Republican senators speak out against Supreme Court nominations during an election year

[Quetzal]

I am happy to see that a party that prides itself on integrity and consistency will have no issue waiting until after the election to vote.

“2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

 

[icehorse]

So all that's standing between us and a SC disaster is counting on GOP senators to not be hypocritical?

What could go wrong?

 

[Suave]

I am happy to see that a party that prides itself on integrity and consistency will have no issue waiting until after the election to vote.

“2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

I hope the notorious RBG gets her final wish of her replacement to be nominated by our newly elected President. I am hopeful Senators Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney are likely to keep the Supreme Court nomination process from happening before the election.

 

[PureX]

Even they know they're full of #### and can't be trusted!

 

[columbus]

Even they know they're full of #### and can't be trusted!

The problem is that there is no real them.

The TeaParty staged a hostile takeover of the Republican party. But they aren't Republicans. The Republicans have been held hostage by the TeaParty billionaires, but they're realizing that they can take their values back.

It will just take more backbone than they're accustomed to using.

We'll see what happens.
Tom

 

[Kenny]

I am happy to see that a party that prides itself on integrity and consistency will have no issue waiting until after the election to vote.

“2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Then, of course, there is the other side of the coin that pride themselves on integrity and consistency:

Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Supreme Court Justice, Even Months Before Election

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted: “Judge Merrick Garland, is a respected jurist who must be given a fair hearing & timely vote.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted, “Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. [Obama] has done his job

Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Republicans must “ditch their extremism” and schedule a vote for Garland.

“It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” Reid said, Politico reported. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

 

[Quetzal]

Then, of course, there is the other side of the coin that pride themselves on integrity and consistency:

If you are looking for additional strawmen, I could try the yellow brick road.

 

[columbus]

Then, of course, there is the other side of the coin that pride themselves on integrity and consistency:

Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Supreme Court Justice, Even Months Before Election

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted: “Judge Merrick Garland, is a respected jurist who must be given a fair hearing & timely vote.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted, “Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. [Obama] has done his job

Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Republicans must “ditch their extremism” and schedule a vote for Garland.

“It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” Reid said, Politico reported. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

Did that happen?

Or did Republicans decide not to follow the Constitution?

Having dumped the Constitution, are the Republicans now going to "stay the course" and consistently follow their own precedent? Or are they going to stick with partisan politics, regardless of the Constitution and USA institutions?

We're going to find out in the next few days.
Tom

 

[Left Coast]

Then, of course, there is the other side of the coin that pride themselves on integrity and consistency:

Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Supreme Court Justice, Even Months Before Election

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted: “Judge Merrick Garland, is a respected jurist who must be given a fair hearing & timely vote.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted, “Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. [Obama] has done his job

Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Republicans must “ditch their extremism” and schedule a vote for Garland.

“It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” Reid said, Politico reported. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

Your team won, though. You kept Garland out. So now you should live with that precedent. Right?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am happy to see that a party that prides itself on integrity and consistency will have no issue waiting until after the election to vote.

“2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

i don't see it that way.
Every Prez can try for a new justice whenever they're able.
Trump lacks time, so it's moot.

 

[Quetzal]

i don't see it that way.
Every Prez can try for a new justice whenever they're able.
Trump lacks time, so its moot.

I have a suspicion this will be fast-tracked in an effort to stack the court prior to the inevitable court battle over the upcoming election.

 

[Mindmaster]

I am happy to see that a party that prides itself on integrity and consistency will have no issue waiting until after the election to vote.

Actually, 9 out of the 10 last times this has happened the vote proceeded and the nominee was confirmed. Obama's last attempt was the only notable failure, and parties never confirm justices from the opposition party for any reason. So, if the President's party doesn't control Senate then their chances to get nominations is basically zero. But, I expect either party to benefit from this scenario to try. That being said I expect Trump to nominate a woman, but maybe one that is just a bit more pro-2A. I'm guessing he doesn't really want to 'change the face of the court' as his last picks largely nominated people that were at least in line with the justices they replaced to some degree.

But, as with everything these days the merchants of fear are busy whipping up the frenetic and frantic masses who value politics just a bit too much. People fail to realize that regardless of the justices personal views they are there to interpret the law as written, and that provides some limits on their decision making. The typical arguments that Roe V. Wade and other social gains are going to completely erased are nothing but nonsense.

