world

McConnell vows quick vote on next justice; Biden says wait

35 Comments
By JONATHAN LEMIRE 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.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.

35 Comments

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

Oh really? Right before the election?

I heard somewhere that that's not kosher... hmm...

8 ( +13 / -5 )

If the Democrats were in the same opposite position

?

8 ( +10 / -2 )

2016 Mitch quote:

 “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.”

2020 Proposed Mitch quote:

”Errr... Umm... I was just being sarcastic... I was talking about vacancies at hotels.... or something.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Democrats need to stop crying and play the game smarter, next time.

They should adopt the same hypocrisy that plagues the GOP.

The GOP uses every trick in the book, to include burning down the constitution, to stay in power. They have to otherwise they would lose it all.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

“We need to focus on voting for Joe Biden. I don't care if you like him or not,” Ocasio-Cortez told her supporters.

Irrelevant to this article.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Thanks for the down-vote, but facts are facts:

Shortly before she died, Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter, Clara Spera. “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed,” she wrote.

And here the source:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-died-supreme-court-says-234042604.html

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Trump fans displaying their rank hypocrisy by agreeing with what the dems were saying in 2016 when McConnell was blocking Obama’s nomination. The irony clearly escapes them.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

P Smith, you have to consider things from a different perspective.

Is McConnell confirming a justice in an election year in 2020, when in 2016 he said that justices should not be confirmed in an election year consistent with dedication to proper governance? No.

BUT, is appointing as many right wing justices as possible regardless of the year consistent with the GOP goal of destroying rights for women, workers and minorities? Yes.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

it will slow the Democrats down to get a lot of their wild radical agenda through.

You're calling women's rights a wild agenda? Wow, even for a conservative, that's pretty low. Conservatives keep pushing for a more pay for men and more men in higher positions at work, while liberals like Justice Ginsburg pushed legislation for equal pay and equal rights for women.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Maybe Trump should appoint an "acting" Supreme Court Justice - after all, that's what he's done with most of his cabinet positions as he lacks the courage to go through proper channels.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

What’s it like to have zero integrity?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

There are already too many extreme right wing supremes. The successor to the deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg must be a person worthy of her integrity to build on her "liberal" legacy for the sake of American "justice". Trump aided and abetted by McConnell & Co. must be stopped if they try to pack the court with another partisan ideologue. If the impeached Trump and his enablers don't go away "like a miracle" in November then he will have earned the right to appoint a replacement, but either way the Dems must oppose any Republican attempt to ram through another judge of the Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh ilk.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Trump said in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. “Why not? I mean, they would. The Democrats would if they were in this position.

Trump is right, they absolutely would.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Didn't I read somewhere else that Ginsburg asked the next Supreme Court Justice should be decided after the "new president" has been elected? But of course Trump and his gang wouldn't even respect one of the last requests a person makes.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

It's interesting that she died at Jewish New Year. The reaction at the synagogues, as reported in many stateside newspapers, has been very emotional. Americans, and not only Jewish-Americans, will remember her for a long time.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Batten the hatches... all political hell will break loose now, since both sides know the stakes for this are very high.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

just doing our job like Schumer demanded in 2016 in his tweet.

Whats it like to only have 3 justices on the Supreme Court and lose not one, but TWO elections to.....Donald Trump of all people? make you feel kinda chippy, doesnt it?

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

“The President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” There are no other qualifiers in the Constitution.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

This is a problem the democrats and Ms Ginsburg could have easily avoided if only she had retired in Obama’s second term. 

Yes.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

“We need to focus on voting for Joe Biden. I don't care if you like him or not,” Ocasio-Cortez told her supporters.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

This is a problem the democrats and Ms Ginsburg could have easily avoided if only she had retired in Obama’s second term. A hand picked replacement could have been lined up. Ms Ginsburg was already in her 80’s. I am a huge fan of her work and life’s achievements but this mistake is a major error. Does anyone really expect Trump to do the “right thing” and wait until after the election? LOL

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Joe Biden 2016-

So let me set the record straight, as they say.. I said — and I quote — “If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate, or moderates his selections… then his nominees may enjoy my support, as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter.” End of quote.

