The Left, predictably, is up to their usual tricks of never letting a crisis go to waste. In this instance, they are using the death of their judicial Icon to mobilize their political machine.
They have already begun to leverage her passing for political donations. They are feigning outrage at the neglect of her ‘dying wish’. They are threatening reprisals — including impeachment — if Trump and the Republican Senate dare to do what was, in the words of none other than Chuck Schumer 4 years ago ‘your job’.
.@SenSchumer said it himself. There's no reason the Senate can't #FillTheSeat in an election year. https://t.co/O1ovhQo08t
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) September 21, 2020
It will be important, in averting a potential constitutional crisis in an election where we already know that lawyers will be working overtime, that a SCOTUS decision not result in a tie vote.
There is a long history of appointments like this one… the Garland situation notwithstanding.
.@tedcruz: “29 times there has been a vacancy in a presidential election year. Now, presidents have made nominations all 29 times. That's what presidents do. If there's a vacancy, they make a nomination”https://t.co/LY7jt2sK0c pic.twitter.com/Iv02JxuMOU
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 20, 2020
In fact, the Garland situation is NOT an unusual result for when the Senate and President are of opposite parties.
What’s on the line? Why is this outcome so critical? It’s how we avoid a constitutional crisis.
“I don’t know … I believe we will,” Sen Ted Cruz tells @gstephanopoulos when asked if Senate GOP have a the votes to confirm a Trump SCOTUS nomination ahead of Nov. 3 election, adding it’s “important” to fill the seat if there’s a contested election. https://t.co/jn2LmoJp7Q pic.twitter.com/oJvETGQRX4
— ABC News (@ABC) September 20, 2020
Inevitably, someone will shout the battle cry of the truly impotent: ‘But it’s not fair!’
No?
Is Trump naming a replacement now any less fair that this example:
ICYMI @SenTedCruz defends President Trump's right to nominate a justice: pic.twitter.com/M42qRVkUBM
— America First Works (@America1stWorks) September 20, 2020
Of course not.
As tough as she was, RBG knew her health was declining. She could have stepped down during the Obama years and been assured of a Left-friendly replacement. She chose not to.
She rolled the dice in staying on long past her health had begun to fail. She may well have hoped to remain as a judge through the end of Trump’s first term in office, but that decision was not within her power to make.
Now, there are an even number of Justices with every indication suggesting that the courts will play an important role in how this election is decided. A deadlocked court could be disastrous and lead to God alone knows what kind of escalation of the chaos we’ve already been seeing.
It isn’t just politically advantageous to exert the power of nominating and confirming a replacement to fill that seat… the historical smooth transition of power might depend upon it.
The full interview, if you would like the whole thing in its context can be seen here:
