Biden blasts Trump's plan to push for Supreme Court nominee before election

[webfact]

Biden blasts Trump's plan to push for Supreme Court nominee before election

By Trevor Hunnicutt and Susan Heavey

 

Democratic U.S. presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden delivers remarks regarding the Supreme Court at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S., September 20, 2020. REUTERS/Mark Makela

 

PHILADELPHIA/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden urged Senate Republicans not to vote on any candidate nominated to the Supreme Court as the November election approaches, calling his rival Donald Trump's plan an "exercise of raw political power."

 

Biden was speaking on Sunday, the day that a second Senate Republican voiced objections to Trump's plan for a quick vote on a replacement to liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Friday. Such an appointment by the president, if approved by the Senate, would cement a 6-3 conservative majority that could influence American law and life for decades.

 

"Voters of this country should be heard ... they're the ones who this Constitution envisions should decide who has the power to make this appointment," Biden said in Philadelphia. "To jam this nomination through the Senate is just an exercise of raw political power."

 

Biden said that if he wins the Nov. 3 election, he should have the chance to nominate the next Supreme Court justice.

 

The former vice president rejected the idea of releasing the names of potential nominees, saying that doing so, as Trump did, could improperly influence those candidates' decisions in their current court roles as well as subject them to "unrelenting political attacks."

 

He reiterated his pledge to nominate an African-American woman to the court, which would be a historic first, if he has the opportunity.

 

Earlier on Sunday, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she did not support Trump's plan to move fast on filling the seat, becoming the second of the 53 Republicans in the 100-seat chamber to object publicly following Ginsburg's death.

 

Senator Lamar Alexander, another moderate Republican, issued a statement saying he did not object to a vote.

 

Trump's plan drew immediate criticism from Democrats, who noted that in 2016 Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked a vote on a Democratic appointee on the grounds that the vacancy should be filled by the next president.

 

"I did not support taking up a nomination eight months before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia," Murkowski said in a statement. "We are now even closer to the 2020 election – less than two months out – and I believe the same standard must apply."

 

Senator Susan Collins of Maine voiced similar concerns on Saturday. Collins is locked in a tight re-election battle, while Murkowski's current term extends two more years.

 

A majority of Americans, some 62% including many Republicans, told a Reuters/Ipsos poll that they thought the winner of the November election should get to nominate a justice to fill the vacancy.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia, a close friend of Ginsburg's, died in February 2016, but McConnell blocked a vote on Democratic President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

 

Trump said on Saturday he would make his nomination this week and named Amy Coney Barrett of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Barbara Lagoa of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit as possible candidates to fill the vacancy created by Ginsburg, a revered figure among liberals.

 

The passing of Ginsburg upended the November election campaigns, energizing both Trump's conservative base - eager to see the court overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide - and presenting new complications in the battle for control of the U.S. Senate.

 

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden urged Senate Republicans not to vote on any candidate nominated to the Supreme Court as the November election approaches, calling his rival Donald Trump's plan an "exercise in raw political power."

 

"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, where supporters chanted: "Fill that seat." "I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men."

 

Trump and McConnell have time to make the nomination and schedule a vote. While elections are on Nov. 3, a new Congress will not be sworn in until Jan. 3, with the winner of the presidential contest inaugurated on Jan. 20.

 

'LUST FOR POWER'

Republican Senator John Barrasso on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday brushed off Democratic complaints about the nomination process.

 

"Let's be very clear - if the shoe were on the other foot and the Democrats had the White House and the Senate, they would right now be trying to confirm another member of the Supreme Court," Barrasso said.

 

Democrat Hillary Clinton, whom Trump defeated in the 2016 election, on the same program called that view "indefensible."

 

"What's happening in our country is incredibly dangerous," said Clinton, a former secretary of state whose husband, Bill Clinton, nominated Ginsburg to the court in 1993. "Our institutions are being basically undermined by the lust for power."

 

Trump has already appointed two justices: Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed after a heated confirmation process in which he angrily denied accusations by a California university professor, Christine Blasey Ford, that he had sexually assaulted her in 1982 when the two were high school students in Maryland.

 

"No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican president’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year," Alexander said in his statement. "The Constitution gives senators the power to do it."

 

(Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt in Philadelphia and Susan Heavey in Washington; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung and Sarah N. Lynch; Writing by Scott Malone; Editing by Daniel Wallis, Steve Orlofsky and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-09-21

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Tug]

Well yea of course especially after they got burned in 2016 hopefully it can be delayed till after the election 

[Thailand]

The highest court in the land and the judges are chosen by their political leanings and not their ability to make impartial decisions?

Sounds a bit crook to me.

[riclag]

 

Who is constitutionally tasked with appointing  another one for the senate to confirm to fill the seat! It ain't biden! Elections have consequences! 

 Mr. Trump wants to appoint another women, now ! Good for him and the  country

Edited September 20, 2020 by riclag

[TopDeadSenter]

 

"Joe Biden claimed in 2016 that it was the 'constitutional duty' of a president to name a Supreme Court nominee even in an election year

At the time he criticized Republicans for delaying the process"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752197/Joe-Biden-said-2016-presidents-constitutional-duty-SCOTUS-seat.html

 

'nuff said.

[RJRS1301]

6 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 

"Joe Biden claimed in 2016 that it was the 'constitutional duty' of a president to name a Supreme Court nominee even in an election year

At the time he criticized Republicans for delaying the process"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752197/Joe-Biden-said-2016-presidents-constitutional-duty-SCOTUS-seat.html

 

'nuff said.

Was it not theRepublicans who refused to allow Obama appointment to be named during 2016?

Edited September 20, 2020 by RJRS1301

[riclag]

5 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 

"Joe Biden claimed in 2016 that it was the 'constitutional duty' of a president to name a Supreme Court nominee even in an election year

At the time he criticized Republicans for delaying the process"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752197/Joe-Biden-said-2016-presidents-constitutional-duty-SCOTUS-seat.html

 

'nuff said.

Its possible he forgot

[Boon Mee]

When the chickens come home ???? to roost. 

Elections have consequences! ???? 

 

MAGA 

[Cryingdick]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

Was it not theRepublicans who refused to allow Obama appointment to be named during 2016?

 

Okay let's go through this again. Whoever shall control the WH and the senate gets to choose the SCJ. The dems didn't control the senate at that time. Now the GOP has a majority in the senate and controls the WH. It becomes their prerogative, they can do what they want to do.

 

If Obama had the senate we wouldn't be discussing this, his appointee would have been confirmed. This gets as tiresome as explaining the EC. 

 

It seems that if you don't control a majority of the senate elections are somewhat less consequential.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Cryingdick

[Tug]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 

"Joe Biden claimed in 2016 that it was the 'constitutional duty' of a president to name a Supreme Court nominee even in an election year

At the time he criticized Republicans for delaying the process"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752197/Joe-Biden-said-2016-presidents-constitutional-duty-SCOTUS-seat.html

 

'nuff said.

Nope not enough said and there will be consequences best be a waxing up the old surf board there’s a blue wave a building lol

[Cryingdick]

 

accidentally repeated myself.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Cryingdick

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Okay let's go through this again. Whoever shall control the WH and the senate gets to choose the SCJ. The dems didn't control the senate at that time. Now the GOP has a majority in the senate and controls the WH. It becomes their prerogative, they can do what they want to do.

 

If Obama had the senate we wouldn't be discussing this, his appointee would have been confirmed. This gets as tiresome as explaining the EC. 

 

It seems that if you don't control a majority of the senate elections are somewhat less consequential.

A hypocritical opinion.

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A hypocritical opinion.

It's actually a fact.Cry as much as you want but if you have the WH and senate you have the green light. That's a fact. FWIW I wasn't in the USA in 2016 and never opposed the nomination of Obama's pick. So nothing I have said is remotely hypocritical.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Cryingdick

[stevenl]

Just now, Cryingdick said:

It's actually a fact.Cry as much as you want but if you have the WH and senate you have the green light. That's a fact.

The right to appoint is a fact, the opinion of quite a few trump supporters here on it is hypocritical. Some are honest enough to admit that.

[Cryingdick]

Just now, stevenl said:

The right to appoint is a fact, the opinion of quite a few trump supporters here on it is hypocritical. Some are honest enough to admit that.

 

It would be refreshing if the dems actually did the same. Now you can apologize to me for stating facts and accusing me of being a hypocrite.

[MajarTheLion]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 

"Joe Biden claimed in 2016 that it was the 'constitutional duty' of a president to name a Supreme Court nominee even in an election year

At the time he criticized Republicans for delaying the process"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752197/Joe-Biden-said-2016-presidents-constitutional-duty-SCOTUS-seat.html

 

'nuff said.

RBG had the same position as Biden in 2016:

 

She lamented the Republican-majority Senate’s continued blocking of Garland from consideration, and its insistence that the next President, to be elected in November, should be the one to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said, when asked whether the Senate should give the 63-year-old judge a fair hearing. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

 

https://time.com/4400491/ruth-bader-ginsburg-interview-donald-trump-merrick-garland-abortion/?iid=sr-link7

[MajarTheLion]

The fact also remains that Trump and McConnell will move forward on this and get a new justice seated. There's no reason to leave the spot empty. And politically speaking, there's no reason to leave it undone and leave a campaign issue for Biden. It'll be done and over and Biden will have to complain about other things.

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

The fact also remains that Trump and McConnell will move forward on this and get a new justice seated. There's no reason to leave the spot empty. And politically speaking, there's no reason to leave it undone and leave a campaign issue for Biden. It'll be done and over and Biden will have to complain about other things.

It would actually be somewhat unprecedented to not move to put a SCJ if you are the sitting President. Something like 26 SCJ were confirmed in the last year of a presidency. 

 

The dems can twist it however they want to but it's just sour grapes. What makes their tears so bitter is they are helpless to stop it.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Cryingdick

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 

"Joe Biden claimed in 2016 that it was the 'constitutional duty' of a president to name a Supreme Court nominee even in an election year

At the time he criticized Republicans for delaying the process"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8752197/Joe-Biden-said-2016-presidents-constitutional-duty-SCOTUS-seat.html

 

'nuff said.

 

8 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

RBG had the same position as Biden in 2016:

 

She lamented the Republican-majority Senate’s continued blocking of Garland from consideration, and its insistence that the next President, to be elected in November, should be the one to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said, when asked whether the Senate should give the 63-year-old judge a fair hearing. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

 

https://time.com/4400491/ruth-bader-ginsburg-interview-donald-trump-merrick-garland-abortion/?iid=sr-link7

McConnell invented the precedent of not approving a Supreme Court Justice nomination during an election year in order to avoid stating the obvious fact that he was playing partisan politics and neglecting his constitutional responsibility to consider legitimate nominees.  Now he is ignoring his own precedent.

 

'nuff said.

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

The fact also remains that Trump and McConnell will move forward on this and get a new justice seated. There's no reason to leave the spot empty. And politically speaking, there's no reason to leave it undone and leave a campaign issue for Biden. It'll be done and over and Biden will have to complain about other things.

All your rationales applied in 2016.  I'm sure you were outraged that McConnell refused to let the Senate perform its constitutional duties then, weren't you?

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

It would actually be somewhat unprecedented to not move to put a SCJ if you are the sitting President. Something like 26 SCJ were confirmed in the last year of a presidency. 

 

The dems can twist it however they want to but it's just sour grapes. What makes their tears so bitter is they are helpless to stop it.

As has been explained repeatedly, McConnell established the precedent he now intends to break.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

It would actually be somewhat unprecedented to not move to put a SCJ if you are the sitting President. Something like 26 SCJ were confirmed in the last year of a presidency. 

 

The dems can twist it however they want to but it's just sour grapes. What makes their tears so bitter is they are helpless to stop it.

It would be unprecedented? From the presidential pov yes, from republican pov, clearly not.

[MajarTheLion]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

McConnell invented the precedent of not approving a Supreme Court Justice nomination during an election year in order to avoid stating the obvious fact that he was playing partisan politics and neglecting his constitutional responsibility to consider legitimate nominees.  Now he is ignoring his own precedent.

 

'nuff said.

Yep. And of course, let's not forget Joe Biden has also flip-flopped on the position he held in 2016. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around in DC.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

As has been explained repeatedly, McConnell established the precedent he now intends to break.

 

You must have mistaken what I said. Any sitting POTUS will move to confirm a SCJ. I don't care what McConnell did or didn't do. He might be a hypocrite. Far enough he will have his own place in hell for it. However Trump is completely with in his rights to move to confirm as he is the one who decides it not Mitch. 

 

It would be no different with any other president. That's the precedent I am speaking of not some minor footnote in history like Mitch changing his view.

[Scott]

Troll post removed. 

 

[MajarTheLion]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

All your rationales applied in 2016.  I'm sure you were outraged that McConnell refused to let the Senate perform its constitutional duties then, weren't you?

No. Because like everyone else in DC, I flip flop to suit my political purposes. But then that begs the question of you. Has YOUR position on the issue changed between 2016 and now? Can I assume that you were outraged in 2016 as well as 2020 over this issue?

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Yep. And of course, let's not forget Joe Biden has also flip-flopped on the position he held in 2016. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around in DC.

Expecting McConnell to live up to his words and play by consistent rules is not flip-flopping. 

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You must have mistaken what I said. Any sitting POTUS will move to confirm a SCJ. I don't care what McConnell did or didn't do. He might be a hypocrite. Far enough he will have his own place in hell for it. However Trump is completely with in his rights to move to confirm as he is the one who decides it not Mitch. 

 

It would be no different with any other president. That's the precedent I am speaking of not some minor footnote in history like Mitch changing his view.

Actually you posted "It would be unprecedented".  I explained that McConnell established the precedent.

 

McConnell "might be a hypocrite"?  There is no "might" about it.

[heybruce]

Just now, MajarTheLion said:

No. Because like everyone else in DC, I flip flop to suit my political purposes. But then that begs the question of you. Has YOUR position on the issue changed between 2016 and now? Can I assume that you were outraged in 2016 as well as 2020 over this issue?

Has my position changed?  No.   I expect the Senate Majority Leader to be consistent in the application of the rules he chooses to impose on the Senate during his tenure.

[MajarTheLion]

Just now, heybruce said:

Expecting McConnell to live up to his words and play by consistent rules is not flip-flopping.

I agree, expecting McConnell to live up to his words and play by consistent rules is not flip-flopping. But that is not why I am making the flip flop accusation. I am making it because Joe Biden was for seating a SCOTUS judge in year four of a presidency in 2016 but against it in 2020.

[Cryingdick]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Expecting McConnell to live up to his words and play by consistent rules is not flip-flopping. 

Actually you posted "It would be unprecedented".  I explained that McConnell established the precedent.

 

McConnell "might be a hypocrite"?  There is no "might" about it.

 

It would be unprecedented for a sitting president not to move to confirm a SJC if the opportunity presents itself. If I mistyped it so be it but that was what I was getting at. I have never seen you in the whole time of being on TV ever concede even the smallest point. We will agree to disagree because I do not think you are  able to consider any view that isn't your own at this point. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Cryingdick