world

Trump urges Senate to vote without delay on his high court pick

45 Comments
By JONATHAN LEMIRE, LISA MASCARO and STEVE PEOPLES

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.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


45 Comments

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

If Trump can get his woman on the court it won’t matter if he loses the election or not. He will stop the Leftist agenda no matter what anti Constitutional laws the radical Leftists come up with. He will also reverse horrible laws such as legalized partial birth infanticide and affirmative action racism. The Dems are going to go back into rioting mode to get four Republicans to vote against her. The Republicans have a penalty shot to win the World Cup. Will they bang the ball off the frame?

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

@Wolfpack, that's a lot of hyperbole. And the analogy to World Cup football is pathetic.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

A lot like killing your parents and begging the court to consider that you're an orphan.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

He just doesn't follow the rules or etiquette (for those who don't know this word, its similar to manners!).

I said it before (and got my down-votes): how can someone deny the last will (wish) of someone?

But that's Donald: my way or no way!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

McConnell pledged to Trump in a phone call Friday night to bring the choice to a vote.

I wonder why McConnell's 'principles' have changed so dramatically since 2016.

McConnell: Blocking Supreme Court Nomination 'About A Principle, Not A Person'

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed again Wednesday to block President Obama's Supreme Court nomination, saying the American people should have a "voice" in the process.

https://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/470664561/mcconnell-blocking-supreme-court-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Though in reality there is not a world of difference between neo-liberal Republicans and Democrats; Democrats up until now usually made a nod toward things like precedent, equality under the law and fairness, if sometimes grudgingly.

It is clear all those things are out the door now and Trump and the Republicans are aiming for an existential fight.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@PTownsend - Your post is spot on. The answer? McConnell is a politician.

The U.S. system to appoint judges is broken and outdated. This is another example of why. The appointments for life also need to be re-visited.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Judge Bader Ginsburg. I did not always agree with her but she showed respect for the Court and served honorably. On the other hand, in spite of the amount of respect for her I have, she should not have served so long.

The Court has been a political tool for decades now and this was not the original intent of having such a court.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Supreme court justices should be elected by the people like the State judges. Otherwise partisanship becomes inevitable.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I wonder why McConnell's 'principles' have changed so dramatically since 2016.

Seems like The Democrats did.

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

-Chuck Schumer 2/22/2016

Amazing that liberals think people have short memories.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I wonder why McConnell's 'principles' have changed so dramatically since 2016.

What are you talking about? McConnell said that in the last year of a lame duck presidents’ term at a time when the opposing party controls the Senate, the people should decide which president should make the nomination. That isn’t the situation today.

Supreme court justices should be elected by the people like the State judges. Otherwise partisanship becomes inevitable.

That makes no sense.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Send the Turtle and Miss Lindsey back to 'Russia or wherever they come from'.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

If only Ms Ginsburg had retired in Obama’s second term this problem would not have occurred. At that time she was in her 80’s and not in the best of health. As a democrat supporter I can’t help looking at US politics and thinking that the democrats are their own worst enemies. Don’t blame Trump for this..... You gave him the opportunity!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Here's a tweet from Chucky Schumer in Feb. 2016:

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

DoYourJob"

Oops.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Hillary Clinton, 2016:

"Holding a Supreme Court seat open dishonors our Constitution. The senate has a Constitutional responsibility to fill the seat."

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The Dems can get upset all they want, Trump and McConnell will fill that seat and the Dems will just have to deal with it. Like Obama once said: “elections have consequences.”

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yep, fill that seat. We all know Dems would have done the same in 2016, they just didnt have the Senate.

Republicans have the White House and the Senate, so get to work.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Pandering yet again. What other roles will be restricted to only Black women?

Isnt it sexist/racist to select people for jobs based only on color of skin and gender?

Biden has promised to nominate a Black woman to the high court if given the chance.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Amazing that liberals think people have short memories.

The other way round.

In Obama's last year, when there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the Republicans dreamed up a "rule", previously unknown, unheard of, and certainly unmentioned by Republicans, that a president should not be allowed to make the selection in an election year. He stated it like this: "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy."

The US is currently just six weeks away from an election in which the incumbent could be slung out by the electorate, in which Democrats may take the Senate. The President is trailing in the polls, as he has been throughout the race.

So the short memories are on the Republican side, where their rule, which they concocted from nothing and then imposed on the nation, is now to be abandoned immediately before an election. It lasted just four years, one change of president in their favour, and has been dumped the first time an opportunity to keep to it.

And in your head, that demonstration of mendacious amnesia can be presented as: it's everyone else who has short memories.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

How will the Republican Senate's naked power grab by packing the Supreme Court eventually play out? Follow the money? Re-election for vulnerable republicans in jeopardy will surely 'trump' their non-existent 'principles'. Trump's supreme court swansong may yet scare off some and fall on deaf ears with the 'disloyal' when it hits the wall of naked self-interest and threatens their cozy future career prospects.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The hypocrisy of the Trump Republicans. Bunch of charlatans.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@wipeout: In Obama's last year, when there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the Republicans dreamed up a "rule", previously unknown, unheard of, and certainly unmentioned by Republicans

The Biden Rule. How soon we forget.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Just count the Repub hypocrites.....

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa: “Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina: “As I have repeatedly stated, the election cycle is well underway, and the precedent of the Senate is not to confirm a nominee at this stage in the process. I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president.” 

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina: “It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas: “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida: “I don’t think we should be moving forward with a nominee in the last year of this president’s term. I would say that even if it was a Republican president.”

Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado: “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah: “We think that the American people need a chance to weigh in on this issue, on who will fill that seat. They’ll have that chance this November, and they ought to have that chance.” 

Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania: “With the U.S. Supreme Court’s balance at stake, and with the presidential election fewer than eight months away, it is wise to give the American people a more direct voice in the selection and confirmation of the next justice.”

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota: “Since the next presidential election is already underway, the next president should make this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas: “President Barack Obama has exercised his authority to nominate someone to fill the vacancy, but the Senate has an equal authority to determine whether to proceed with that nomination. I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next president.”

A parade of shame...what a bunch of spineless, feckless hypocrites....

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Biden Rule. How soon we forget.

The Biden rule, based on what he said in 2016 was the opposite: that a President had a constitutional duty to nominate a candidate, even before the election. How soon you forget.

And what the Republicans argued then was that it must wait until after the election. As they prevailed, they have set the precedent and the new rule has been sold to the American people, and directly in their name. To requote my earlier McConnell quote: "Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy".

It is up to the Republicans to show consistency in this and push it back to after the election. The so-called Biden rule was ignored in 2016, and that is the new reality that was forced on the country by the Republicans.

Are you saying you want to introduce the Biden rule now?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In the US system, the president gets to nominate a justice, and the Senate gets to decide whether to accept that nomination, to reject that nomination, or, if it likes, to completely ignore that nomination. This was true in 2016, and it is true now. The game requires both players. If they are both willing, the vacancy is filled. If one is not willing, the vacancy remains. And that, ultimately, is all there is to it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The fun thing that is being forgotten....

The next President will also be Donald J. Trump.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

If any Repubs vote against this, they will be voted out.

They were not sent there to vote their own personal opinion. They were sent there as Republicans to represent the Republicans who voted them into office instead of a Democrat.

If Collins votes against this, just vote her out as we dont need Republicans who vote Democrat. Would be better to just have a Democrat take over. Does Collins really think it helps her reelection to vote against this? Will a bunch of Dems suddenly vote for her instead? no and no.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

*And what the Republicans argued then was that it must wait until after the election. As they prevailed, they have set the precedent and the new rule has been sold to the American people, and directly in their name. To requote my earlier McConnell quote: "Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy".*

The circumstances were completely different in 2016 - a lame duck president whose term was about to expire and whose party was unlikely to win the next presidential election.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I can see it all being played out in this way: Trump will push his nomination through and it will get confirmed, but by the smallest of margins due to a few GOP defections. Of course, that will fracture the GOP and galvanize the Democrats. It will also leave a nasty stain in the eyes of Americans since they will all know that Trump's decision to rush things through was due to spite and his ego, rather than because of prudence and any care for due process. Haste makes waste and people will remember the hasty decisions made about such an important matter. Then again, for the GOP and Trump, losing the presidency is probably a small price to pay for stacking the Supreme Court.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

A parade of shame...what a bunch of spineless, feckless hypocrites...

Hmmm...when liberals talk about shame and hypocrisy it’s rather hilarious, we don’t even have time to go into all of the hypocrisy‘s of every Democrat and especially the House Democrats over the last 4 years.

Anyhow, Democrats Will just have to swallow and deal with conservative conservative court, if Republicans worried about Democrats feelings and hypocrisy they’ll never get anywhere, they need to just have a spine and push through on this, the Democrats would.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

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"

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The circumstances were completely different in 2016 - a lame duck president whose term was about to expire and whose party was unlikely to win the next presidential election.

