Monday, September 21, 2020

Moving forward to fill a SCOTUS vacancy

"A key feature of our Constitution is an independent Federal judiciary, which helps safeguard its structure and ensure individual rights. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton describes the proper role of the courts as keeping the legislature “within the limits assigned to their authority,” handing down decisions in accordance with the principle that “a constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.” In reverence of the wisdom of the Founders, I have made it a top priority to nominate to the Federal bench only those judges who have demonstrated a commitment to enforcing the Constitution as written. To date, I have nominated and the Senate has confirmed more than 240 judges who will faithfully adhere to this foundational judicial principle, including two incredible Supreme Court Justices." ~ President Donald J. Trump, Proclamation on Constitution Day, Citizenship Day, And Constitution Week, 2020 (9/17/20)
Well, we knew from Friday's news of RBG's passing that the weekend would be filled with not only questions of what happens when a Supreme Court justice vacancy arises before an election, but also that the mob would likely be set ablaze with leftists inciting threats should the party in power dare fill the vacancy.

First things first. Upon discovery of Ginsburg's death, President Trump responded with the deepest sincerity and respect for the associate justice...
NationalReview also similarly presented condolences, but also recognized a sobering phenomenon of a culture that needs to be righted when it comes to the Court...
While we did not agree with many of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s views about the Constitution or the judicial function, we never doubted her industry, dedication, gumption, civility, or patriotism. We send our condolences to all who mourn her passing.

Justice Ginsburg almost certainly had more fans than any other justice in U.S. history, with her great friend Justice Antonin Scalia in second place. The wide acclaim, and wide opprobrium, for these justices is a sign of something that has gone wrong in our political culture, in which the Supreme Court looms entirely too large. Her death has therefore led not just to mourning but to the start of a political convulsion.
...and further presented rationale for Republicans to move now...
Many commentators, mostly Democrats, are saying that the Republicans have an obligation to show restraint: to leave this vacancy to be filled by whoever wins the presidential election rather than moving forward with a nomination and hearings. They say that in 2016, when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia, Republicans argued that no nomination should proceed right before a presidential election and that Republicans should adhere to that same principle now. They say also that if Republicans fill the seat, Democrats will retaliate next year by expanding the Supreme Court to add more liberals to it.

The argument from 2016 is unavailing. Our own view was that the Republicans’ point about acting in an election year was secondary to the imperative to advance constitutionalism on the Court. But the most careful articulations of the Republican position in 2016 held that when a Supreme Court vacancy arose while the White House and Senate were controlled by opposite parties and a presidential election was coming soon, the vacancy should be filled by the winner of that election. In short, the voters should be asked to break the deadlock between two branches they elected. That condition does not apply today, as Republicans have won a Senate majority in three consecutive elections.

The notion that Republicans should calm troubled waters by standing down ... should also be rejected. Supreme Court nominations have become incendiary events because the Court has strayed so far from its proper constitutional role. There is no need to be coy: What we have in mind most of all, just like progressive activists, is abortion. In Roe v. Wade, the Court swept away the laws of 50 states and trampled on the most fundamental of human rights, and it did it without any justification in the text, original understanding, logic, structure, or history of the Constitution. Even legal scholars who approve of the policy result have admitted as much. A Court that claims that power for itself can commit many other enormities. And the Democratic Party, very much including its current presidential nominee, maintains a litmus test that any Supreme Court nominee must pledge fealty to that anti-constitutional ruling.

The rift between constitutional law and the Constitution has done great damage to our political culture. It would be perverse to give up a chance to pull them back together because of that damage. And it would be a mistake to allow the risk of future progressive mischief to cause conservatives to refrain from taking that chance.

President Trump, like President Obama in 2016, has the constitutional power to nominate a Supreme Court justice. He should exercise that power to put forward someone with a track record of respect for the law and for its limits on the judiciary. The Senate, as it did in 2016, will then have the power to decide whether to proceed. If the nominee meets threshold conditions of quality and judicial philosophy, we hope it will schedule hearings expeditiously and vote whenever enough time for deliberation has passed.
President Trump has already emphasized similar point...
...and Senate Majority Leader McConnell, who had already vowed to 'leave no vacancy behind', was locking down key Republican votes over the weekend, despite the usual turncoats, who'd already been put on notice.

Looks like the populace also understands the constitutionality of it and is on board with the President doing his job and filling a SCOTUS vacancy as well. Dems (and even Ginsburg) used to understand this...
Democrats are forecasting doom for democracy and the republic if President Trump goes forward with his plan to nominate a new Supreme Court justice in the wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, weeks before the election. ... 

It's baloney. Not only is it an about-face from what Democrat were saying four years ago:
It's also what the voters want. The current Democratic stance is actually against the will of the American people. A new poll shows that American voters are requesting just that:
Most Americans, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, believe the Senate should move forward with confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court Justice this year, a new poll says.

The Marquette University Law School poll found 67% of respondents believed confirmation should proceed in 2020 while just 32% said the chamber should hold off.

The survey was conducted between Sept. 8 to Sept. 15 — just days before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from cancer Friday evening.

The poll did not suggest a strong partisan divide over the issue, with 68% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats holding that a nomination vote should take place. Independents supported going forward by a 71% margin.
And Ginsburg herself thought a president should do his job, too:
Her reasoning is impeccable.

Now, based on what happened in 2016, where Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote, based on the rules Democrats set before him, Democrats are insisting now that he hold off as he did earlier. That's nonsense, given that this was politics, and McConnell knew that the Democrats were in no mood to fight. He was teaching them a lesson with that maneuver — that if they wanted to make rules that benefited themselves in power at the time, they'd have to live by them when they didn't have the power, and back in 2016, as now, Democrats don't hold the power. Does anyone in his right mind think the Democrats would hold off if the roles were reversed? Did anyone notice the filthy, grotesque, mendacious spectacle they put on when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court? Politics ain't beanbag, as the Democratic machine pols like to say, and payback's a beach. See, Cocaine Mitch plays for keeps, forcing Democrats to live by the rules they wrote themselves.

So now a new Supreme Court nomination is moving forward, with President Trump expected to announce his pick at the end of the week. Democrats are screaming holy hell. Yet they're the ones who are in political jeopardy in doing this obstructionism. Here's a cold, dry observation from Kimberley Strassel, reminding them of the facts of life:
The more they tantrum, the worse it's going to be for them. Rather than do the hard work of trying to win back power, they expect Republicans to give it to them. Not in the age of Trump, pals. There's a reason they got Trump. Want more Trump? This is how you get More Trump.
They're cutting their own throats, and Republicans these days seem to know enough to stay out of their way.
Finally, I'm sure readers have already picked up on this, but here's where the fairness comes in: Trump is nominating a woman...


Circling back to that NR piece above, final thoughts:
We were preached to for years that elections have consequences. So as such...

#FillTheSeat

Related links: What A Third Appointment By President Trump Would Mean To Supreme Court Following Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
You Don't Have Enough Ammo for the Post-Ginsburg 2020 Apocalypse
Gengrich: Are Democrats prepared to say...
Terrell: Attention NBA players, crybabies, King James, WNBA, Kaepernick and left wing extremists...

ADDENDUM: More assessments on moving forward...


Posted by an ebb and flow at 5:34 PM