Posted on 09/20/2020 5:08:11 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
About that RBG “final wish”… – It was widely reported yesterday that, on her death bed, Ruth Bader Ginsburg allegedly said that her “most fervent wish” was to not be replaced until “a new president is installed.” Yeah, that probably didn’t really happen. It turns out that the one and only person claiming to have heard this while RBG was surrounded by family is her daughter, who is herself a leftist activist, which most likely means she made the entire thing up.
And even if the late Justice did say that, the Constitution doesn’t care about her last wishes. Indeed, here is the full language of the Appointments Clause:
“… and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
Skip Ad Sunday News Roundup: Antifa Goes to Sturgis and Portland Cops Suddenly Fight Back VDO.AI We elect presidents for four year terms, not for terms lasting 3 years and 8 months. We also elect the 100 members of the U.S. Senate to provide a check on presidential power, and one of the duties it has that is designed to provide such a check is its power of advice and consent on presidential nominees. When a seat on the Supreme Court comes open for any reason, it is the duty of the sitting president to nominate a qualified person to fill it. The Constitution then puts the onus on the Senate to provide its “advice and consent” regarding that nomination.
Democrats and their corrupt toadies in the news media are frantically trying to convince us that this current situation is exactly the same as the situation in 2016, when Antonin Scalia died under incredibly suspicious circumstances and Barack Hussein Obama His Own Self nominated Merrick Garland to fill the seat and tilt the balance on the Court to its liberal wing. But this present situation is entirely different.
But Obama faced a problem that President Trump does not face: The Senate in 2016 was controlled by the opposition party. The Senate’s “advice” provided to Obama at that time was that it was not going to allow a lame duck president (also a problem President Trump does not face) to fill that seat during a presidential election year. In providing that “advice” – and thus denying its “consent” – the senate followed more than 100 years of tradition in such a circumstance.
This year, the Senate’s “advice” to President Trump – as clearly communicated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell – is that it will give his nominee a vote. That’s because President Trump’s own party controls the Senate and President Trump is not a lame duck.
Click to find out more about a new promotion Don’t miss this content from our sponsor The Constitution contains no provision whatsoever that the president or Senate follow a dying justice’s “most fervent wish”. It is studiously neutral and starkly un-caring about any such consideration.
Depraved Democrats like Gerrold Nadler and Joseph Kennedy are now threatening to “pack the court” should President Trump put forth a nominee and the senate provide its “consent” to that nominee before next January 20. These threats will all become moot when President Trump wins re-election on November 3, but even should Trump lose, they are just noise to be ignored.
As a matter of fact, such threats are just one more reason why it is not just ok for this President to fill this opening on the Court, it is urgently important that he do so. The Democrat Party has now become so radicalized at this point that it is a very clear and present danger to the survival of the U.S. republic. The threats to pack the court are just another 0f a seemingly endless series of attacks by that party on our norms and institutions.
The Democrats’ blatant efforts to fix this election via voter fraud and throw the final decision on who wins the presidency into the courts make it vitally important that all 9 seats on the Supreme Court are filled when Democrats force it to become the final arbiter. Equally important, a 6-3 constitutionalist majority on the Court would serve as a bullwark for the survival of the Republic should voters stupidly decide to return the presidency and senate majority to the the political party that is attempting to destroy it.
This is not just a vacancy that President Trump should fill, it is a vacancy that he must fill for the good of the country. It’s not optional.
That is all.
She is being consistent. She disregarded the U.S. constitution throughout her judicial career and substituted her own wishes.
On her death bed, RBG allegedly said her “most fervent wish” was to not be replaced until “a new president is installed.”
Nothing about saving her immortal soul.
Well guess what, Ruthie....after Donald gets reelected in a landslide, he’d be the one replacing you.
Doesn’t the spouse inherit the role? We’ve seen that happen with dead politicians on the ballot.
If she was that et up with the cancer it is unlikely that she said anything.
However in the years leading up to her death she probably uttered her total contempt for this president and her absolute disgust that he’d likely appoint her replacement.
If her words are to be taken literally, that means if Trump is re-elected, her seat should remain vacant for 4 more years to honor her final wishes.
If Democrats had their way, they would claim a POTUS could not appoint a SCOTUS replacement after the mid-terms.
It is silly and childish....typical socialist, because they would NEVER abide by such rules if they had power.
Did Democrats hesitate to impeach Trump because it was an election year?
There is your answer.
Someone on another thread made this observation:
FoxNews reported that Ginsburg supposedly told her granddaughter that it was her last wish that her seat not be filled by this President. If so, it really puts the LIE to chief justice ROBERTS’ assertion that there are no Democrat Justices and no Republican Justices.
If Trump fills the seat, they will not be involved in any election dispute. I predict they will recuse themselves, depending on the case.
I’m hearing a lot about RBG’s “legacy as a trailblazer” and similar. How well known was she before Clinton appointed her? Her entire fame is built around being the liberal justice most likely to die while Trump is President. In 2008, how many people even knew who she was?
Democrats expect their votes to count even more once they’re dead!
The Supreme Court seat belongs to the people, not to the appointed judge. RBG forgot that a long time ago. Her preferences mean zero.
No they won’t. Democrats might whine about it, but they wouldn’t recuse.
This is really so SIMPLE. We should simply say to Dems, “What would you do in the same situation? Of course! That’s what we are going to do.”
Why should there be 2 different standards?
Is she so stupid that she doesn’t KNOW how the process works?
When facing my own demise my fervent wish was that my children and their families follow Jesus. Never thought about work.
“”””Doesn’t the spouse inherit the role? We’ve seen that happen with dead politicians on the ballot.”””””
John McCain thought he owned his seat just like many others.
“Equally important, a 6-3 constitutionalist majority on the Court would serve as a bullwark for the survival of the Republic.”
The court would be 5-4 constitutionalist because Roberts can NOT be relied upon to save the Republic.
Especially when you looked the other way when there was a high level conspiracy to undermine the duly elected POTUS.
Eloquently stated!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.