That was absolutely not the case in February 2016, the Democratic nominee had a good chance to win the election, and the race remained close throughout. Trump actually won against the polls (which were not in his favour), and still lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. So the information available between February and November, when the Republicans were refusing to even consider the Obama Supreme Court nominee, was that the Democrats were on course to win. Even with that information, they would not accept an Obama nominee.

Now, with an election in about 50 days, Trump is very likely to be dumped by the electorate. If it was inappropriate then for the possibility of an incoming Republican president to miss out on the chance of putting forward his nominee - and that is precisely what the Republicans were arguing, on the grounds that it must reflect the voice of the people - then according to their "rule", it is equally inappropriate now, with the possibility of a Democrat being elected president in 50 days and then assuming office in four months' time.

As they made this the issue in the last election-year vacancy, when there were 11 months on the clock, they are obliged to uphold that principle. They did force the rest of the nation to observe it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As they made this the issue in the last election-year vacancy, when there were 11 months on the clock, they are obliged to uphold that principle. They did force the rest of the nation to observe it.

See Justice Ginsburg’s opinion above.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

yep. was no problem with trying to impeach/remove a President "in an election year" now was there?

Wouldnt that have been a case to give the voters the voice to remove someone who they voted in? But they couldnt wait. Now we cant wait. so its fair.

Surely Dems are regretting how they handled the Kavanaugh confirmation. After that all prior Republican comments about wanting to be fair should be considered invalid. Jam this confirmation right down their throats just like Dems would do in the same situation.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Fill the seat. The hypocritical Dems are projecting.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Now, with an election in about 50 days, Trump is very likely to be dumped by the electorate.

Oh, I seriously doubt that, if that were the case, Biden would be over 12 or more points ahead, when you’re in a dead tight race, it should always give the challenger to the incumbent a bit of cautionary pause.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I see our Trump supporters are back to trusting polls again.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The fun thing that is being forgotten....

The next President will also be Donald J. Trump.

If you're so confident of that, then you should be fine with waiting...just like in 2016...

If any Repubs vote against this, they will be voted out.

They were not sent there to vote their own personal opinion. They were sent there as Republicans to represent the Republicans who voted them into office instead of a Democrat.

Get that Repub Senators - you don't have a mind - you're a bot...

The circumstances were completely different in 2016 - a lame duck president whose term was about to expire and whose party was unlikely to win the next presidential election.

Delusion, thy name is Trump supporter - here they are now saying Trump wasn't an underdog in 2016...

Hmmm...when liberals talk about shame and hypocrisy it’s rather hilarious, we don’t even have time to go into all of the hypocrisy‘s of every Democrat and especially the House Democrats over the last 4 years.

Last four years? I see you've forgotten about the Repub House from 2016-2018 too - they certainly forgot about "the wall"...

yep. was no problem with trying to impeach/remove a President "in an election year" now was there?

Not when they obstruct justice or engage in QPQ foreign election interference...

Fill the seat. The hypocritical Dems are projecting.

Hypocrisy? Let's ask Lindsey....

"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."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It is an open and shut case. Check the constitution. If the senate agrees with the president it goes ahead. If not it doesnt. That is essentially all there is to it. Its the law.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If you're so confident of that, then you should be fine with waiting...just like in 2016...

As if Harry Reid and Obama would if the roles were reversed. Again, Democrats can get mad if they want, but they’ll just have to swallow 40 more years of this.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

*yep. was no problem with trying to impeach/remove a President "in an election year" now was there? *

Wouldnt that have been a case to give the voters the voice to remove someone who they voted in? But they couldnt wait. Now we cant wait. so its fair.

Exactly.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No, they don’t when it’s time to vote. They simply are there to represent the voice and will of the people who elected them.

so some Dems will use their mind to vote for going forward? Or will they ALL vote against it? They are bots when they do?

Get that Repub Senators - you don't have a mind - you're a bot...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I see our Trump supporters are back to trusting polls again.

Hmm, a couple months ago you were bragging about Biden winning by a landslide because the polls told you so. Now the polls have turned your World upside down and you want to deny them. I see....

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

We confirm justices to interpret the Constitution, not to dictate through “dying wishes” who their successors should be or when they should be nominated.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I posted Justice Ginsburg’s statement regarding Supreme Court posts above.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites