Whatever your ideology, whatever your stance on Roe v Wade, Mitch McConnell's statement on the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be condemned by everyone with an ounce of decency or any sense of fair play. We all recall how the Senate Majority Leader refused to consider Barack Obama's nominee to replace Justice Scalia when he died in February of 2016 - citing the approaching November Presidential election as his reason for doing so. Justice RBG, who also happened to enjoy a close friendship with Scalia, has died less than two months before the 2020 election; but Senator McConnell has already declared that he has no such scruples this time around. If he does succeed in replacing Ginsburg, let's all hope that this is Senator McConnell's final act.
"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed" - Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed"
ReplyDelete"Installed?" She died at 87. With all those questions about her poor health, why would she be so selfish to hold onto her seat for so long? She could have retired during Obama's lame duck term and been replaced with a progressive candidate that same year and McConell would not have been able to politically forestall another SC nomination. Were they waiting for Hillary to replace her with Lynch, and then replace Scalia with someone who would no longer balance out RBG's progressivism? I guess they never even considered that Hillary might not actually "be installed" later that year.
"Fair play?" It is the Democrats who never engage in fair play. "Rules for thee, not for me." They were warned by Republicans to not change the House rules and remove the filibuster but they went ahead and did so anyway. Why? Because they were in power at the time. Now they need to live by those same rules. That's fair. Besides, I believe the coming election fiasco will be going to the Supreme Court this year. We are going to need another "originalist" or "textualist" on the SC to preserve the Constitution as we know it.
I noticed that you completely ignored Mitch McConnell's blatant hypocrisy (the thesis of the post). In 2016, McConnell and Grassley posted an editorial in the Washington Post. They said: "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." But that was then, and this is now - I guess.
DeleteAnd the only thing that another Trump appointment would accomplish is to make it more certain that he will be able to steal the election from Joe Biden. My former party (Republicans) has given their allegiance to a personality cult centered on an immoral and incompetent huckster. Trump and the Republicans have discarded most of the norms and traditions left standing. If they push this one through, what do you think that the Democrats are going to do when they regain power? (and that is only a question of when, not if)
You have neglected the differences between 2016 and 2020. In 2016, the Senate was controlled by the opposing party of the President. Even disregarding the questions surronding Scalia's untimely death, this alone is a huge difference especially when you consider the hypocrisy by the Democrats in what they were saying back in 2016 in contrast to now. Link here. Today, Republicans control the Senate and the Presidency. The people's voices have spoken. Let them be heard and let the people they elected do their job. We both know what the Democrats would be doing if the shoe was on the other foot. Besides, this was RBG's position in 2016 on whether the Senate should vote on a nominee in an election year: "That's their job. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year." "The President is elected for four years, not three. So the powers that he has in year three continues into year four...and that's how it should be."
ReplyDeleteWhy hasn't Biden released his potential nominations yet? Well, I'll tell you why. His picks would destroy the Constitution as we know it. This Corruption in Washington has infected both parties to a degree most would have thought impossible. It's time to drain this swamp. Both sides included. If Reagan was alive, I know who he would be voting for based solely on the policies of Trump while disregarding the unending MSM smears and Propaganda and outright proven lies that the Left has unceasingly thrown at Trump and even before he took office. With all this hysteria, hypocrisy, lies, and violence, I think we are now witnessing the Democrat party going through it's final, violent death throes. For the sake of the Constitution, they should never regain power.
One more thing. I remember Trump giving a press conference on his SC nominees a couple weeks ago where he went into some details. After he finished, he then asked the white house press core if they had any questions about them. Twice he asked for any questions regarding the reason for the given press conference. No body had any questions for Trump. Instead, all the questions were mostly about Bob Woodward's book. That's the sad state of journalism these days when they are solely obsessed with rumours, gossip, and conspiracy theories.
ReplyDeleteDBP,
DeleteI'm going to have to admit that I was wrong - about you. I thought that you were an independent thinker, but you drank the kool-aid! You have regurgitated the Republican talking points on this one word for word. McConnell's, Grassley's and Graham's statements from 2016 are all a matter of public record, and this stuff about the party of president and senate is an invention for 2020.
But let the Republicans plow ahead. Let's see what this does to some of the Republican senators who are trying to be re-elected. If the Democrats win, I'm thinking the Republicans may live to regret their "victory" on this one!
2016 Republicans:"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."
DeleteThis is NOT what the Democrats were saying in 2016. I showed you THIS because the MSM is only citing the Republicans who were opposing a SC nomination in Obama's last year, while ignoring the Democrats who demanded it. And here again is Ruth Bader Ginsurg's STATEMENT on that very same matter. What is unconstitutional, unlawful, immoral, or improper about the President nominating a nominee and the Senate confirming her? If your answer is only Hypocrisy, then you are failing to consider all of the the above. The Constitution will be followed and the President will probably nominate Amy Coney Barrett and the Senate will vote to confirm her or not.
"...this stuff about the party of president and senate is an invention for 2020."
I assume you are talking about SC nominees when the Presidency and Senate are of the same party. When that situation exists, history shows that in election-year nominees the Senate confirmed 17 of 19. History also shows that the Senate blocks nominees 2 of 10 when the two branches are of different parties. So much drama the MSM is dredging up over following the Constitution. Could they be biased?
Can you imagine what Justice Scalia's last dying wish was?
Does it really matter?
In both instances (2016 and 2020), the Republicans controlled the Senate - they had the raw political power. Yes, the Democrats were screaming bloody murder both times, but none of their arguments/opinions mattered to McConnell and his allies in 2016 (and none of their arguments/opinions will matter to them in 2020). In other words, the only arguments that mattered in 2016 (or 2020) are the ones that prevailed (will prevail). The Constitution wasn't followed in 2016, which makes the insistence that it is in this instance seem hypocritical to many of us - regardless of the mainstream media's perspective!
DeleteAre you saying the democrats were both right in 2016 and 2020? And that is somehow NOT hypocrisy?
ReplyDeleteHypothetically, if the Democrats were right in 2016, then wouldn't the Republicans be agreeing with their position in 2016, but now in 2020? Why should the "arguments/opinions" of the Democrats matter more to the Republicans than the "arguments/opinions" of the voters who elected them to office? The Constitution was followed in 2016 and will be followed in 2020.
It only seems hypocritical because you don't like the outcome. Let's flip things over. Do you really believe the Democrats would acquiesce to the protesting Republicans if the table was turned?
Your logic is twisted. The point is that Republicans prevail in both instances with arguments in 2020 that completely contradict the arguments they made in 2016. As the Democrats have not prevailed in either instance, their arguments (contradictory or not) are frankly rendered irrelevant! I thought the Democrats were wrong when they did what they did to Robert Bork's nomination. You and your fellow Republicans are guilty of the double standard. And I can assure you that this tit for tat will not end here, and it will further erode respect for the judiciary, senate, politics and the federal government in general.
Delete"Your logic is twisted."
DeleteOk. Prove it. First, let me readdresss the points I've already made:
"The point is that Republicans prevail in both instances with arguments in 2020 that completely contradict the arguments they made in 2016."
They were speaking for the people that elected them. They are doing their job. The Constitution was followed and no laws were broken. Look at what Obama was telling the Senate to do in 2016 and echoing what RBG said "...the President doesn't stop being the President in his last year." Now, the democrats in 2020 are telling both the Senate and the President to NOT do their jobs.
"As the Democrats have not prevailed in either instance, their arguments (contradictory or not) are frankly rendered irrelevant!"
They were not voted into power with a majority. This how the Constitution and Democracy works.
"I thought the Democrats were wrong when they did what they did to Robert Bork's nomination."
What about Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and probably how they will treat Amy Coney Barrett.
"You and your fellow Republicans are guilty of the double standard."
I'm not a republican, at least not an old-school one. I'm more of a libertarian/tea party kind of guy. I vote republican out of necessity. The democrats are NOT abiding by the Constitution or Law. It is the democrats that are inciting riots, "burn it down", and "this is war!". They sound like the South of 1860. If republican "bluecheckmarks" said these kind of thing on Twitter, they would be banned or suspended. In fact, just today two accounts that I follow were suspended. They were only covering the current extradition trial of Julian Assange. Why does it seem that only libertarian/conservative voices on Twitter and Facebook receive such censorship?