just that; imagination.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

This attempt at drawing an equivalence between the parties on this is stupid. McConnel himself created the “No nomination hearings in an election year” principle that he is racing to destroy, not the Democrats. They never did anything like that. The hypocrisy is 100% on the GOP here.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

All this talk about Ginsburg's alleged ( reports that Ginsburg had told her granddaughter it was her wish that a replacement justice not be confirmed until the inauguration of a new president ) dying wish is ridiculous and insulting to all of us.

Even if true, Ginsburg does not get to pick her replacement from the grave, that's not how it works, we have a Constitution we're supposed to be defending.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

All this talk about Ginsburg's alleged ( reports that Ginsburg had told her granddaughter it was her wish that a replacement justice not be confirmed until the inauguration of a new president ) dying wish is ridiculous and insulting to all of us.

You don’t speak for all of us.

Even if true, Ginsburg does not get to pick her replacement from the grave, that's not how it works, we have a Constitution we're supposed to be defending.

It is true.

She did not ask to pick her replacement, what on earth are you taking about?

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Of course I'm not surprised by Trump's actions. By now, we all know how petty and self-centered he is. He couldn't care less about the American people, as long as he comes out on top. Hypocrisy is the calling card of the GOP. Just like how they moan about RGB's fight for abortion rights and how it kills babies, but conservatives are all fine and dandy when it comes to separating immigrant parents from their children, or allowing guns to proliferate on American's streets to kill more and more Americans. To the GOP, giving the freedom to women to control their bodies is bad, but killing living people is alright. It totally boggles my mind.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

What can't understand about America is how they are all shifting focus on judges when their death toll has started to rise sharply and there are still so many people struggling and/or starving. Do the people not mean anything to the government? Is their focus only on establishing power for themselves?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

It should also be noted that now it seems there may be more deaths on the GOP's hands if they nominate a conservative judge who will take away the ACA and leave millions of people with pre-existing conditions left to die without proper health care. Terrible.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Scalia was an ass clown

The only “ass clown” is Graham DeShazo who posted that.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Politics as usual ... the only difference know is that the Republican Party (GOP) no longer exists ... the Trump Party is filled with former Republicans who are scared to dead to dis- agree with the basket case occupying the White House.

We The People of the United States of America deserve better.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

kurumazaka - Trump lost popular vote by 3 million.

Even the other candidate, the one who lost to Trump, knows that there has never been a "popular vote" for POTUS in the history of the U.S.. democrats and foreigners seem to wallow in their personal political pleasure of congratulating ol' whats-her-name for winning an election that never existed.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Let's be honest, it's ALL political.

In 2016, the Democrats demanded that the President's pick for the court get a hearing. Now, they demand that the President's pick doesn't get a hearing.

In 2016, the Republicans refused to consider the president's choice. Now, they are eager to do so.

The only constant factor is the fact that the GOP controls the Senate. That gives them the power to either have hearings or not. As a famous former president said, "Elections have consequences". In this case, the consequence is that the sitting President and the Senate can work together to push through a court appointment. All the Democrats can do is try to use the issue as a political cudgel to win support in November.

The rest is all hot air, vituperation, and empty virtue signalling.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

so the new narrative is oh my god orangemanbad is announcing the replacement before her funeral? Thats the level that you will stoop to in order to delay this? pretty sad. You do know the Supreme Court will be open for business on October 5th and having 8 justices doesnt allow any business to get done.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Again, no. No he wasn’t. He was demonstrably Hypocritical.

As was RBG. She was straight-up a liberal activist.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

RGB stating that her dying wish was for the next president (that would be Joe Biden) to fill her seat isn’t a conspiracy. It’s documented, witnessed fact.

Doesnt matter, Trump has every constitutional right to fill the vacant seat and it’s going to happen, liberals prepare to shed more tears.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Supreme Court will be open for business on October 5th and having 8 justices doesnt allow any business to get done.

Business will still be able to get done with 8 justices, just like it was done in 2016. There is nothing in the Constitution that says there needs to be 9 justices.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

You can, but if you don’t want a constitutional crisis, you need a tie breaker. So it would better to have 9 justices.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

As was Scalia as a hardened and passionate constitutionalist.

Scalia's public persona is nothing more than an accretion of pure fiction trumped up by Republican hucksters. In reality he was a faux macho milquetoast as hard as casu marzu, as passionate as a hypocritical Pharisee who "legislated from the bench" in a partisan fashion while wrapping himself in G.W. Bush's "goddamn piece of paper" and the flag to boot. History will not absolve him nor judge his legacy kindly. Ginsburg's legacy will constitute the real foundation and rock on which the future USSC will be built.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Scalia's public persona is nothing more than an accretion of pure fiction

Liberals say that because he was a straight constitutionalist that didn’t bend or waver or give in to spoiled liberal activists that are hell bent on turning th country into another failed Marxist State.

https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/the-legacy-justice-anthony-kennedy

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Ironically ( and sadly ) I have a feeling that both justices Ginsberg and Scalia are having a sad chuckle over the state of this conversation. They at least had the integrity and maturity to disagree profoundly and still be professional.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Republicans are hilarious. Obama: I would like to name a Justice appointee. Republicans: The election is 9 months away and this would be considered a threat to democracy with the election so close.

Hypocrisy is the name of the game when an election is near for both parties. That my friend is American history as you approach your first election.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

President Trump made a very clear and decisive decision to nominate a woman.

It will be interesting to see what international spin the left media will put on this.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

You can, but if you don’t want a constitutional crisis, you need a tie breaker. So it would better to have 9 justices.

Then you're in agreement that 9 justices were needed when Obama made his recommendation of Merrick Garland back in 2016. Otherwise, you'd be hypocritical. Actually, Garland was a solid choice as he was deemed more of a moderate and even leaned more to the right. Many Republicans actually liked the pick, but the turtle wasn't going to allow it. Thus, for nine months, there were only 8 justices. So now you're saying that with only 45 days before the election, business can't be done with only 8 justices?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

President Trump made a very clear and decisive decision to nominate a woman. 

It will be interesting to see what international spin the left media will put on this.

The right wingers here called Biden’s clear and decisive decision to nominate a woman for VP PC virtue signaling.

That was their spin.

What do you think?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Amy Klobuchar (today): The people pick the President; the President picks the Justice. That is how it works.

Quite right. The people chose Trump in 2016 for four years - not three years and some pocket change. Trump is the president and hes doing his job.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

RBG was a long lasting jurist. I didn't agree with a number of her decisions but she lived a long time and actually made a number of fine calls (in my opinion). She seemed to be reasonably healthy until the last years - that was a positive point. Now she is gone.

RBG doesn't get to make decisions after she's dead. Nor will any of us. It really doesn't matter what her wishes were - she no longer has wishes. RBG is dead. Trump is the President and he is still alive. His duty is to make the SC nomination and he would be very negligent in his duties if he fails to make the call. Whether the Senate confirms nomination or not is another question. There is plenty is precedent for a same day nomination/confirmation. We shall see.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Even if true, Ginsburg does not get to pick her replacement from the grave, that's not how it works, we have a Constitution we're supposed to be defending.

Correct. She was on the Supreme Court, not the Make a Wish Foundation.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Biden refuses to give a list of who he is considering. Elect me and find out, he says.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Then you're in agreement that 9 justices were needed when Obama made his recommendation of Merrick Garland back in 2016

Yes and I also agree that the Republican controlled Senate didn’t have to have hearings on a justice they felt was a questionable candidate. Republicans had high beliefs with Roberts and look how that turned out. Trump made sure that wouldn’t happen with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and he’ll do the same with his third pick.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Oh?

Business will still be able to get done with 8 justices, just like it was done in 2016. There is nothing in the Constitution that says there needs to be 9 justices.

Someone might want to tell this guy.

Barack Obama

@BarackObama

Sep 15, 2016

We need nine justices for a fully functioning Supreme Court—and editorial boards across the country agree. http://ofa.bo/2c9hILF

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Let's have another impeachment,.  and lots of "protests" at Federal buildings and senators homes ands all.  And invoke the sainted memory of RBG to ensure we don't disrespect her legacy.  And call DT's nominees by a bunch of abusive names, no matter how virtuous they may be.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Barack Obama

@BarackObama

Sep 15, 2016

We need nine justices for a fully functioning Supreme Court—and editorial boards across the country agree. http://ofa.bo/2c9hILF

And

Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the president filling SCOTUS seats in election years, 2016: "That's their job. There's nothing in the constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year. Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees"

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Let's have another impeachment,. and lots of "protests" at Federal buildings and senators homes ands all

Yeah, that sounds goo....wait...aren’t liberals doing that already for the last 4 years?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The Dems promised WWIII if Trump won and instead we got dead terrorists and middle eastern peace deals!

Trump is a great president. I’ll trust him to follow the Constitution and appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

@ Kaerimashita

That's the plan! Trump can't sully RGB's sainthood this way by nominating her replacement before she is properly funeralized. Action would already be underway if the socialist money men hadn't been caught off guard.

Get some pallets of bricks delivered. Get some cash into the hands of the organizers and thugs. Get transportation and gasoline for Molotovs. So much to organize!

Don't worry though, Nanny P's got a couple of impeachments in her purse ready to go. That will delay things...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Trump is a great president. I’ll trust him to follow the Constitution and appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

Lincoln keeps forgetting about this selectively....

https://youtu.be/U8g-uLdr0vE

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

So the Republicans' position is the same as it was in 2016, then -- oops!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Nice reasoned argument there Stormcrow. Good to see you are able to string together your thoughts in a coherent and logical manner.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Ram the nominee through. Right in the faces.

After the Kavenaugh debacle, American conservatives should no longer care about what the left think.

Democrats, once again, shoot themselves in the foot.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Also Lindsey Graham:

According to Lindsey Graham, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee "We've got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg's replacement before the election. That's what's coming."

FILL. THE. SEAT.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I’m just shocked Trump supporters aren’t outraged that he’s succumbed to PC virtue signaling by saying he’d choose a woman for this position. Biden got slammed here by saying his VP pick would be a woman.

It must be an oversight on their part.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

so the new narrative is oh my god orangemanbad is announcing the replacement before her funeral? Thats the level that you will stoop to in order to delay this? 

What happened to your ‘narrative’ that delaying funerals was becoming a “common” tactic and that a 1 week delay between death and funeral was unusual?

Who are all these other people whose funerals were delayed to “advance and agenda”?

Just reverting back to “but Obama...”?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Black woman. you left out the voter pandering part. Same as he already said his Supreme Court pick would be a Black woman. another pander, for votes.

Do you feel Trump should NOT pick a woman? Seems almost everyone agrees that is the right thing to do to honor the legacy of RBG. Its not pandering for votes, like Biden did.

Biden got slammed here by saying his VP pick would be a woman.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Oh?

Business will still be able to get done with 8 justices, just like it was done in 2016. There is nothing in the Constitution that says there needs to be 9 justices.

Someone might want to tell this guy.

And someone might want to remind this guy:

“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."

Lindsey Graham, 2016

And this guy:

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

Mitch McConell, Feb. 2016

Oh my!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Biden got slammed here by saying his VP pick would be a woman.

And a black woman, so basically Biden wants to nominate someone of color, doesn’t want to show a list of justices he would nominate, so for him if he can throw a bone to his liberal base, so be it.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

consider them reminded. Doesnt change the fact that we need 9 justices to get business done, not 8.

And someone might want to remind this guy:

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

What's amazing is that it'll take Trump only a matter of days to come up with a nomination to replace Ginsburg, but it has taken over three years, with no end in sight for Trump to come up with some semblance of a proper health care package that he promised would replace the ACA. Meanwhile, with millions of Americans who benefit from it, support for the ACA grows. It will be no mystery who these millions will be voting for, come November. Also, since Biden has come out that he will keep the ACA and further bolster it by reducing out of pocket costs for those who do not have pre-existing conditions; thus appealing to a wider range of people needing proper health care.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

“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."

