Justice (Ruth B. Ginsburg) Replacement Nominee Expected Next Week, Mitch Mcconnell Promises Senate Vote

[Truth7t7]

CNBC

Trump nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Supreme Court will get Senate vote, McConnell says

FRI, SEP 18 2020 8:53 PM

KEY POINTS

• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Friday that he will hold a vote on President Donald Trump's nominee to fill the vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
• In a statement issued just over an hour after the Supreme Court said that Ginsburg had passed, McConnell said the nominee, who has not been named, "will receive a vote on the floor."
• Trump, battling against former Vice President Joe Biden ahead of November's presidential election, is expected to move quickly to name a conservative replacement.

"Statement: Mitch Mcconnell"

In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.

By contrast, 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. Once again, we will keep our promise.

President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.

 

[posthuman]

 

[posthuman]

RBG's dying wish was to not be replaced until after the election.


https://www.newsandguts.com/ginsbur...-replaced-until-a-new-president-is-installed/

 

[posthuman]

this was 9 months before the election 4 years ago that McConnell argued it was improper for a different sitting president to even get a vote on a nomination.

now, less than 2 months from the election, the hypocrisy is obvious & shameful.

 

[Truth7t7]

this was 9 months before the election 4 years ago that McConnell argued it was improper for a different sitting president to even get a vote on a nomination.

now, less than 2 months from the election, the hypocrisy is obvious & shameful.

It's politics pal, there isn't a nice guy in the package, Ole Mitch is gonna push this nomination God Speed!

Ruth Ginsburg's dying wish?

Ruth is gone, it's now Trump's living wish

So insensitive? Like killing millions of children (Abortion) that Ginsburg supported and upheld for 27 years.

You think the progressive liberal democrats would do any different on a nomination?

The shoes on the other foot now, the conservatives survived 8 years of the commie traitor (Barrack Hussain Obama) it's our turn now

 

[Truth7t7]

RBG's dying wish was to not be replaced until after the election.


https://www.newsandguts.com/ginsbur...-replaced-until-a-new-president-is-installed/

God planned things a little different, Ruth is gone, and the Republican's are gonna replace a liberal with a conservative.

Coming Soon, Reversal of Roe v Wade (Abortion) and Obergefell v Hodges (Same Sex Marriage) Can't Wait!

A 6/3 Conservative Court For Decades, And Now We Don't Need Moderate Justice John Roberts For The Win

 

[soggykitten]

View attachment 221204

Ginsburg was selfish in not stepping down when she was infirm and unfit to be a justice. Now that she's gone she should have no say whatsoever as to when her replacement is appointed. RBG was a staunch radical Leftist and she presumed Biden/Harris would take the White House and therein another strong radical Democrat would be appointed by Biden. God forbid!

Given she dared to presume to speak to what should happen after her death as pertains to the USSC, both she and Mitch are going to be surprised when that new president is sworn in for a second term.
Trump has already said he is looking to a woman justice to replace RBG. Prayerfully this will also be a Republican.
Ever more prayerfully after the selection that I hope precedes the election, in order to save America from the evils currently at work in D.C. , a Republican majority in the Congress would be a blessing to accompany the re-election of Trump/Pence.
I'd hope every Christian prays for that.

We've seen what the Democrats in power, empowered, think of America and her people. Enabling domestic terrorism and cloaking that under the mantel of allowance, free speech. The soft coupe against our president is unmistakable. The criminality behind his impeachment glaring.

If America is to survive, especially Christians here, Democrats can't have majority authority. Anywhere.

 

[Truth7t7]

Ginsburg was selfish in not stepping down when she was infirm and unfit to be a justice. Now that she's gone she should have no say whatsoever as to when her replacement is appointed. RBG was a staunch radical Leftist and she presumed Biden/Harris would take the White House and therein another strong radical Democrat would be appointed by Biden. God forbid!