 

[columbus]

I hope the notorious RBG gets her final wish of her replacement to be nominated by our newly elected President.

The problem I have with that is that we don't elect Presidents.

Trump and his Putin/TeaParty supporters are better at running rigged games than practically anybody.

Certainly better than Biden and the Democrats.

So, even if RBG gets her wish, it'll probably be Putin. Who will tell Trump. Who will tell McConnell. Who will tell the GOP......
Tom

 

[columbus]

parties never confirm justices from the opposition party

If you think Garland was from the opposition party you're poorly informed.

Garland was a centrist Republican, and had been proposed as a nominee by the Republicans in previous SCOTUS replacement proceedings.

Get it?
Obama nominated a Republican. The Republicans refused to even hold hearings, much less a Senate vote on Garland. Because they think that there should be an "election" first.

The only real question here is "Do Republicans have any values besides partisanship?"

Stay tuned. Doubtless McConnell will let us know very soon.
Tom

 

[Mindmaster]

If you think Garland was from the opposition party you're poorly informed.

Garland was a centrist Republican, and had been proposed as a nominee by the Republicans in previous SCOTUS replacement proceedings.

Get it?
Obama nominated a Republican. The Republicans refused to even hold hearings, much less a Senate vote on Garland. Because they think that there should be an "election" first.

The only real question here is "Do Republicans have any values besides partisanship?"

Stay tuned. Doubtless McConnell will let us know very soon.
Tom

Well, I meant that in that 'opposition party picks' I wasn't really thinking in terms of the actual nominee. There are plenty of RINOs and DINOs that even the same party doesn't like.

They both do the partisianship and always will, so it's literally no argument. Republicans proceeding with their nominee doesn't reflect anything in this sense any more than if the Dems held the President's seat and the Senate and did the same. Both parties are playing for keeps and I don't expect them to do anything else, because I'm not a fool.

 

[columbus]

Obama nominated a Republican.
But you can still say:

They both do the partisianship and always will,

seriously?
No wonder you're a Trump supporter. You'll believe anything, if the GOP says it.

Tom

 

[Mindmaster]

Obama nominated a Republican.
But you can still say:


seriously?
No wonder you're a Trump supporter. You'll believe anything, if the GOP says it.

Tom

I'm not a Republican, and you just inadvertently proved my point.

The hyper-partisanship has extended into this forum and everywhere else. "Everyone that doesn't agree with me is the bad guy.", lol. I vote per-candidate as always... Why settle for voting for something as nebulous as a party? But, for now, the Dems are on the whack track and I'm not a fan... It's not so much that I really support Republicans in so much as I am absolutely not down with what the Dems are doing. Not exactly the same thing, but undoubtedly many here will fail to see the difference. Liking Trump doesn't imply I like his party either, and for most intents and purposes I don't. I probably only agree with them most on the 2A and smaller government / less red tape. After that it's pretty hit or miss...

I'll probably vote Republican straight ticket in protest to the coddling by Dems of Antifa and BLM which I completely and absolutely reject on the basis of them being destructive elements. While everyone else is protesting and breaking **** in the streets, I'll take my protest to the ballot box. I'll have nothing to do with their idea of America, especially considering that they hate it so much, lol. Normally, I'd be much more granular with my selection but I'll have no part of voting for a party that encourages this nonsense. Similarly, I feel the Dem lock-down restrictions are arbitrary and heavy-handed, so again just another reason to stick it to 'em.

As a normally completely independent voter I just feel my hand is forced, so I am not enthused about it. I'll have nothing to do with their negative vibe, and they can stuff it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a suspicion this will be fast-tracked in an effort to stack the court prior to the inevitable court battle over the upcoming election.

I can't say whether his goal is a conservative justice, or one
who'd benefit him in an election issue fight. The former seems
likely. The latter would strongly point to a conspiracy.
The Dems could explore that during confirmation.

 

[columbus]

I'm not a Republican, and you just inadvertently proved my point.

I never said you were a Republican.

So you just proved my point.
Republicans aren't very honest. But Trump supporters are even less so.

Maybe the Republicans could salvage their values in the next couple of months. We'll see.
I'm not holding my breath.

Tom

 

[columbus]

I can't say whether his goal is a conservative justice, or one
who'd benefit him in an election issue fight. The former seems
likely.

Why does the former seem more likely?
Tom