Biden also said...

https://youtu.be/qPAzVNmOYgM

So what’s your point?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

If the roles were reversed, the Democrats would fill that SCOTUS seat too. It's just good politics, can't blame either side for doing something that benefits them and isn't illegal or even really unethical.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

My pick to undo the damage to America caused by Ginsburg and her acolytes on the Supreme Court was interviewed at the White House today. So hoping that Amy Coney Barrett is chosen. She would be the perfect antidote to the extreme Left that is the cause of so much mayhem in America today.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

It will be very interesting to see who Trump selects, to say the least. If he chooses someone in the middle, he may bolster his chances at re-election and help the GOP keep control of the Senate. On the other hand, if he selects someone from the far-right of the political spectrum, he will lose all swing voters and end up losing the election and quite possibly the Senate. Tough choices to make ...

With the election so close, voters will remember ... but I guess he has Russian interference to fall back on to help him.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I have yet to find the ‘dying wish’ clause in the constitution.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Time to stack the courts.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The right wingers here called Biden’s clear and decisive decision to nominate a woman for VP PC virtue signaling.

Guess you missed the fact that Biden was pressured by many in his own party to pick a Black woman for VP candidate.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

At least some politicians have the guts to say this.

Democrats are “saying they’ll burn down the Constitution,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., claimed on Monday following some on the left vowing to pack the Supreme Court if elected.

“They lost the election in 2016, they lost the White House," Hawley said on "Fox & Friends." "So, listen, if they win back those things, they’ll be able to confirm and nominate their own justices in the future, but, to say because they lost elections that now that they will break all of our Constitutional norms and standards, they’ll pack courts, they’ll conduct impeachment hearings to stop a president from carrying forward his Constitutionally authorized privileges and responsibilities. That’s insane.”

3 ( +9 / -6 )

It’s weird how Trump supporters who claim to be wildly successful businesspeople have time to clog up these threads all day, every day. 

Care list all these Trump supporters who “claim to be wildly successful businesspeople” on this site?

0 ( +7 / -7 )

So hoping that Amy Coney Barrett is chosen. She would be the perfect antidote to the extreme Left that is the cause of so much mayhem in America today.

Indeed. She will be a great Justice if President Trump chooses her.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

You were going to abolish the filibuster anyway.

Which may very well guarantee eternal power which is what the political left craves.

“Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., tweeted.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Is it possible to kick John Roberts to the curb and install Amy Coney Barrett as Chief Justice? Just wishing

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Remember when the political left and biden said this?

The RNC takes us on a trip down Memory Lane to 2016, when Senate Democrats along with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi lectured America on the necessity — nay, the constitutional mandate — to immediately fill Supreme Court vacancies.

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/09/21/new-rnc-ad-democrats-endorsing-scotus-appointment-2016/

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Joe Biden told a Milwaukee television station on Monday that voters do not deserve to know whom he would appoint to the Supreme Court.

Wow. Indecisiveness.

Biden also said his 1st choice is to select an African-American woman, but outlined his reasoning for not releasing a list of nominees

And racism.

And yet, some people still think biden is a good choice.

Wow.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

If Trump really does succeed in selecting 3 right-wing justices to the USSC, his wretched legacy will be political herpes for the body politic of America.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

On the one hand, Trump is such an awful president in regard to his pandering Putin, N.Korea's Un and other dictators, his careless handling of the corona virus pandemic, trillion$ in tax cuts for the top 1%, etc. , but when it comes to judges he's batting a thousand and these judges are going to have powerful and dreadful effects long after Trump is gone. As for the Republican Senate, Trump has done a masterful job at leading them around by the nose and has proven that they have no spine whatsoever.

If Trump is re-elected, then what kind of country has the U.S. become?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

We can at least agree that there is political expediency on both sides. We could all happily cherry-pick quotes and point fingers and feel warm and fuzzy inside at trashing the other side. But the more important point is the legal one. Does Pres. Trump have the legal authority to nominate a justice? Is the Senate legally required to wait until the next election? That's what it all boils down to.

Not to mention, if you want to be cravenly political, the best thing for the Dems to do might just be to let Trump have his way. It could be a great way to energize the left in a way that the Biden candidacy doesn't. Rage at "stealing" another Supreme could push old Joe over the finish line.

OTOH, it may be good for the GOP if there are enough Senators that balk at holding hearings until after the election. Again, this would rouse their base and get them to the polls in order to ensure that "their" President gets to choose the next Justice.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites