With Precedent And History On His Side, President Trump Has An Obligation And The Right To Fill The Supreme Court Vacancy Without Delay
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE SENATE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO FILL THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY
- The Washington Post: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that prevents a Supreme Court vacancy from being filled, regardless of how close to an election it opens up.”
- National Review: “History is on the side of Republicans filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020.”
- “Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament,” as “it has never happened once in all of American History.”
- “There is no chance that the Democrats, in the same position, would ever reciprocate, as their own history illustrates.”
- Boston Herald Staff Editorial: “Trump must fill Supreme Court seat before election.”
- The Wall Street Journal: President Trump’s decision to appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year is not “uncommon.”
- A September 2020 poll revealed that prior to Ginsburg’s death, 67% of Americans believe the Senate should hold confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court nominee if there are any vacancies during the election year.
HISTORICALLY, A UNITED GOVERNMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO CONFIRM A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE REGARDLESS OF AN ELECTION YEAR
- For over a century, the Senate hasn’t confirmed a Supreme Court nominee chosen in an election year by a President of the opposite party.
- The exception to delay a vote was made in 1992, by then-Senator Biden stating that a “divided Government” reflected an absence of a “nationwide consensus.”
- Biden’s rule was applied again in 2016 as the Presidency and the Senate was once again was a divided government.
- As of today, the Biden rule does not apply as the same party controls the White House and the Senate.
- Judicial selection was a primary focus in both the 2016 and 2018 elections, illustrating that voters have decided who they want to Republicans to choose their judiciary.
SUPREME COURT NOMINEES HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN CONFIRMED IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME WITHOUT DELAY
- Critics have said that there is not enough time to study President Trump’s nominee, but there have been other nominees who have been confirmed in a short amount of time.
- Justice Paul Stevens was confirmed within just 19 days after his nomination, and more recently Justice O’Connor and Justice Ginsburg were confirmed in 42 days or less.
- National Review: “If a president and the Senate agree on a Supreme Court nominee, timing has never stopped them.”
DEMOCRATS ARE NOW WILLING TO GO TO EXTREME LENGTHS TO SWAY THE COURTS IN THEIR FAVOR BY THREATENING TO START PACKING THE SUPREME COURT, AND VOWING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AGAIN
- Democrats are now so desperate to block the President’s nominee that they have said they are wanting to impeach the President or Attorney General William Barr.
- Pelosi and others have decided to push for impeachment “as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination.”
- Democrats have also threatened to start “packing” the Supreme Court, even though the majority of Americans oppose an increase in justices.
- Senator Ed Markey (D-MA): “when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”
- Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) claimed he would push for structural reforms if Republicans acted “in such a way.”
- Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) said that if Republicans try to add a Supreme Court Justice or not; Democrats already have a plan to expand the courts.
- House Judiciary Chairman, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), threatened a court expansion saying, “the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court.”
- Meanwhile Justice Ginsburg, Joe Biden, and legal experts have opposed packing the courts:
- Ginsburg has stated that 9 Justices is a “good number” and claimed that packing the court would be a “bad idea”
- Biden has also criticized the court packing effort by calling FDR’s push a “terrible” idea, and even claiming that we would “rue the day” if a push is made again.
- Mason University law professor Ilya Somin: court packing would be a “terrible idea, as it would lead to a spiral that undermines the institution of judicial review.”
- Brookings: “It typically takes a crisis to generate support for major change to the federal courts. There is little evidence today of public appetite for such change.”
- “Adding seats to the court could precipitate a game of tit-for-tat,” and the risk of making such a change would “be costly for the court.”
BIDEN HAS BROKEN HIS PROMISE TO RELEASE A LIST OF POTENTIAL SUPREME COURT NOMINEES, WHILE PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUES TO BE TRANSPARENT WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
- Since 2016, President Trump has continued to be transparent to the American people and has released numerous lists of potential Supreme Court nominees.
- When President Trump was running for office in 2016, he released a Supreme Court nominee list to let voters know what kind of judicial appointments he would make as President.
- Earlier this month, President Trump stayed consistent and released another list of Supreme Court nominees he would appoint following his second term.
- Biden has refused to release a list to the public even though Americans have said that appointments to the Supreme Court is “an important or the most important factor in deciding their vote for president in that election.”
- Back in June of this year, Biden claimed that he was committed to releasing a shortlist of black women he would consider as a potential Supreme Court Justice ahead of the 2020 election.
- Instead of releasing a list, Biden has falsely claimed that the President and the campaign only asked for Biden’s Supreme Court list after Justice Ginsburg died.
White House POTUS Read more research
