A Nomination and an Election in the Balance
A civilized discussion of abortion would be a preferable backdrop to the election than the Democrats’ continued desperate effort to maintain public hysteria over the coronavirus.
By Conrad Black • September 21, 2020
It is already a cliché to say that the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg further complicates what is already a tumultuous election campaign. All the arguments for and against the propriety of nominating and attempting to confirm a replacement on the high court bench in the midst of an election campaign are self-serving casuistry by both parties to give the sanctuary of legal tradition to the opportunistic positions that they will take.
According to the Republicans, they have a right and duty to fill such vacancies as soon as possible. And according to the Democrats, any such initiative must await the results of the election for the president and the Senate.
As in most political arguments, unless something seriously illegal is being considered, the real question is what is politically possible. It will be extremely difficult, though perhaps not technically impossible, to have a new nominee confirmed prior to the election on November 3.
Controversies over judicial appointments have gone on throughout the life of the Republic. The person generally regarded as the greatest jurist in American history and the longest-serving chief justice of the United States, John Marshall, was appointed to the office which he held for 34 years by President John Adams in 1801—more than two months after Adams had been defeated by Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr in the presidential election. Even so Marshall continued to serve concurrently as secretary of state until a month after his elevation as chief justice, when Jefferson was inaugurated and James Madison replaced Marshall at the State Department.
more
https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/21/a-nomination-and-an-election-in-the-balance/
