Author Topic: History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020 (NR)  (Read 66 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online corbe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38,525
History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020

By DAN MCLAUGHLIN
August 7, 2020 2:48 PM  (Updated)


Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament.

If a Supreme Court vacancy opens up between now and the end of the year, Republicans should fill it. Given the vital importance of the Court to rank-and-file Republican voters and grassroots activists, particularly in the five-decade-long quest to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would be political suicide for Republicans to refrain from filling a vacancy unless some law or important traditional norm was against them. There is no such law and no such norm; those are all on their side. Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament. 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.

For now, all this remains hypothetical. Neither Ruth Bader Ginsburg nor any of her colleagues intend to go anywhere. But with the 87-year-old Ginsburg fighting a recurrence of cancer and repeatedly in and out of hospitals, we are starting to see the Washington press corps and senators openly discussing what would happen if she dies or is unable to continue serving on the Court. Democrats are issuing threats, and some Republicans are already balking.

They shouldn’t.

History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

Power, Norms, and Election-Year Nominations

<..snip..>

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
No government in the 12,000 years of modern mankind history has led its people into anything but the history books with a simple lesson, don't let this happen to you.

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,805
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Trump need to nominate someone regardless of it being an election year or not.

The Senate can choose to confirm or deny, but the nomination still needs to happen.
The Republic is lost.