There was an article in Mother Jones reminding us of the positions of a number of current Republican Senators regarding an opening on the Supreme Court occurring in the last year of a president's term - a situation we face now, because of the passing of the #NotoriousRBG, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
We know the position of Mitch McConnell - the American people deserve to have their voice heard, and so the incumbent president (if that person is a Democrat, anyway) does not get to nominate someone - the incoming president does. McConnell has told us that's out the window, and the president has asked for swift confirmation of his nominee. We may know as early as Monday, it's been reported, who the nominee will be.
And, of course, we know because of the tomfoolery of Harry Reid and other childish senators back in the day, it only takes a simple majority to confirm a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS. Three Republicans would need to refuse to vote at all, or to vote with the Democrats, in order to block Trump's pick.
Right now, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski seems to be a no, saying just yesterday before the announcement of Ginsburg's passing, that she would not vote to fill the seat before the election. And, as I write this, Maine's Susan Collins has tweeted, in part,
Given the proximity of the presidential election, however, I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election. In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the president or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the president who is elected on November 3rd.
We'll see if Mitt Romney or anyone else steps up to put a stop to McConnell and Trump. In the meantime, let's wander down memory lane and read the wise words spoken by these fifteen senators, all of whom, I'm sure, will let us down when push comes to shove.
- Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO): I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision...We are deep in the heart of a political campaign, a divisive election, a divisive president, who has done nothing but overreached Congress time and time again.
- Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):With (Scalia's ) passing, the Constitution is unambiguous about what happens next. 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...The direction of the court is now in question, and the Senate has an essential role to play. At this critical junction in our history, the American people should have the opportunity for their voice to be heard. Senate Republicans are committed to making sure that they do.
- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 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...In an election year, we have a long tradition that a lame-duck president doesn't get to jam a Supreme Court nominee through on the very end.
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Trump): 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.
- Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): The precedent's been set. It's been over 80 years now since, in the last year of the last term of a sitting president, there isn't Supreme Court nominees, 80 years. And there's a reason for that. And the reason is that the next president should have a chance to fill that void, not someone who's never going to answer to the electorate again. We're going to have an election this year. And in the election, people are going to get to choose a candidate for president. And part of that vote will be, what kind of nominee do you want, because we're going to be asked now who -- what kind of person or what kind of justice would you put on the Supreme Court? So, let the voters weigh in, in November, and then we will have an appointment. The court can function with eight justices. It does it all the time.
- Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) 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... I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.
- Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) “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-IA) We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination. We understand that, in November if people are unhappy with the way that we have been governing in the United States Senate, they would speak out. But from what we have heard, people are excited about the opportunity to voice their opinion through the ballot box, whether they’re Democrats, whether they’re Republicans... Let’s all talk about it and then in November we’ll have that decision. And if the decision is made that we have another Democratic president, that’s a decision we will live with.
- Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) 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. Vice President Biden (referring to Biden's 1992 remarks on a hypothetical SCOTUS opening) – and this is not something I’ve said very often – was absolutely correct. There should be no hearings. There should be no confirmation. The most pragmatic conclusion to draw is to hold the Supreme Court vacancy until the American people’s voices have been heard.
- 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. Given our global security crisis and debt crisis, the upcoming election will not only determine the direction of our country, but also serve as a referendum on the Presidency and Congress, and now the Supreme Court. President Obama's record of ruling through executive action and regulatory mandates has show he is willing to circumvent Congress and bypass the will of the people. (Note: for more information on president Trump and executive orders, check out my comments on Ivanka Trump's speech at the RNC here.)
- Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) 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. America needs Supreme Court justices who share Justice Scalia's commitment to applying the Constitution as written and to the freedom it secures.
- Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) In the final year of a presidency, it is common for vacancies that arise on the Supreme Court to await the outcome of the next election. Given that we are already well into the presidential election process and that the Supreme Court appointment is for a lifetime, it makes sense to give the American people a more direct say in this critical decision. The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president. If that new president is not a member of my party, I will take the same objective non-partisan approach to that nominee as I have always done.
- Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) 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. John Hoeven (R-ND) 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-OH) 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!