I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with the confirmation process, as chairman — even a few months before a presidential election — if the nominee were chosen with the Advice, and not merely the Consent, of the Senate — just as the Constitution requires.

The President will in fact "consult and cooperate" with the Senate. Of which there is a Republican majority.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

The left is not going to be happy, but history is on the right's side.

"McConnell cited historical precedence for his decision.

Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year,” McConnell wrote.

Referring to his refusal to sit former President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, McConnell noted that the Republican Senate was elected to the majority to check Obama’s power at the end of his second term.

“We kept our promise,” McConnell said. “By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.”"

As Obama was a lame duck, and it was very highly unlikely that the incumbent party was likely to win, it was absolutely the proper choice for the opposition Senate leader to block the vote. Precedent prevailed and will prevail again. THAT'S what's fair.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

As Obama was a lame duck, and it was very highly unlikely that the incumbent party was likely to win, it was absolutely the proper choice for the opposition Senate leader to block the vote. Precedent prevailed and will prevail again. THAT'S what's fair.

Exactly. And as the election result, as the Dems themselves have so vociferously declared repeatedly, is going to be challenged by them it would be irresponsible not to have a full bench on the supreme court in place to deal with it.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

"This is a problem the democrats and Ms Ginsburg could have easily avoided if only she had retired in Obama’s second term."



This is absolutely true. The reason is likely that she did not want the choice to be Obama's and believed Hillary would win. Thank God for TRUMP!

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

You're calling women's rights a wild agenda?

absolutely not, that won’t change, so I don’t know what liberals are so worried about, but at least with the conservative court they can take a principal stance on issues for example children that don’t have a say and they can be their voice, because no one is looking out for them, and I don’t hear liberals talking about that.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

President Trump needs to announce his replacement pick today and McConnell start the confirmation Monday. RBG has moved on and so should America,

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Chuck Schumer @SenSchumer

Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices in presidential election years. #DoYourJob

11:14 AM · Feb 23, 2016·Twitter Web Client

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

so the Dems nominated someone in the election year, didnt they? so will Repubs, will nominate someone.

Not a problem. if Collins blocks it- no one votes for her on Nov 3 and she is done. She loves power too much to get voted out over this.

Romney and Murkowski already being voted out the next time they run anyway, so they can block it without consequences.

Dont worry liberals if you win the Senate again someday you can totally cheat and pack the court to 20 justices and eliminate the filibuster. IF you ever win.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

There have been three justices confirmed in less time than we have until election day.

More than enough time to get this done,

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

Trump and the Republican led Senate and had every right to not call upon the previous presidents nominee, especially one that is politically shaky like chief justice Roberts, they learned deeply from that mistake and they’re not going to make that mistake again, they didn’t do it with the last two newer justices and they won’t do it with this third one.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Like Obama said elections have consequences.

Democrats need to stop crying and play the game smarter, next time.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Mitch can get to 51 votes with Pence otherwise he wouldn’t call publicly for a nominee. It's Amy Comey Barrett time.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

With all this wrangling going on, the president United States has every right to fill that vacancy, he’s going to do it and whether he wins or not will have ramifications for the next 40 years at least, then you really don’t have to worry about justice chief Roberts anymore, Because if the Republicans lose everything hypothetically, then it still won’t matter if the Democrats are in charge, because they’re going to go through hurdles just trying to get through the Supreme Court to pass any wild and wacky radical legislation through and in the lower courts Mitch has already pack them with over 300 judges and still confirming a couple hundred more, either way at least it will slow the Democrats down to get a lot of their wild radical agenda through.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Dont worry liberals if you win the Senate again someday you can totally cheat and pack the court to 20 justices and eliminate the filibuster. IF you ever win

I doubt that they’ll win, but it doesn’t mean they won’t try their hardest.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites