This is a discussion on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead within the Political News and Topics forums, part of the General Discussion category; That statement was made with a democrat president and a republican senate. Now we have a republican president and republican senate. Things changed. We have ...
That statement was made with a democrat president and a republican senate.
Now we have a republican president and republican senate.
We have an obligation to the people who voted for Trump to do this.
It was one of his campaign promises.
The dems would in s heartbeat.
"Orwell's Animal Farm, and 1984 were supposed to be warnings, not instruction manuals."
“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within”
― Will Durant
The rule change to make a confirmation of a Justice a simple majority rather that 60 was in 2013 with Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, democrat. They did it to stop Republican opposition. Now its biting them in the butt. Oh they cried foul when the Republicans refused to change it back, This was a demonic rat dirty trick that is screwing their cause now,
This is the Huffington Post a liberal rag.
Blessed be God, my rock who trains my hands for battle, my fingers for war. Psalms 144:1
Victory can depend on a dog or a goose---Napoleon
Last edited by Redneck; 09-18-2020 at 09:02 PM.
From 4 years ago. Bet these arguments sounded better to many here back then, than they do today. Note several Republican Senators stated it made no difference which party had the president. I think this hypocrisy will harm the Republican party greatly. Many Americans, especially the independent voters, will be paying attention to how this plays out.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “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. John Cornyn (R-Texas):
“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.
Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today.
In 1992, while serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and with a Republican in the White House, Vice President Joe Biden said his committee should “seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings” on any potential nominees until the campaign season was over.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-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. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election” (This was actually what he said in 2018, doubling down on his previous stance. )
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president .”
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.): “It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): “We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “Vice President Biden’s remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they are entirely applicable to 2016. The campaign is already under way. 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. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): “The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.”
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.): “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.”
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.): “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.”
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
Last edited by Redneck; 09-18-2020 at 09:15 PM.
Caught a clip of Ted Cruz on Hannity when they found out about RBG's passing.
After appropriate condolences were given, as good people do, they moved to the obvious question, and Ted didn't fail to impress.
His take is, with the known election tomfoolery we can expect with this mail-in ballot scam, the decision on who wins the 2020 election could come down to a SCOTUS decision.
Knowing the makeup of the court, Cruz is NOT convinced that it wouldn't split 4-4 and drag out any decision for possible months.
He thinks a justices is needed ASAP to avoid a literal constitutional crisis.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken