| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Here's What Democrats Said About Filling A Supreme Court Vacancy In 2016 |
| 2020-09-19 |
| Several Democratic leaders favored a Senate confirmation vote for President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland in 2016. Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Obama nominated Garland, who had been the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to block a confirmation vote for Garland until after the 2016 presidential election, The Washington Post reported. "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell said, according to Politico. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Several Democrats condemned McConnell in the days and weeks following his decision. (RELATED: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead At 87) Sen. Dick Durbin, calls for Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, during a news conference in front of the US Supreme Court, September 7, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images Sen. Dick Durbin, calls for Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, during a news conference in front of the US Supreme Court, September 7, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images) Although Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden favored putting off a confirmation hearing during an election year in 1992 as a senator, Biden supported Garland’s confirmation in 2016 as vice president, according to ABC News. He said there was no supposed "Biden Rule" concerning Supreme Court nominations in an election year. "Deciding in advance simply to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the Constitution leaves open," Biden said, according to Business Insider. "It’s a plain abdication from the Senate’s duty. ... [It’s] never occurred before in our history." "Elections have consequences," then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said, according to Politico. "The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote." She called McConnell’s decision "outrageous." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted: "Garland has integrity, a brilliant legal mind & is a perfect fit for [the Supreme Court]. GOP inaction does our country a great disservice." And then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted: "Judge Merrick Garland, is a respected jurist who must be given a fair hearing & timely vote." Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted, "Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. [Obama] has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs." Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Republicans must "ditch their extremism" and schedule a vote for Garland. Then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate should consider a nominee immediately, according to Politico. "It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat," Reid said, Politico reported. "Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities." |
| Posted by:746 |
| #14 I suspect RBG will send a signal for older politically minded judges to step down while their favorite political party is in power. I've heard a lot about Justice Thomas being replaced in the next term, if so he should have stepped down last year. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2020-09-19 16:44 |
| #13 I blame NN2N1... Last Days of RGB, or, "Larry, baby, have I got a job for you!" "Notorious One, you must travel To safety, before you unravel!" "Give in to das Recht?" "Aber Biden kommt nicht!" Yes, it's Downfall: Descent of the Gavel! |
| Posted by: Shemble the Limpid2166 2020-09-19 16:05 |
| #12 Interesting that in 2018, only 28% of the SCOTUS cases were decided by a 5-4 vote. Eight cases were decided toward conservative, eight toward liberal, and four neutral. Split decisions couldn't have been more balanced if it was required. Also, 39% were decided 9-0. It's the media that reports the political consequences. See page 5 |
| Posted by: Bobby 2020-09-19 09:56 |
| #11 And I bet RBG's confirmation to SCOTUS whizzed through the Senate in a civil way back then. Compare that to now. Well, you can't. |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-09-19 09:09 |
| #10 The way judges legislate from the bench, they should be considered part of the legislative branch of our system of government. |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-09-19 09:05 |
| #9 Lifetime appointments must go, and the fact that appointing one justice does cause so much political fighting between the sides shows how much power they shouldn't have. I would change it to a 10.5 month term, First Monday after the new year to day before Thanksgiving. The states each appoint one justice to serve that time. Vice-president is the tie breaker. Good luck packing that court and the loss of one justice doesn't mean the Republic is doomed. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2020-09-19 09:01 |
| #8 None of the talking heads or bottom of the screen announcements on the TV describe RBG as a champion of the Constitution. Very sad considering the basic job description of a Supreme Court Justice. |
| Posted by: Airandee 2020-09-19 08:35 |
| #7 It probably never crossed the framers' minds that our life expectancy would be what it is today. What will it be in another 50 years, assuming the country makes it that far? Likely less than now, if our Branch Covidian Death Cult succeeds in imposing its herd-must-be-culled vision |
| Posted by: Angeresh Claise3120 2020-09-19 07:19 |
| #6 You can not have life appoints and non-accountability in a republic. Period. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-09-19 07:00 |
| #5 It probably never crossed the framers' minds that our life expectancy would be what it is today. What will it be in another 50 years, assuming the country makes it that far? |
| Posted by: gorb 2020-09-19 06:57 |
| #4 Maybe "judges for life" needs to go |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-09-19 06:34 |
| #3 SCOTUS clerks have been writing most of the SCOTUS opinions for at least 40 years. |
| Posted by: Snort Ulase7751 2020-09-19 06:32 |
| #2 /\ Excellent summary NN2N1. Thank you. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2020-09-19 06:19 |
| #1 While I do not support her SCOTUS voting record in many many cases. An feel the position and rulings should be based ONLY on the US Constitution and NEVER be based on a Political agenda. One has to admit she was a rabid Liberal. She was Super Pro-abortion and LGBT?. Her rulings tended to be little more than political agenda based and generally failed to improve the overall situation and/or unity of the USA. The rulings I did agreed with her on are few and they included: * Ruled for Equal Pay for equal work that results in equal results. * Ruled against strip searches based on verbal hearsay. While I hate to see anyone die of cancer. I will also say as a Radical SCOTUS Judge, she should be an example of what to avoid in appointing future judges. It should be noted, how she hung on the her SCOTUS Judge seat YEARS after she should have retired due to the well documented debilitating Cancer and related Medical issues. Stage 2 cancer and chemo does mess with a persons consistent mental stability for several years afterwards. Either way let us hope her staff/clerks, that has been likely steering her rulings for several years now. Will be dismissed quickly and her office and documents sealed until ALL the contents can be secured and reviewed. Because it will be interesting to see which Politicians and King Whisperers have been in communication with her and for what reasons. WAIT FOR IT * Joan Ruth Bader Ginsburg the Movie. Suggestion: We need to push to have a Medical and Mental Test be applied to all SCOTUS judges annually that are over the age of 70 or 75. Because even a fool has to admit age does play a key role and sooner or later the Judges become figureheads and the Staff/Clerks become the actual ones steering and/or writing the rulings. |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2020-09-19 06:14 |