My Thoughts On The Supreme Court
By Jim Bauer
@porwest (112929)
United States
September 21, 2020 10:34am CST
As many of you know, recently supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away from pancreatic cancer.
The administration has already announced a nominee, and plans to make that nomination before the election.
Regardless whether or not I think the question is moot as to who the next president will be (I think it remains Donald Trump), I do think as a matter of decorum the president's decision should have been, and should BE in line with his stance during the 2016 campaign, that so close to an election it would seem only proper to WAIT for the election result before making a nomination.
Aside from that, I DO agree with Trump's take on the 'dying wish' that she not be replaced until there is a new president, that this is probably not something Ginsburg wrote, and something that the democrats have falsely published.
Regardless of my thoughts on Ginsburg, her 'dying wish' would fall outside the purview of the duties of a supreme court justice, AND would also not follow the Constitution—two things despite past decisions I still believe Ginsburg would have wanted to uphold.
A sitting president, lame duck or not, has the authority, privilege, and RIGHT to appoint a supreme court justice replacement REGARDLESS of where he is in his term of office.
That is the law.
In making such a request she would have politicized herself and her position, two things she was against during her tenure, and it is something I do not believe she would do.
11 people like this
7 responses
@porwest (112929)
• United States
21 Sep 20
@CarolDM I am with you 100%. I am also with the president 95% on this. I am simply saying that if he said Obama should have waited for the election when we replaced Scalia, and Obama did wait, Trump should do the same. He has the law and Constitution on his side for sure. It is a matter of decorum I think, and it just LOOKS better optically if he does now what he said ought to have been done when the tables were turned.
1 person likes this
@FourWalls (86875)
• United States
21 Sep 20
In 2016 there was the comment made that said, “There’s NOTHING in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
Know who said it? Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
4 people like this
@Namelesss (3364)
• United States
23 Sep 20
@porwest Well the good news is the senate gets to make the appointment. Trump only has to suggest who.
2 people like this
@porwest (112929)
• United States
21 Sep 20
@FourWalls I COMPLETELY forgot about that. But you are right. Thank you for the reminder. And I agree that Trump CAN of course do it. I am simply looking at the optics of Trump's words in 2016 and actions he may take now which may contradict that, which you know the media will be all over.
We all know Trump will DEFINITELY be reelected, So, really, even my desire for optics here is moot as well. But I also think that DESPITE what I think the outcome will be, optics are still important, especially considering how much our side was FOR Obama waiting it out—which luckily he did.
If Trump goes against his own words and does something less than what Obama did, we will never hear the end of it.
You hate to say it, but we really are living in a time where you want to say, "WHY give the media something to latch onto and talk about endlessly?"
1 person likes this
@moffittjc (128854)
• Gainesville, Florida
23 Sep 20
Doesn't the law state that when a Supreme Court Justice vacancy occurs on the bench, the sitting President at the time is responsible for filling that vacancy? Nowhere does it say that the rule doesn't count in election years. Trump is our President all the way up until next January (assuming he isn't re-elected), so by law he can fill any and all vacancies all the way up until the day he leaves office.
@porwest (112929)
• United States
21 Sep 20
I do not believe it is law, which does present an interesting question as to what we do with it. What McConnell did was more of a suggestion that was upheld respectively. That aside, I do think it is a FAIR rule, and also a common sense one. The supreme court is a VERY important part of our government, and so the decision of who is on it becomes a part of the voter's decision in who we elect to the White House who gets to appoint them.
So close to the election, even though I strongly believe Trump will BE the president who decides ultimately, I have to agree that he should simply wait.
I do not believe he will, though, and this would be a situation that I would disagree with him on, but of course it would not sway my personal thoughts nor my vote.
1 person likes this
@NJChicaa (127180)
• United States
21 Sep 20
@porwest I don't think it is a law. But McConnell set the precedent and he should follow it. He won't because he is a hypocrite. I am disgusted by Trump's comment that RBG's last words were probably made up by Pelosi and Schiff. He has absolutely no class whatsoever.
1 person likes this
@porwest (112929)
• United States
21 Sep 20
@NJChicaa But on what Trump said about Ginsburg's last words, I agree with him, AND I think he says he denies she would have said them actually out of respect for her. An honorable supreme court justice would NEVER say those words as they are outside the purview of the supreme court AND outside the parameters of the interpretation of our laws and our Constitution.
If Ginsburg actually said those words, her having said them would be the dishonorable thing. NOT Trump's denial of them.
As for senators not following their own rules...both side ALWAYS do this.
@everwonderwhy (7355)
•
10 Oct 20
I believe Judge Amy C. Barrett is a good choice. President Trump picked well and carefully.
1 person likes this
@Namelesss (3364)
• United States
23 Sep 20
I agree with the same thoughts. constitutional law says sitting president can replace and seeing how vital it is we get more conservatives on the bench I'm behind that all the way.
