@Former Member posted:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Trump wants replacement 'without delay'

1 hour ago, September 19, 2020, Source - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54216710

In 2016, Senate Republicans blocked Democratic President Barack Obama's pick for the US top court. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell justified the move on grounds that it was an election year.

But on Friday Senator McConnell said he intended to act on any nomination Mr Trump made.

Earlier, Mr McConnell said in a statement - which included a tribute to Ginsburg - that "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate".

The senator had argued in 2016 that "the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice" which meant "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president".

But now he says the Senate was within its rights to act because it was Republican-controlled, and Mr Trump is a Republican president.

Democrats, however, began echoing Mr McConnell's words from 2016.

The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, sent a tweet repeating his exact phrase, while Mr Biden told reporters: "There is no doubt - let me be clear - that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider."

Ginsburg had also made her feelings clear in the days before her death.

"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," she wrote in a statement to her granddaughter, according to National Public Radio (NPR).

Interesting developments on this process to approve a new Justice for the U.S Supreme Court.

This could add to the issues on the pending elections in November 2020.

Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide

This guide explains the nomination process and suggests resources for further research into the nominations of more recently confirmed Supreme Court Justices.

Source - Georgetown Law Library - https://guides.ll.georgetown.e...365722&p=2471070

Nomination & Confirmation Process

Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2.

The Process

Resources on the Nomination Process

Source - https://www.google.com/search?...b-d&q=Ruth+Bader

Trump has all right to nominate someone to replace Justice Ginsburg, as stated in the constitution . But the Republicans stopped Justice Garland appointment, stating that it was too close in an election year, 11 MONTHS, this time is just over ONE MONTH.

 Let's see , American politics has shifted from Covid 19 to Chief Justice appointment. The right pick can benefit Trump, on the other hand forcing and rushing the appointment can back fire to benefit Biden.

 Interesting Times Ahead!

The Republicans didn’t stop Merrick Garland appointment. His nomination was accepted and he had one of the longest confirmation hearings in US history. Lasted over 290 days.

@Bibi Haniffa posted:

The Republicans didn’t stop Merrick Garland appointment.

His nomination was accepted and he had one of the longest confirmation hearings in US history. Lasted over 290 days.

Really Esteemed and Learned Ms. Bibi Haniffa ...

=Doffs my hat and bows with a slight incline=

[[[Quote]]]

So much has happened in the past two years that many may have forgotten what happened to Merrick Garland in the spring of 2016.

President Barack Obama quickly named Merrick Garland, then 63, to fill the seat. Garland had long been considered a prime prospect for the high court, serving as chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — a frequent source of justices that is sometimes called the "little Supreme Court."

Widely regarded as a moderate, Garland had been praised in the past by many Republicans, including influential senators such as Orrin Hatch of Utah.

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."

[[[Unquote]]]

What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now

So much has happened in the past two years that many may have forgotten what happened to Merrick Garland in the spring of 2016.

But filling in that recollection goes some distance in explaining a lot of what has happened since.

To recap, Garland was nominated to fill the 2016 vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death that February of Justice Antonin Scalia, an icon of conservative jurisprudence

President Barack Obama quickly named Merrick Garland, then 63, to fill the seat. Garland had long been considered a prime prospect for the high court, serving as chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — a frequent source of justices that is sometimes called the "little Supreme Court."

Widely regarded as a moderate, Garland had been praised in the past by many Republicans, including influential senators such as Orrin Hatch of Utah.

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."

Supreme Court picks have often been controversial. There have been contentious hearings and floor debates and contested votes. But to ignore the nominee entirely, as if no vacancy existed?

There was no precedent for such an action since the period around the Civil War and Reconstruction. No Democratic president had made an appointment while Republicans held the Senate since 1895.

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

McConnell was not alone. The 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from Obama. No proceedings of any kind were held on Garland's appointment.

The court had to convene that October with only eight justices, divided often between the four appointed by Democrats and the four appointed by Republicans. Short-handed, the court deadlocked on a number of issues and declined to hear others.

Democrats were outraged, of course, but were short of tools with which to respond. As the minority party — following a disastrous midterm in 2014 — they could not force a committee or a floor vote. They gave speeches, and they urged voters to turn out in protest in the November elections.

Scores of scholars — law professors, historians and political scientists — urged the Senate to at least have a process for Garland as a duly appointed nominee with impeccable qualifications. But some lawyers and academics pointed out that the Constitution empowered the Senate to "advise and consent" but did not require it do so. (Some adding that they thought the Senate still ought to do so.)

A federal lawsuit was filed to compel McConnell to hold a vote on Garland. It was thrown out because a judge said the plaintiff, as an ordinary voter, had no standing to sue.

For his part, McConnell argued that the Democrats had at least contemplated a similar tactic back in 1992, when Obama's vice president, Joe Biden, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and mused about urging President George H.W. Bush to withhold any nominees to the high court until the end of the "political season."

At the time, the Senate had just been through a bruising battle over the 1991 confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas.

As it happened, no vacancy occurred in 1992. But McConnell and others referred to the "Biden rule" nonetheless in justifying the blockade of Garland.

With or without such justification, McConnell's blockade was doubly effective just as a power move.

First, it prevented the seating of a Democratic president's choice. Had he been considered, Garland might have pulled a few majority-party members across the aisle. Supreme Court nominees nearly always win at least some votes from the party opposing the president, and Garland had a strong law-and-order history. Had he performed well on TV, voting against him might have been harder — especially for Republicans seeking re-election in competitive states.

Second, and more important, the vacancy became a powerful motivator for conservative voters in the fall. Many saw a vote for Trump as a means to keep Scalia's seat away from the liberals and give the appointment to someone who promised to name anti-abortion justices supportive of Second Amendment gun rights.

Again and again in the fall, candidate Donald Trump treated the Supreme Court as a touchstone, sometimes simply shouting the two words to his rally crowds. And indeed, polling has shown the court vacancy did mean a great deal to Trump voters, especially those religious conservatives who had personal misgivings about him.

Now, of course, McConnell's calculus has changed. With a slim but steady majority of the Senate, and Vice President Mike Pence available to break a tie, McConnell feels confident he can confirm Trump's nominee and get his people out to vote again — this time, in gratitude.

Democrats see all this as what their Senate leader Chuck Schumer called "the height of hypocrisy." But will that move voters in their direction more now than it did in 2016 or motivate the disaffected within their base?

Some say the Democrats hurt themselves two years ago, first with a nominee who would not excite the party's base. Whatever his evident virtues, Garland was another white male who, as a 63-year-old moderate, could not promise decades as a liberal warrior.

There is also ample evidence that the Supreme Court motivates conservatives more than it does progressives. That has often been the case since the Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision in 1973 launched an era of social issue backlash that split the old Democratic coalition.

It also has been argued that the Democrats caved to McConnell's pressure tactics in the Garland case. They should have found a way to force a vote or "shut down the Senate" to light a spark.

But Democrats are generally averse to government shutdown strategies, especially considering the potential blowback on their own candidates. In 2016, it was still the Obama era and the Democrats' executive administration. Shutdowns rarely help the party perceived to be in power, even if it's not really in control.

So it was safer, in the judgments of spring and summer 2016, to let the Republicans look intransigent and unfair and hope somebody noticed. Perhaps the injustice to Garland would help Democrats win seats in supposedly blue states such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and even red ones such as Missouri and North Carolina.

Instead, the country moved on. There were highly contentious primaries in both parties and plenty of other news to preoccupy everyone.

Besides, and lest we forget, the Senate Democrats and most everyone else thought they had an insurance policy on the Scalia vacancy. The assumption was that Hillary Clinton would be elected. Clinton, who did, after all, win the popular vote by several million votes, might even have helped carry in a Democratic Senate. And then she could have renominated Garland, or someone younger and more liberal.

As it sorted out, the Democrats were cautious, overconfident and misinformed about the mood of the country. They lost in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Missouri and North Carolina, winding up still in the minority.

That left them powerless to stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017, paving the way to confirmation of Trump's first choice and probably his second.

And that is the predicament in which they find themselves today.

Correction June 29, 2018

A previous version of this story incorrectly said that before 2016, the last time a Democratic president made a Supreme Court appointment while Republicans held the Senate was in 1885. The last such appointment was in 1895.

Mitch McConnell can say what he wants. The only rule of law is the US Constitution. Merrick Garland was given his due process. The nomination and confirmation hearings took place according to the law. The fact that he didn’t secure the votes to be confirmed doesn’t change the constitution or the process.

@Bibi Haniffa posted:

Mitch McConnell can say what he wants. The only rule of law is the US Constitution.

Merrick Garland was given his due process.

The nomination and confirmation hearings took place according to the law.

The fact that he didn’t secure the votes to be confirmed doesn’t change the constitution or the process.

Ms. Bibi Haniffa ...

No confirmation, hearings nor votes were held on the matter.

What was offered to Merrick Garland were the opportunities to meet with individual Republican members in their respective offices to have general discussions on this item.

[[[Quote]]]

Through the summer and fall, Senate Republicans continued to act as if no Supreme Court vacancy existed and no nomination had been made. On July 20, Garland broke the 100-year-old record of 125 days for the longest gap between a Supreme Court nomination and confirmation.

[[[Unquote]]]

Here’s what happened when Senate Republicans refused to vote on Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than two months from the presidential election has forced a reexamination of Republicans’ 11-month blockade of Merrick Garland in 2016.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a Friday night statement that President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg will get a vote in the Senate. Doing so would be a complete reversal of his position in 2016, when the GOP-led Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, saying it was too close to the election.

McConnell digs in

Justice Antonin Scalia, who had been a conservative stalwart on the Supreme Court since being nominated by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1986, died on February 13, 2016.

Within hours — as other senators were offering condolences to Scalia’s family — McConnell issued a stunning, categorical rejection of Obama’s authority more than 11 months before the Democrat’s replacement would be sworn into office.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said.

The ‘Biden rule’

Other leading Republicans followed McConnell’s lead. A reason they frequently cited: What they called the “Biden rule.” Joe Biden had said in a 1992 Senate floor speech — when there were no high court vacancies to fill — that “once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.”

McConnell never backtracked, despite Democrats’ hopes that he would face political pressure to do so. On February 23, a week after Scalia’s death and before Obama had nominated his replacement, McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor that no Obama nominee would receive a vote.

“Presidents have a right to nominate, just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” the Kentucky Republican said. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that day signed a letter to McConnell saying they would refuse to hold hearings on any Scalia replacement until after a new president took office on January 20, 2017. Many Republicans cited the “Biden rule.”

Obama picks Garland

In the ensuing weeks, Obama forged ahead, ignoring Republicans’ insistence that no nominee would receive a hearing or a vote and chose Garland on March 16. His calculation was that a long-time jurist — Garland, then 63, was the chief judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — who was respected by both parties and had been previously confirmed by the Senate would be difficult to turn away.

“I hope they’re fair,” Obama said of Senate Republicans in the Rose Garden as he announced Garland was his choice. “That’s all. I hope they’re fair.”

Republicans don’t budge as Garland clock ticks

But Republicans did not budge, making clear on the day Garland was nominated that their position had not changed and he would not receive a vote.

“I think well of Merrick Garland. I think he is a fine person. But his nomination does not in any way change current circumstances,” then-Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time.

Through the summer and fall, Senate Republicans continued to act as if no Supreme Court vacancy existed and no nomination had been made. On July 20, Garland broke the 100-year-old record of 125 days for the longest gap between a Supreme Court nomination and confirmation.

Supreme Court activity slowed drastically. The court — mindful of potential 4-4 splits — was reluctant to take on new cases.

Court turns into election flashpoint

The GOP’s refusal to act on Obama’s nominee turned the Supreme Court into a key political issue in November’s general election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Trump on May 19, 2016, released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees — a list shaped by conservative allies and aimed at soothe Republican voters’ concerns over whether he would nominate right-leaning judges. The promise of anti-abortion, pro-gun rights and anti-LGBTQ rights judges motivated religious conservatives who might have had misgivings about Trump’s character.

Less than two weeks after taking office, on January 31, 2017, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s former seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate, where Republicans maintained a majority after the 2016 election, confirmed Gorsuch less than three months later, on April 7, 2017.

Oi Esteemed DG..when you doff yo hat an bowin with a slight incline ...Mek sure you doan incline too steep or you might topple over...tarasss. Unless you got a rather...ahem..stout stomach which will help ancher you.

Canadian fake News machinery is in full swing. Merrick Garland had a confirmation hearing that was one of the longest in US history. In fact, the reason why he was not confirmed is because his time from nomination to confirmation expired according to the timeline stipulated by the US constitution.

BLM is in panic mode right now as Trump gets to pick his third Supreme Court Justice. So fake news in Canada is in overdrive.

Trump can say whatever he wants. It's up to the Senate to confirm or deny the nomination.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg death: Here’s what could happen with the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has thrust the Senate into uncharted political terrain, with no recent precedent for a vacancy on the high court so close to a presidential election.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a statement Friday night vowed that “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” But he did not say when or how that would happen, and there’s significant uncertainty about what comes next.

A look at the confirmation process and what we know and don’t know about what’s to come

Can the Senate fill the seat before the election?

Yes, but it would require a breakneck pace. Supreme Court nominations have taken around 70 days to move through the Senate, and the last, for Brett Kavanaugh, took longer. The election is 45 days away. Yet there are no set rules for how long the process should take once President Donald Trump announces his pick, and some nominations have moved more quickly. It will come down to politics and votes.

What does it take to confirm a nominee?

Only a majority. Republicans control the Senate by a 53-47 margin, meaning they could lose up to three votes and still confirm a justice, if Vice President Mike Pence were to break a 50-50 tie.

Supreme Court nominations used to need 60 votes for confirmation if any senator objected, but McConnell changed Senate rules in 2017 to allow the confirmation of justices with 51 votes. He did so as Democrats threatened to filibuster Trump’s first nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

How does the campaign factor in?

Republicans are defending 25 of the 38 seats that are on the ballot this year, and many of their vulnerable members have been eager to end the fall session and return home to the campaign trail. The Senate is scheduled to recess in mid-October, though that schedule could change.

Still, many of the most vulnerable senators may be hesitant to vote on a nominee before facing voters in November, and their views could ultimately determine the timeline for action. Others may want to campaign on their eventual vote. McConnell himself is among those up for reelection this year.

Can the Senate fill the vacancy after the election?

Yes. Republicans could vote on Trump’s nominee in what’s known as the “lame duck” session that takes place after the November election and before the next Congress takes office on Jan. 3. No matter what happens in this year’s election, Republicans are still expected be in charge of the Senate during that period.

When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the president is given authority under the Constitution to nominate someone to fill it. It is up to the Senate Judiciary Committee to vet the nominee and hold confirmation hearings. Once the committee approves the nomination, it goes to the Senate floor for a final confirmation vote. This process passes through several time-consuming steps. Traditionally senators want to meet and assess the nominee themselves, which requires weeks of meetings around the Capitol.

And that’s all assuming the process goes smoothly. In 2018, Kavanaugh’s confirmation fight took weeks longer than expected after Christine Blasey Ford accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were teens. Kavanaugh denied the accusation and was confirmed by the Senate in a 51-49 vote.

Reached by phone late Friday, the Judiciary chairman, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., declined to comment on the plans. Graham is another Republican up for reelection.

Didn’t McConnell say in 2016 that the Senate shouldn’t hold Supreme Court votes in an election year?

He did. McConnell stunned Washington in the hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016 when he announced the Senate would not vote on then-President Barack Obama’s potential nominee because the voters should have their say by electing the next president.

McConnell’s strategy paid off, royally, for his party. Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat, but he never received a hearing or a vote. Soon after his inauguration, Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s seat.

On Friday, four years later, McConnell said the Senate will vote on Trump’s nominee, even though it’s weeks, not months before an election.

So what changed since 2016?

McConnell says it’s different because the Senate and the presidency are held by the same party, which was not the case when a vacancy opened under Obama in 2016. Democrats say this reasoning is laughable and say the vacancy should be kept open until after the inauguration.

Certainly politics are different now, with the country in the grips of a deadly pandemic. The U.S. Congress has not been operating at full speed since the spring, with much of the usual work — including on committees — being done remotely to avoid spreading the virus.

Absent a robust legislative agenda, the court battles have become a focal point for McConnell, fulfilling a longstanding conservative priority. He is building his legacy on confirming conservative judicial nominees. On his watch, the Senate has confirmed more than 200 judges for federal appellate and district courts.

Who are the Senators to watch?

With the slim 53-seat majority in the Senate, the Republicans have few votes to spare. Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and others will be among those senators to watch.

It’s not just the qualifications of Trump’s nominee but the political calculation of a vote so linked to an election that could shape their position. Collins is in a tight race for her own reelection in Maine, and she and Murkowski have long been watched for their support of a woman’s right to an abortion under Roe vs. Wade.

Murkowski and Romney have been critical of Trump and protective of the institution of the Senate.

Others facing close reelection contests in their states, including Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, could face pressure not to vote ahead of the election or in its immediate aftermath, especially if they were to lose their seats.

What did Trump say Friday? Biden?

 In a tweet Saturday morning, Trump said the Republican party was “put in this position of power” to “make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us.”

“The most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of the United States Supreme Court Justices,” he wrote. “We have this obligation, without delay!”

Democratic nominee Joe Biden said the winner of the November election should choose Ginsburg’s replacement. “There is no doubt — let me be clear — that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider,” Biden said Friday.

–With files from Global News

@cain posted:

Oi Esteemed DG..when you doff yo hat an bowin with a slight incline ...Mek sure you doan incline too steep or you might topple over...tarasss. Unless you got a rather...ahem..stout stomach which will help ancher you.

Oiii Cain ...

Ahh kan mek steep steep inclines widout any prablems.