DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court Vacancy

Thought I would take this discussion out of the RBG thread

Who might succeed Justice Ginsburg? Trump's short list begins with these five women (and one man)
USA TODAY
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
,USA TODAY•September 19, 2020


WASHINGTON – The line to succeed the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court likely starts with these federal appeals court judges:

Amy Coney Barrett

A finalist for Trump's second high court nomination, which ultimately went to Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett, 48, is a favorite of religious conservatives.

Barrett rocketed to the top of Trump's list of potential nominees after her 2017 confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, when Democrats cited her deep Catholic faith not as an advantage but an obstacle. She was confirmed, 55-43.

"If you're asking whether I take my faith seriously and I'm a faithful Catholic, I am," Barrett responded during that hearing, "although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge."

She has written that Supreme Court precedents are not sacrosanct, which liberals have interpreted as a threat to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

RBG's opinions and dissents: From VMI to Voting Rights Act

In a 2013 Texas Law Review article exploring when the Supreme Court should overturn past decisions, Barrett wrote that she agrees "with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution, and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.”

She also wrote that the public’s response to controversial cases like Roe v. Wade “reflects public rejection” of the idea that legal precedent “can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle.”

A former member of the University of Notre Dame’s “Faculty for Life,” Barrett signed a 2015 letter to Catholic bishops that affirmed the “teachings of the Church as truth.” Among those teachings: the “value of human life from conception to natural death” and marriage-family values “founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman.”

Barrett wrote in 2017 that Chief Justice John Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning in order to save it. Roberts creatively interpreted as a tax the law’s penalty on those who don’t buy insurance, allowing the court to uphold the constitutionality of the law, she said.

The Indiana resident is the mother of seven children, including two from Haiti and one with special needs. She spent two decades as a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, from which she holds her bachelor's and law degrees. She also clerked for Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

Joan Larsen

Federal appeals court Judge Joan Larsen

Like Barrett, Larsen, 51, spent much of her career as a professor, at the University of Michigan Law School.

She was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court in 2015, elected to that court the following year, and nominated by Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2017. She was confirmed by a 60-38 vote that November.

Larsen graduated from the University of Northern Iowa and Northwestern University School of Law, where she was first in her class. She clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

"We have differing views on law, politics and religion," she wrote in The New York Times about Scalia's former law clerks three days after his death in 2016. "But I have yet to meet a Scalia clerk who was not grateful to the man who taught us, shaped us, and launched us into our lives in the law."

Larsen was a deputy assistant U.S. attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush from 2002-2003.

Defending the doctrine of originalism, or strict adherence to the Constitution, Larsen wrote in a 2010 law review article that originalists do not oppose change.

"Originalism typically is quite comfortable with change; its only enemy is change imposed by judges," she wrote. "An originalist’s Constitution can thus easily keep up with the times. Judges are just not licensed to be the engines of change."

Britt Grant

Federal appeals court Judge Britt Grant

The youngest frontrunner for Ginsburg's seat, Grant, 42, shares a close friendship with Kavanaugh, for whom she clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Grant, a former Georgia Supreme Court justice and solicitor general, was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in April 2018 and confirmed 52-46 three months later.

While waiting for his own confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh conducted her swearing-in, lauding her as a "fair and even-handed" judge. Grant returned the favor, vowing that she would "strive to live up to Judge Kavanaugh’s example of integrity, stability and commitment to the rule of law."

A graduate of Wake Forest University and Stanford Law School, where she was president of the conservative Federalist Society chapter, Grant previously worked briefly in George W. Bush's administration and for former Georgia governor Nathan Deal.

Barbara Lagoa

Federal appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa

Federal appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa, 52, was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last year. A Cuban American from the swing state of Florida, she could help Trump in two ways politically.

Lagoa is considered a protégé of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Trump ally. In 2019, he appointed Lagoa to the Florida Supreme Court, making her the first Cuban American woman to serve there.

Lagoa was in the majority last week when/the 11th Circuit ruled 6-4 that hundreds of thousands of Florida felons who have served their time cannot vote this fall or in the future unless they pay fees and fines owed to the state.

The decision along strict ideological lines, with all five of Trump's judges in the majority, could have a major impact on the presidential race because of Florida's history of razor-thin margins. In 2000, George W. Bush won the White House with a 537-vote victory margin there.

"Florida’s felon re-enfranchisement scheme is constitutional," Lagoa wrote in a 20-page concurrence. "It falls to the citizens of the state of Florida and their elected state legislators, not to federal judges, to make any additional changes to it."

Allison Eid

Federal appeals court Judge Allison Eid

Trump's choice of Neil Gorsuch as his first Supreme Court nominee in 2017 opened the door for Eid, 55, who succeeded him on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

A former law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, Eid, a Coloradan like Gorsuch, graduated from Stanford University and the University of Chicago Law School. She later taught at the University of Colorado Law School.

After serving briefly as Colorado's solicitor general and for a decade on the state Supreme Court, Eid made Trump's original list of potential high court nominees in 2016. She was nominated the following year to the Tenth Circuit and confirmed, 56-41, in November.

Amul Thapar

Federal appeals court Judge Amul Thapar

When Trump embarked in 2017 on what would become the nomination and confirmation of more than 200 federal judges, Gorsuch came first. Then came Thapar.

A Kentucky protégé of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Thapar (pronounced uh-MALL Thuh-PAR), 51, would be the first Indian American to reach the nation's highest court. He was confirmed to his current post on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by a 52-44 vote in May 2017.

A former Kentucky judge and U.S. attorney with vast trial court experience – a rarity on the Supreme Court – Thapar was born in Detroit to Indian immigrants and grew up in Toledo, Ohio with his maternal grandfather, who fought with Mahatma Ghandi for India’s independence.

Thapar’s father, Raj, has said the family urged Amul to become a physician but he had only one dream – to become a justice on the Supreme Court.

He studied economics and philosophy at Boston College before earning his law degree at the University of California-Berkeley. He converted to Catholicism upon getting married and has three children.

On the appeals court, Thapar has voted to uphold Ohio's method of lethal injection for executions, as well as a Michigan county's practice of opening government meetings with Christian prayers.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/might-succeed-justice-ginsburg-trumps-001508738.html

Don't fill it!

Not before the election and after only the winner should pick.

Fill it.

Do it, republicans. Fill that vacancy. Trump says he’s gonna announce the pick next week.

Do it. And hold the hearings, republicans.

Please.

Yes, do it. Do it with a speed that’s never been seen before. Do it without Senate hearings, just a straight up or down vote and be done with it.

I have a lot of popcorn.

Everything at stake in the upcoming Supreme Court battle
Mike Bebernes
Mike BebernesEditor
Yahoo News 360Sat, September 19, 2020, 6:23 PM EDT
“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.

0:03 0:46

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

What's Happening:

The announcement of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday sent a shock wave through the political world. Lawmakers, journalists and members of the public flooded social media with testimonies of what the longtime champion for equal rights had done for the country.

The conversation looking back on Ginsburg’s legacy was quickly accompanied by a forward-looking discussion about what her passing will mean for the future of America’s top court. Within hours, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would hold a vote on a nominee put forward by President Trump — a reversal of his controversial stance that left a Supreme Court seat vacant during the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

There are significant political and logistical hurdles that McConnell must clear to confirm Trump’s nominee with just 45 days left until the election. But there’s little Democrats can do to halt the process if Republicans, who hold a majority in the Senate, remain united. The nomination process will be a major flash point in the election, perhaps even more heated than the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. GOP leaders appear to be willing to invite that controversy if it means putting another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.


Why There’s Debate:

Replacing Ginsburg, one of the court’s four liberal justices, with a conservative in the vein of Kavanaugh or Trump’s other appointee, Neil Gorsuch, would represent one of the most significant ideological shifts on the Supreme Court in decades, legal experts say. Before Ginsburg’s death, the balance of power was split between the court’s four liberal justices and four staunch conservatives, with Chief Justice John Roberts — a conservative in his own right — often serving as the decisive swing vote.

A 6-3 majority creates space for conservatives to be much more aggressive in enacting their constitutional beliefs. This shift could have major implications for a long list of issues, including abortion, voting rights, health care, LGBTQ rights, gun rights and environmental policy. The newly appointed justice may also play a crucial role if the upcoming election is contested. A reliable bloc of conservative justices, who are appointed for life, could make it impossible for Democrats to enact their policy goals for decades to come.

Beyond the political implications, the vacancy created by Ginsburg’s death could lead to fundamental changes for the Supreme Court itself. Republicans rushing to confirm a third Trump justice could further erode the public’s faith in one of America’s most important institutions and create a crisis of legitimacy for the court, some experts argue. Some Democrats have signaled that they would respond by “packing” the court by adding several more justices to offset the influence of Trump’s appointees if they gain control of the Senate next year.

What's Next:

Trump has yet to indicate who he will nominate to fill Ginsburg’s seat or when that might happen. Once a nominee is named, the Senate can begin hearings ahead of a confirmation vote. The process doesn’t need to be completed before the election on Nov. 3. Even if Trump loses to Joe Biden and Democrats take back the Senate, Republicans will still have until Inauguration Day on Jan. 20 to confirm Trump’s nominee. The Supreme Court will carry on with eight justices until a new justice is confirmed.

Perspectives:

This is one of the most important Supreme Court vacancies in modern U.S. history

“Should Trump pick Ginsburg’s replacement, however, the ideological shift rightward it represents would likely be the largest for a single Supreme Court seat since the conservative Clarence Thomas succeeded the liberal Thurgood Marshall nearly three decades ago.” — Russell Berman, Atlantic

A 6-3 conservative majority could rewrite laws on a long list of major issues

“The impact of this particular vacancy could ripple far beyond what takes place on Capitol Hill. The issues that surround the vacancy encompass the broader culture war that divides red and blue America, from abortion to marriage equality to health care to the very structure of government.” — Dan Balz, Washington Post

The balance of the court would shift to the right for a generation

“Ginsburg’s death has set up nothing short of a historic war for the future of the court – and American life under the law. Donald Trump and Republicans in the Senate are determined to replace Ginsburg with a conservative justice. Their doing so could decisively tilt the ideological balance of the court for a generation and would probably constitute the most lasting legacy of the Trump presidency.” — Tom McCarthy, Guardian

Democrats could retaliate by adding several seats to the court

“If the Democrats are unable to block Trump’s nominee, there is but one choice should Joe Biden win the White House and the Democrats take back a majority in the Senate: pack the Supreme Court.” — Elie Mystal, Nation

Another conservative justice would bring stability to the rule of law

“For all the Democrats’ hysteria about the purportedly imminent reversal of Roe v. Wade (that never happens) every time a conservative is appointed, the fact is that Republican judicial nominees are forces of stability who favor judicial restraint, enabling Americans to determine democratically how they wish to live. By contrast, the public rightly sees Democratic judicial nominees as forces of radical change, imposed by judicial fiat at the expense of democratic self-determination.” — Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review

A conservative majority will make it impossible for Democrats to enact their policies

“Even if Democrats were to control the White House and both chambers of Congress, there is no element of any progressive wish list that this Court will allow to stand. A solid 6-3 Republican majority … would gum up the works of government for a generation, at the very least.” — Jay Willis, The Appeal

The integrity of one of the country’s most important institutions is on the line

“If Trump and Republicans replace Ginsburg it will destroy the remaining public legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Full stop.” — Jonathan V. Last, Bulwark

The Affordable Care Act could soon be repealed

“The last time the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of Obamacare, it affirmed it 5 to 4. This time, without Ginsburg, the outcome will be much less certain.” — Al Tompkins, Tampa Bay Times

A disputed election could lead to a constitutional crisis

“And imagine the horror should the presidential election result in a dispute, Bush v. Gore-style, that goes to the Supreme Court, with a brand-new justice, confirmed under these circumstances, casting the tiebreaking vote. It’s hard to say that American democracy could recover.” — Joshua A. Douglas, CNN

