- The Trump administration looks eager to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the United States Supreme Court before the upcoming November 3 election
- President Trump told reporters on Monday he’s likely to nominate a Supreme Court Justice this weekend
- This comes as prominent democrats fight to stop Justice Ginsburg’s vacancy from being filled before the election
- Trump’s frontrunner’s are thought to be federal appeals court Judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa
- Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell has promised a vote on a Trump nomination
The Trump administration looks eager to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the United States Supreme Court before the upcoming November 3 election.
President Trump told reporters on Monday he’s likely to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice this weekend after memorial services have been held for Justice Ginsburg.
Prominent Democrats have been fighting to stop the President from filling the Supreme Court vacancy before the election, with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi not dismissing possible impeachment as an option to hinder the nomination process.
Nevertheless, Republican senators Chuck Grassley and Cory Gardner have signalled their support for moving forward with a quick nomination.
A Trump nominee filling the empty spot would secure a 6-3 conservating majority in the Supreme Court. Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, meaning at least four Republican Senators would need to oppose President Trump’s nomination to stop it from going through.
It’s been reported that Justice Ginsburg, on her deathbed, outlined a clear last wish to her granddaughter: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed.”
President Trump, however, has thrown doubt over whether or not Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually said that, suggesting that it was rather a carefully crafted message from Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, or Chuck Schumer.
“That came out of the wind. That sounds so beautiful,” the President said during an interview on Fox News.
“That sounds like a Schumer deal, or maybe Pelosi or Shifty Schiff,” he said.
“I don’t know that she said that… Maybe she did, and maybe she didn’t.”
Adam Schiff refuted the President’s assertion on Twitter but said he will “fight like hell” to make sure Justice Ginsburg’s vacancy wouldn’t be filled before the election.
Who’s in line?
President Trump said he wanted a woman to replace Justice Ginsburg.
Currently, the President is thought to be vetting five women as potential nominees — namely federal appeals court Judges Amy Coney Barrett, Barbara Lagoa, Joan Larsen, and Allison Jones Rushing, as well as Kate Todd, who serves as the deputy assistant and deputy counsel to President Trump.
Of these, however, Amy Barrett and Barbara Lagoa have been reported to be the frontrunners.
Republican hypocrisy?
Among calls to honour Justice Ginsburg’s final wish is more legitimate criticism that if the members of the Supreme Court vote on a Trump nomination, they would be acting hypocritically.
In 2016, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked then-president Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the court because it was an election year.
However, Justice McConnell has already promised a vote on President Trump’s nominee, despite the potential nomination coming so close to election time.
Mitch McConnell has defended the move by saying the key difference between now and 2016 is that when Obama, a Democrat, was in charge, Republicans controlled the senate. This divided government has historically determined if a Supreme Court seat was filled during an election year.
He explained that in U.S. history, a Supreme Court nomination has been made during an election year and in a divided government seven times. Of these seven, only two nominations were confirmed, with the last in 1888.
Meanwhile, eight nominations have been made in an election year when the Senate majority was the same party as the President, and seven of these eight were confirmed.
“The sole exception, Justice Abe Fortas, was a bizarre situation including obvious personal corruption that extended into financial dealings,” the Senate Majority leader said.
“Apart from that one strange exception, no Senate has failed to confirm a nominee in the circumstances that face us now.”
As such, he argues, voting on a President Trump nomination would be following the America’s historical precedent.