Given she dared to presume to speak to what should happen after her death as pertains to the USSC, both she and Mitch are going to be surprised when that new president is sworn in for a second term.
Trump has already said he is looking to a woman justice to replace RBG. Prayerfully this will also be a Republican.
Ever more prayerfully after the selection that I hope precedes the election, in order to save America from the evils currently at work in D.C. , a Republican majority in the Congress would be a blessing to accompany the re-election of Trump/Pence.
I'd hope every Christian prays for that.

We've seen what the Democrats in power, empowered, think of America and her people. Enabling domestic terrorism and cloaking that under the mantel of allowance, free speech. The soft coupe against our president is unmistakable. The criminality behind his impeachment glaring.

If America is to survive, especially Christians here, Democrats can't have majority authority. Anywhere.

I agree 100%, selfish is a big understatement, Judicial Political Activism. That (Failed)

Ruth Ginsburg was unfit for her duties long ago, the liberals kept her going on life support, wishing and hoping for her survival beyond Nov 3rd, but God has different plans.

Just what America needs, a 6/3 Conservative majority, time for the hard right turn, hang on the trains moving quick!

 

[posthuman]

clear, incontrovertible hypocrisy.

i just want you all to keep in mind because of your worldly gang affiliations, you're supporting and celebrating lies & double standards.
think about it while you go to sleep at night and remember it when you wake up. reconcile it with your Christianity.

 

[Truth7t7]

clear, incontrovertible hypocrisy.

i just want you all to keep in mind because of your worldly gang affiliations, you're supporting and celebrating lies & double standards.
think about it while you go to sleep at night and remember it when you wake up. reconcile it with your Christianity.

Compliments Of PennEd

Look At The Liberal Hypocrisy:

 

[reneweddaybyday]

We could go back and forth all the livelong day about what a shocker it is that politicians change their tune depending upon the circumstance. Does that make politicians "liars" ... or "hypocritical" ... when they assess a situation and make a decision that appears to contradict something they have said or done in the past?


Biden in 1992: Delay SCOTUS nominee until after election
BY LYDIA WHEELER - 02/22/16 02:10 PM EST

“It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Biden said at the time.

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...-scotus-nominee-should-be-delayed-until-after




Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Supreme Court Justice, Even Months Before Election
BY BENJAMIN FEARNOW ON 9/19/20 AT 2:58 PM EDT

Former Vice President Joe Biden declared in 2016 that if he were chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court justice "even a few months before a presidential election."

Biden penned a New York Times op-ed in March 2016—just weeks after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia—which accused Senate Republicans that year of neglecting their "Constitutional duty" by stonewalling President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee until after the November general election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell cited a so-called "Biden rule" as justification for delaying Merrick Garland's nomination, pointing to a 1992 Biden speech that demanded President Bush wait until after that year's election to appoint a Supreme Court replacement.

"I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of a presidency. But there is nothing in the Constitution — or our history — to support this view," Biden wrote in March 2016, demanding Senate Republicans review Garland's nomination.

...

Obama echoed Biden's same point in 2016: "When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination ... There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That's not in the Constitution text."

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-2016...ate-supreme-court-justice-even-months-1533106

 

[Truth7t7]

We could go back and forth all the livelong day about what a shocker it is that politicians change their tune depending upon the circumstance. Does that make politicians "liars" ... or "hypocritical" ... when they assess a situation and make a decision that appears to contradict something they have said or done in the past?


Biden in 1992: Delay SCOTUS nominee until after election
BY LYDIA WHEELER - 02/22/16 02:10 PM EST

“It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” Biden said at the time.

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...-scotus-nominee-should-be-delayed-until-after




Biden in 2016: President Has 'Constitutional Duty' to Nominate Supreme Court Justice, Even Months Before Election
BY BENJAMIN FEARNOW ON 9/19/20 AT 2:58 PM EDT

Former Vice President Joe Biden declared in 2016 that if he were chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he would push ahead with the nomination of a Supreme Court justice "even a few months before a presidential election."

Biden penned a New York Times op-ed in March 2016—just weeks after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia—which accused Senate Republicans that year of neglecting their "Constitutional duty" by stonewalling President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee until after the November general election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell cited a so-called "Biden rule" as justification for delaying Merrick Garland's nomination, pointing to a 1992 Biden speech that demanded President Bush wait until after that year's election to appoint a Supreme Court replacement.

"I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of a presidency. But there is nothing in the Constitution — or our history — to support this view," Biden wrote in March 2016, demanding Senate Republicans review Garland's nomination.

...

Obama echoed Biden's same point in 2016: "When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination ... There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That's not in the Constitution text."

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-2016...ate-supreme-court-justice-even-months-1533106

Good research!

The most important 9 Judicial seats in the USA, as democrats support looting, rioting, and defunding the police, chaos?

Do Republican's want to give this Judicial nomination and power to the democrats, when they can fill the vacancy now with a conservative?

That's A No Brainer

 

[reneweddaybyday]

The most important 9 Judicial seats in the USA, as democrats support looting and rioting in the streets?

If things were not so polarized, I might agree that we should leave the vacancy open until after the election. However, there are people in high places going on record that these "peaceful protests" should continue ... meanwhile pastors are threatened with egregious fines and/or arrest for holding church services???

Do Republican's want to give this Judicial nomination to democrats, when they can fill the vacancy now?

I believe we need 9 justices on the Supreme Court. We definitely need the tie-breaker ... now more than ever ... given the unrest in our nation.

so sad what we see going on ... but we knew it would happen ... God tells us in His Word.

 

[posthuman]

• 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.”

 

[reneweddaybyday]

like I said here ... we could go back and forth all the livelong day and they're (politicians) gonna do what they're gonna do ... and they're all going to point fingers at each other and call each other "lying hypocrites". And we could do the same by posting all the quotes said by this one or that one.

Personally, I believe we need to pray for our nation ...

1 Timothy 2:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour

 

[Billyd]

We don't nee another right wing conservative justice. We don't need another left wing liberal justice. We need nine justices who will look at the cases in front of them, and make a decision based on the Constitution, not whim or will of political extremes of the people.

 

[Susanna]

Good research!

The most important 9 Judicial seats in the USA, as democrats support looting, rioting, and defunding the police, chaos?

Do Republican's want to give this Judicial nomination and power to the democrats, when they can fill the vacancy now with a conservative?

That's A No Brainer

Just like Billyd said...should a judge rule in accordance with the Constitution, or in accordance with his or her political viewpoints?

 

[Runningman]

Spend the last four years with each party in all out war with each other then when yet another scotus vacancy opens up pretend like it's time to play fair now.

If it is within their power to appoint another scotus justice because there is a vacancy then it is my opinion that they should just exercise that right.

This idea that politics suddenly becomes polite, civil, and fair just because it is an election year is pure fantasy. Pretending they hold some sort of moral high ground because Obama did it in his last term and they're owed any sort of deference is bizarre.

Meanwhile, the smear campaigns and dysfunction continues.

Let's just go for the win when we can.

 

[Truth7t7]

• 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.”

New York Post:

What’s next: Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish was to not be replaced until January
By Vincent Barone
September 18, 2020 | 8:19pm

†*************††************†*************************


Look At The Liberal Hypocrisy Below:

 

[Truth7t7]

We don't nee another right wing conservative justice. We don't need another left wing liberal justice. We need nine justices who will look at the cases in front of them, and make a decision based on the Constitution, not whim or will of political extremes of the people.

I Agree!

If this was the case we wouldn't have (Abortion) or (Same Sex Marriage), neither found to be protected in the US Constitution.

We need Justices that will interpret the US Constitution as intended by the fore father's who wrote it, (Textualist) (Originalist) not Justices that view it as a living, changing, document.