Protections for abortion rights could be repealed

“If a new justice, as part of a 6-3 conservative majority, leads to Roe’s overturning, abortion will return to being a state issue and at least half of all states will probably ban it outright. Another dozen will likely put additional restrictions on it. Millions of women will find it all but impossible to get abortions if this happens.” — Kevin Drum, Mother Jones

Environmental protections could be significantly rolled back

“Federal agencies are where the experts in the government are. They’re the ones who write all the actual rules and regulations that help keep the air clean, the water clean, help keep food safety. … If the conservatives figure out a way to really limit the power of federal agencies, then you would see a real sea change in how American government works and, you know, a real … a kind of constitutional move toward deregulation.” — New York Times writer Emily Bazelon to Slate



https://www.yahoo.com/news/everything-at-stake-in-the-upcoming-supreme-court-battle-222302832.html

Updates from the North Carolina Trump rally...



7:10 PM: Trump says the Supreme Court was a central issue in 2016 and even in the 2018 midterm elections. He says Democrats are worried that his supporters are more excited than they were four years ago.

Trump says North Carolina should end its shutdown and he says, like in Michigan and Pennsylvania, it’s all political.

7:08 PM: Trump says there has been 29 times when there was a vacancy during an election year or prior to inauguration and every single time the sitting president made a nomination. Trump says nobody said “let’s not fill that seat.”

7:07 PM: Trump now says Article II of the Constitution says the president shall nominate justices of the Supreme Court.

Crowd chants: “Fill that seat!”

“And that’s what we’re going to do,” Trump says. “Fill that seat.”

7:05 PM: Trump says we need to save our country from the “radical-left crazies.” Trump says the nation mourns the loss of a “legal giant” Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Trump talks about her “courageous battle with cancer.” Trump says she was an “inspiration” to a “tremendous” number of people and “all Americans” whether you agreed with her. Trump says his thoughts and prayers are with her family.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/19/live-updates-trump-holds-north-carolina-rally-6/

Screw Trump and his trogs.

Another great example of "higher emotional intelligence."

Trump should nominate someone. They can start the vetting process but I don’t think there is enough time to properly vet before the election. If Trump wins, things will already set in motion. If he loses the Republicans should do nothing. Joe should get to nominate his own judge.

I would have no issue with that. But do you really think it will go down that way? If Biden wins, I have no doubt the repubes are going to do everything they can to force a candidate through the process.

They will get my family, need to buy a gun, I'm voting for an ass even though I don't like him I think he will protect me. Can you see the pattern?

That also seems reasonable to me. You could argue about whether (with 35 new senators coming in) -- the old senate or new senate should take the final vote or not.

However, it is mathematically pretty unlikely that Trump wins and democrats win the senate, so that is probably not a situation to worry about a ton.

I guess I am a little slow.

Moscow Mitch stopped Obama in 2016 on the basis that - even though Scalia passed in February - the next POTUS should select.

We're now less than 2 full months from the election ... what's changed? Other than despicable human scum like Moscow Mitch and Graham not wanting what's right for the country at large?

I mean I don't expect any different behavior from the party of Trump - but I'm interested in the justification.

The appointment can take place anytime before Jan 20th if President Trump doesn't win. It doesn't have to be by the election.

I think that is what Pdawg said "if Trump wins they can continue with his nominee.. if Biden wins he should be allowed to appoint somebody"

at least that is how i read it.

It was the despicable human scum, Pelosi, Schiff, Nader and their minion scum who impeached an innocent man. You could start with blaming them, or you can blame Harry Reid, the scum that made it possible. Without his nuclear option, you’d have the filibuster in place. You want to blame someone, blame sleazy libs in general. It’s a big target, you can’t miss.

Lindsey Graham Backpedals After Saying ‘Use My Words Against Me’ on Supreme Court Vacancies

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lindsey-graham-backpedals-saying-words-183103615.html

Dems, if y’all win control of government, end the filibuster and ram through all progressive legislation. The Republican Party won’t live up to their OWN precedent?

Fine.

Change the topic why don't you?

Impeached an innocent man? That's YOUR version ... it does not jive with the facts. It does not jive with Republicans saying that Trump probably committed impeachable offenses but they'd let the voters decide.

"Sleazy Libs" .... coming from a Trump supporter. That's funny.

Back to the topic. POS Moscow Mitch and the hypocrite scumbag Graham.

That's the problem with politics today. "Vote for me....I'm less sleazy."

Sure. I don't disagree - but it's a reality. And we are talking Trump here.

Better at hiding how sleazy anyways.

Imma try to keep this based on campaign strategy....

This is a tough on for the GOP, especially since Mitch already has two defectors.

Murkowski and Collins both cane out objecting to voting on a judge this election season.

Collins is the one right now at most risk of losing her seat.

Two potential holdouts would be Romney of Utah, and Gardner of Colorado.

Polls already out with voters saying whoever wins should nominate the judge. And fund raising for Dems have gone through the roof after Ginsburg’s passing due to the republicans trying to rush through a nominee.

So what do republicans do? Push through a nominee and all but guarantee that the senate goes to democratic control? Or wait, play defense, and hope that decision helps maintain their control in the senate?

If you're likely to lose a bunch of seats/the majority anyways, trying to push through the nomination makes sense "politically"/"partisan-ly". Supreme Court Justices don't have term limits, and can "help" in multiple future elections/decisions.

And that's one of the many things I hate about partisan politics. It's too often more about trying to hamstring your opponent than doing what's best for the country... not that they'd know what was best if there was a literal modern equivalent of God giving the ten commandments.

He should nominate a Black woman to pander to the left voters cause the scumbag lefties do it all the time and it works like a charm for them. It would be fun to watch how the MSM and the dem leaders grapple with that.
J\C.

The Best move for Trump to the voters would be to say, He is going to fill it, after the Election results but before the new congress and or January Innaugragion,

The Problem is: The Election results are going to drag out over time, and the window between November and January is too small.

I tell you one thing, if it were the Democrats in charge right now, I wouldn't want some partisan who'd already nominated 2, to nominate a 3rd,

But on the other hand, 40 years ago it wasn't as much of a problem until the democrats starting using the Supreme Court as Judge, Jury, executioner, Lawmaker, Interpreter, Potentate, and rule against the many votes of states' constituencies like the case of homosexual marriage.

The Democrats use the Courts to ram things down against the will of the people,
The Republicans use the courts to interpret and try and uphold the Constitution.

You must not have seen the Clarence Thomas hearing years ago. You know the dems already declare any person of color that isn't a democrat to be an "uncle tom" or worse.

I remember that quite well and so do they and the pure systemic racism that oozed from the dems especially bird brained Biden ,but we are the racist what a joke the libs are.

They'd just give her the Condoleeza Rice treatment, including those loveley cartoon charicatures that get accepted and chuckled at....freedom of the press, you know.

Clarice Feldman from the American Thinker wrote this:



There are 53 Republican Senators and 47 Democrats. In case of a tie, the Vice President may cast his vote. Senator Susan Collins says she will vote no. Senator Lisa Murkowski has said she will not vote for a Supreme Court Justice before the election. Rumor has it that Mitt Romney would vote against a replacement, something his spokesperson vehemently denied. Even assuming they all bail, Manchin, who voted for Kavanaugh, indicates thst he'll vote yes, and there’s at least one other Democratic senator in a tight race who might jump ship on this (Doug Jones of Alabama).

The President has made clear some time ago that he’d move ahead with any replacement, observing honestly that a Democratic president would. Those who want to deny him another seat on the Court will bring up what’s called “the Biden rule” arguing that traditionally no president should do this in an election year. Unfortunately for them, as recently as four years ago, when Obama tried this with Merrick Garland, Biden said there was no such rule.

Biden said that statement, taken out of context, glosses over his main gripe from the time -- that Bush nominated Thomas, an "extreme candidate," in 1991 without consulting his committee just four days after Justice Thurgood Marshall retired.

There are a number of candidates on the President’s short list. I put my money on Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative Catholic mother of seven (including two children adopted from Haiti and one with Down Syndrome) who presently sits on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. At the American Spectator, Robert Stacy McCain persuasively argues for her appointment. He notes that there has not been a Republican woman on the Court since Sandra Day O’ Connor; she’s not from the Ivy League, graduates of which load the court “who come from a very insular, elitist perspective that does not reflect the experience of ordinary Americans”; and she’s from the middle of the country, not the coasts. During Barrett’s confirmation hearings to the Court of Appeals, Senator Dianne Feinstein famously slammed observant Catholics “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for years in this country.”

Democrats have to risk alienating Catholics and traditional women concerned with family issues if they repeat this.

Barrett has said that women shouldn’t be pigeonholed into specific roles based on other “dogma” on the issue; rather, the individual circumstances should govern and nobody should assail their choices out of some feminist or traditionalist perspective. That’s a healthy viewpoint the majority of American women, and particularly middle-class or upper-middle-class women in the suburbs, will find wisdom in.

Which is a trap the Democrats could easily fall into, seeing as though so many of them have taken on the perspective that women who choose family over a career are somehow selling themselves short or are traitors to their sex and seeing as though the Left is insistent on forcing women to adopt more and more unrealistic ideals for themselves, at an increasing cost to the happiness of women in America. Nobody would accuse Amy Barrett of that, but to paint her as barefoot and pregnant because she has seven kids, including two adoptees from Haiti and one with Down Syndrome, will be an unmitigated disaster in front of suburban women far more likely to see her as a hero.

You guys want to alienate the rest of the Catholics you haven’t pissed off? You want to drive away those suburban white chicks you’re competitive with because of Trump’s mean tweets, the ones you had a brief flirtation with in the 2018 midterms but who are ignoring your texts thanks to the “mostly-peaceful” riots just a few miles away from where they do yoga a couple of days a week? Go make a run at Kavanaughing Amy Barrett. Let’s see how well that works for you.

I’d advise any senator on the fence to listen to Ted Cruz, who argues we can’t afford to have a vacancy on the court and resultant 4-4 ties with election disputes already underway and likely to continue. An unresolved election is dangerous to the world and could well lead to civil war here.

Yea......trying to push through a pro-life judge by hiding behind the fact that it will be a woman is not gonna fly with the majority of women.

There is no risk because that demographic was already gonna vote trump anyway. There is minimum risk to Dems, and a very high risk to republicans.

But hey, go ahead. Watching republicans get creamed in the election after rushing through a judge will be amazing.

We can't be sure we will know who won the election by January 20. It will still be in the courts.

Don't forget watching a Dem POTUS add 6 new seats to the SCOTUS with 6 new justices will be fun too.

That's what Trump should do...add 6 new conservative justices when he wins in Nov!

I can't wait until we have more justices than senators. Maybe they can install stadium seating, socially distanced of course.

I just want the snack concession.

In Vers words....Another great example of "higher emotional intelligence."

You do understand that the Supreme Court's job is to rule what is Constitutional, not what is the "will of the people." Most people are idiots. Denying homosexual marriage was denying people equal rights under the Constitution. Even if 80% of Americans didn't want it does not change whether it is Constitutional or not.

Neither side is completely innocent when it comes to trying to use the courts to their own advantage, but don't act like denying human rights because it is the "will of the people" makes it Constitutional.

Here's the hypocrisy and lie involved. When Obama wished to appoint a SCOTUS judge, Republican senators and their voters said that, even 270 days until the election, that the voters should have say in the election as to who should appoint the next judge to the SCOTUS. Now, with 44 days until the election they say Trump should appoint the new judge. The same Mitch McConnell who said.....

Feb. 22, 2016: McConnell reaffirms his stance: "Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary."

Feb. 23, 2016: “The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they’ve already started making today."

March 16, 2016, with Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, McConnell stood his ground: It is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

And he tells "Meet the Press": "The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

Now that Trump is president it seems he's shifted to a different stance....

Sept. 18, 2020: With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, McConnell said, "President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.

"Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary," he added. "Once again, we will keep our promise."

It's nothing more than a power grab. And as we can see on this very board, morals and ethics no longer mean anything to their supporters. They are being exposed for what they are. So they can stop acting like they hold any high ground. They gave that up almost four years ago and they support every scummy move they make to this very day.