Should a successor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg be appointed before the November election?

Sided Political Talk

VERIFIED

“One-third of all U.S. presidents appointed a Supreme Court justice in an election year”

This is nothing new or unusual. 14 presidents have appointed 21 justices during presidential election years. A half-dozen “lame duck” presidents filled Supreme Court seats even though their successors had already been elected. Even President Obama said that he would perform his constitutional duty and nominate a successor to Scalia, adding, “Your job doesn’t stop until you are voted out or until your term expires.” Read the Washington Post article from 2016 when the shoe was on the other foot.

Roger Martin

In 2016, Obama appointed a new judge, but the appointed judge didn’t get to start working because McConnell told everyone to wait after the election. Now, a very similar scenario is brought up: Trump gets to appoint a new judge. If waiting after the election is what Obama had to do, why not Trump?

They think that he shouldn't do it because they want to do it. That is all it boils down to.

Pawpaw

Listen to the wise words of late Ruth Ginsberg who said exactly this! A President is elected for 4 years...not 3 1/2.

Michael Dunbar

MarkDavisJr

Is it the right thing... probably not, however depending on the election goes and things change they may not get their choice or say in it, so might be the better play. Anyways if the Dems were in the same position do I believe they wouldn't try , nope, they totally would too. On top of that with how dems like to change the rules, who know what they'll be the next time a Justice spot comes up

Derrick McQuinn

Albert Long

Harold

President Trump has proven to nominate Justices who aren’t activists but Judges who care about the letter of the law

Bubba

Follow the constitution regardless of who’s in office

Anthony Avila

Because the Republicans had the Senate majority in 2016 and Obama knew that whoever he wanted to appoint likely wouldn't have been confirmed by Repubs. And by the way, Democrats only have themselves to blame for this situation since they were the controlling party in 2013 when they changed the rules for executive appointments because they thought it would work out in their favor. I was against the change then and still don't like it now,  but the Dems have no one to blame but themselves and they would be nominating too if the roles were reversed.