Suppose Ruth Buzzi-Ginsburg dies or some other SCOTUS judge leaves the bench for whatever reason in 2020. Should the Republican Senate entertain SCOTUS nominations and should they vote on one in an election year?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If There is a Vacancy on the Supreme Court in 2020 Should the Senate Vote on Nominations?
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
I don’t see any advantage to waiting.
If the Republicans take a vote in an election year, are they hypocrites? After all, they opposed taking a vote on Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, for the entire year of 2016. They said they had to see what the people wanted on election day. They said that the party in power might not be in power after election day, so they put off the vote, citing the will of the people needed to be determined.
I say since they hold the senate they should decide at the time, and ignore the fallout. Follow the Harry Reid rules.
The democrats literally called Susan Collins a “rape apologist”after their attempted detailing of Kavanaugh. Their cries of hypocrisy for running the senate like they did should go completely ignored
The phrase, “All’s fair in love and war.” comes to mind. Where the democrat’s ideas of fair game are concerned I’d say, yes, absolutely, get tough and and pull out all the stops whenever possible. Hearing them squeal, "hypocrisy" really doesn't carry much weight concerning fairness considering the source...
Lol. I don’t see how this statement can ever be thrown back in your face. No sirreee.
They're in the majority. "Elections have consequences".
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Your point is well-taken. Politicians tend to say what sounds good at the time, and as ambiguously and noncommittal as possible. They will come up with another slant, if the opportunity presents itself.
“Obviously” the will of the people would be for Trump to nominate, since he would only be in his 4th year, not his 8th.
But perhaps Ginsburg will feel compelled to drop out this year! Time to take that long promised trip to kiwi land while there’s still time.
Well, maybe it's time to take the gloves off dealing with this party after the way they've treated Bork, Thomas and now Kavanaugh, among others. I think, say, if Hillary would have won and they had the Senate, they'd ram their latest moonbat appointee through in ANY year and wouldn't bat an eye.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Not sure how that will turn out. Evidently, her fall revealed some pre-cancerous nodules in her lungs, so they operated. That fall may have been fortuitous for her.
What astounds me is that she may still be sitting in judgment without being present. Not sure that should be allowed. Is there precedent for less than full participation?
Hmm, don't know.
Left wing jurists make their own rules. Just like they make their own laws.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
But she's just praying, right?
Thanks. I had forgotten about that. The photo is actually of her snoozing at Obama's State of the Union, and she blamed it on the booze. (I rest my case.)
But it is not out of character. This article has her sleeping on the bench. Snorer in the court? Ruth Bader Ginsburg snoozes - WND - WND