So, who would Biden name to the Supreme Court?

It seems only fair. The over-wrought Democratic rhetoric demands that President Donald Trump not nominate anyone until "the people" have had a chance to make whom they want to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

That would be by electing someone who would appoint a high court nominee who best reflects voter's views. In line with that, we know from Trump's list of potential candidates who Trump might nominate.

So, isn't it fair that Biden should unveil his list of potential nominees? Doesn't fairness dictate that voters should know in advance if Biden's choices would reflect the voters' views?

Of course, Democrats won't do that because it's their strategy to keep voters in the dark as much as possible about what a Harris-Biden, err, Biden-Harris, administration would do. In other words: lights out.

Truth is, while voters might not know who in particular might be nominated, they  well know what sort of person will be nominated. Trump would appoint someone who interprets the Constitution as it was written. Biden (or whomever has his/hers hands on the throttle) would appoint someone who thinks words have no meaning when it comes to the Constitution.

The further truth is that all the lip service both parties variously give/gave to the idea that voters should have a say in who gets nominated, neither party truly believes it. Not Republicans when they refused to bring President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland up for Senate confirmation at the end of that president's term. Not Democrats now that Trump will bring his up for confirmation before the election or the seating of the new president. 

For both parties, it's a power play. And why not? Many Trump supporters voted for him because they believed that the courts had become a sponge of soft judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Especially when it came to abortion.

Same for the Democrats. In voting for Obama and now for Biden, they believe that the candidate should reflect their liberal views, especially when it comes to abortion

Trump is right: Delaying the nomination to open the door for a liberal/progressive/radical nominee would be a betrayal of his supporters. Just as not trying to push through Garland's nomination by the lame duck Obama would have betrayed his supporters.

In essence, Trump is following the same path  that Obama took in not waiting for an election to dictate whom the nominee would be. So, let the hypocrisy cease.

By the way. If Ginsburg was so determined to ensure a liberal would be appointed to the court in her place, she would have retired when Obama was president so that he could have made the appointment. Instead she stayed on the court, presumably because she could not imagine Hilary Clinton losing to Trump. She gambled and she lost and so did her supporters. That she didn't retire so that Obama could have nominated her successor says something about...well, I'm not sure. Either her judgment or her character.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • You don't have an ounce of ethics, do you Dennis? Trump very publicly stated that Obama shouldn't nominate a judge in his last year of office. Did Obama ever state that about anyone? You'll happily make any misstatement, repeat any lie... How do you sleep at night?

    > If Ginsburg was so determined to ensure a liberal would be appointed to the court in her place, she would have retired when Obama was president so that he could have made the appointment. Instead she stayed on the court, presumably because she could not imagine Hilary Clinton losing to Trump. She gambled and she lost and so did her supporters. That she didn't retire so that Obama could have nominated her successor says something about...well, I'm not sure. Either her judgment or her character.

    Seriously? You are going to impune her character because she didn't play politics? If she felt that she could still faithfully perform her job, she had an ethical responsibility to keep doing it. It is a lifetime appointment for a reason. God, you are a slimeball.

  • In reply to BillDCat:

    If you read the entire post, you would have seen that both sides play politics.

    Ginsburg raised the issue herself by expressing (allegedly on her death bed or near her death) that she didn't want the current president to appoint her successor.

    If you could refrain from the personal attacks and discuss the issues, you might be more persuasive.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    First, Ginsburg's personal feelings are less that irrelevant... For you to act as though they constitute some sort of official act by the left is near the pinnacle of dishonesty. Are you seriously implying that something she said to her daughter while dying is the equivalent of an official statement by Graham saying that people should quote him when he says that a President shouldn't nominate someone in the last year of their term? Seriously, I'd like to know if you honestly believe that or if this just more of what you consider persuasive rhetoric?

    And secondly, are you really going to say that Dems and Republicans are equivalent here? Democrats have reversed themselves in that while they did think it reasonable for a President to nominate a Justice in the last year of a term, they now only want Republicans to be consistent. The Republican point of view held sway 4 years ago. Are you now implying that Dems are really as bad as Republicans because Dems want that same Republican point of view to be consistently followed even though it hurts Republicans this time? You don't seriously think Lindsey Graham is the biggest hypocrite on the planet? And you continue to make posts where you imply that something people on the left say could harm the country? The Republicans are making it perfectly clear that nothing they say has any meaning beyond their own personal power, but that elicits not a word of condemnation from you.

    It's your space and you can say what you want, but people reading you should be clear on your tendencies, don't you think?

  • In reply to BillDCat:

    I couldn't agree more. There is no equivalency between the craven toadies of Trump in the Congress and the Democrats in the same body.

  • RBG is sort of like John Kerry, she was for it before she was against it. As I recall, she apologized for her political remarks during the last presidential election.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • In reply to jnorto:
      You can have your IL pride, I’ve cut my property taxes by $10,000 on a bigger house and cut my…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Go to ridemakerz.com/survey to complete the Ridemakerz Customer Satisfaction Survey and be entered into a sweepstakes to win $1000.…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Go to ridemakerz.com/survey to complete the Ridemakerz Customer Satisfaction Survey and be entered into a sweepstakes to win $1000.…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • In reply to Get out of IL now!:
      "Whatever"? I gather that you are acknowledging that, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about. Enjoy…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Distinguished journalists such as the author of the 1619 Project, who has been criticized by numerous historians and quietly had…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: