McConnell: Trump's Supreme Court nominee 'will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate' | Fox News
Son Of A Bitch! The gop is really misreading this politically given the country's mood and proximity to the election. They are playing Electoral Russian Roulette with a bullet is every chamber now...
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at age 87.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump's Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg "will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."
Ginsburg, 87, died Friday from complications surrounding metastatic pancreas cancer.
"The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life," McConnell said in a statement Friday.
"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," McConnell continued. "Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."
McConnell added that "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," he said. "President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DIES AT 87
In May 2019, McConnell, R-Ky., made clear that should a vacancy materialize in the midst of the 2020 election cycle, the GOP-majority Senate would likely "fill it."
McConnell's comments last year were met with criticism from Democrats who accused him of hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.
Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.
Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.
Video
"You have to go back to 1880s to find the last time a Senate controlled by a party different from the president filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court that was created in the middle of a presidential election year," McConnell told Fox News.
FLASHBACK: MCCONNELL VOWS TO FILL A SUPREME COURT VACANCY DURING ELECTION YEAR
But the nomination and confirmation process for the latest addition to the high court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, took 89 days total for confirmation. It took 57 days from Kavanaugh's nomination to his confirmation hearing.
There are 45 days until Election Day.
Video
But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Friday night said Ginsburg's vacancy should not be filled until "we have a new president."
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice," Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted Friday. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
There was an active vacancy after the death of Scalia in 2016, but the next presidential term could be even more significant for Supreme Court nominations.
Ginsburg's death leaves a vacancy; and several other justices are over 70, including Justice Stephen Breyer is 82; Clarence Thomas is 72; and Justice Samuel Alito is 70.
Meanwhile, President Trump last week announced a list of more than 20 people he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court.
TRUMP'S SUPREME COURT LIST: POTUS REVEALS LIST OF MORE THAN 20 PEOPLE HE'D CONSIDER NOMINATING
Top contenders, prior to Ginsburg's passing, included Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals; Judge Britt Grant of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals; Judge Amul Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit; Judge Steven Colloton of the 8th Circuit U-S Court of Appeals; Judge Allison Eid of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals; Judge Raymond Gruender of the 8th Circuit U-S Court of Appeals; Judge Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit U-S Court of Appeals; Judge Raymond Kethledge of the 6th Circuit U-S Court of Appeals; Judge Joan Larsen of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals; Judge Barbara Lagoa of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals; Justice Thomas Lee of the Utah Supreme Court; Judge David Stras of the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals; Judge Allison Jones Rushing of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals; and Judge Don Willett of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, Ginsburg, who passed away late Friday, was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, spent more than two decades on the bench, and is survived by her two children Jane Carol and James Steven Ginsburg.
Ginsburg battled two forms of cancer in the past, but her health began to take a downturn in December 2018 when she underwent a pulmonary lobectomy after two malignant nodules were discovered in the lower lobe of her left lung.
On Jan. 7, 2019, the Court announced she would miss oral arguments that day for the first time since she joined as she continued to recuperate from that surgery.
Fox News' Shannon Bream, Bill Mears and Chad Pergram contributed to this report.
Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @BrookeSingman.
Tags
Who is online
487 visitors
Is it any wonder that the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as the gop?
And they did, when they elected Trump in 2016.
Just like they did when they re-elected Obama in 2012. But, of course, the Republicans' agenda was to nullify the voice of the people during Obama's presidency.
Okay.
Because party partisanship has mattered more than the people for a long time. Be honest, what would your stance be if the situation was reversed?
At this point I don't know if a nomination will be made before the election and I don't know what the Senate will do. I'm sure there are all sorts of political calculations being made right now about this and a lot of people got very little sleep last night (and won't get a lot for the next week or so) while people are trying to figure out where they can turn and still maintain their re-election. All I know for sure is that President Trump was elected in the 2016 election and his term does not end until January 20, 2021. So he can nominate a new justice if he desires. But party politics and the calculations for the upcoming election will definitely play into any decision.
there is no scenario that has trump losing support for making a nomination
a conservative supreme court was one of the major reasons why trump was elected in 2016
No, not Trump losing support. But there are some Senators who are in tough races and I expect their calculations have become more complicated.
Republicans currently hold a 54 - 47 advantage on the vote (including Vice President Pence) so there is some wriggle room, but it will be a calculation thru-out the process. Not looking forward to the confirmation hearings, I expect them to make the Kavanaugh hearings look like a tea party by comparison.
I am looking forward to it.
I want to watch the left try to manufacture a story about how amy barrett raped someone 20yrs ago.
it will be hilarious
the left has promised us this will be the most contested election ever and as such is destined for a supreme court decision
with that in mind, a potential 4-4 decision from the court is unacceptable.
Agreed 100%. This election is going to be very messy (I suspect) and it could very well become an issue brought before SCOTUS.
the left can't win without cheating
so you can bet the farm on it
Says the side who wants as few people to vote as possible.
citation, please.
if you are talking about the right not wanting mail-in election fraud? go fish.
The struggle continues.
And there it is. The GOP will not play by their own rules when it comes to the SCOTUS(or anything) and as such should the dems win the White House and Senate they should expand the SCOTUS. At this point why the fuck not? They are not dealing with an honest partner.
Thrawn, it is like anything stretched beyond its limits or pulled too tight it can not operate efficiently; but expands politically. Something the courts are sworn not to be. What Mitch McConnell and his senate has done is just make life miserable for nearly everybody.
It really does seem like there is only one option IMO. Again, the rules are gone, the only ones who will survive are those willing to get dirty. The Dems, should they win, need to expand the court by at least 1 because of the Garland "oh its an election year and I finally got a boner" bullshit.
Thrawn, I do see your point.! And, I am compelled to agree. Republicans want and intend to do this power-play. Thus, democrats have no choice but to fight to win with whatever hand we hold. I agree.
It is the political version of the Eastern Front IMO. It won't be pretty, no one will come out looking good, but you do what you have to to win.
The Senate needs to find a way to do a reset on SCOTUS nominations, and judicial nominations, in general. It's 30 years of this nonsense, now.
Too late. Your boy Trump has already started weaponizing it for his own political purposes.
Well, it's not really up to him, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. The ball lies in the Senate's court. They either need to hold precedent and wait until after the election, or admit they were full of shit and just get back to rubber stamping these guys.
Because if we're honest, they're all qualified. The only people who ever get nominated are people who have been sitting on federal benches for years.
Oh yeah, because the GOP senate is SOOOOOO independent lol. They will happily suck Trump's clit, sorry, I mean go along with whomever he nominates because they are partisan whores with absolutely zero sense of morals or independence.
McConnell has already announced that they are full of shit. That was done on Friday night. Good to see that you have no problem with the rubber stamping though.
Doing a job for years does not, in any way, make you qualified for promotion. We currently have a supervisor position available and in our meeting yesterday I flat out said that there is not a single person on our staff (many of whom have been there for years) that I think is qualified or should fill that role. Seniority doesn't mean jack fucking shit.
What about them? Their circumstances are not even remotely similar to the current circumstances.
That's fine, and I don't even disagree with that. However, the alternative to not inquiring into a justice's competency has become to hold an inquisition for some non-judge related shit they may or may not have done 30 years ago.
Ah yes! You are correct. Still, I don't think there's much doubt she understands how the law works, having beed dean of Harvard Law and Solicitor General. Still, I would like to see nominees be able to demonstrate a record of making legal findings that didn't necessarily mesh with their personal feelings. That's harder to prove if you've never been a judge.
Sorry, but I think sexual assault does factor in to a judges competency. If a SCOTUS judge has sexually assaulted women in the past, what confidence do I have that he will look out for my daughters in his rulings?
One of the most reasonable statements I have ever read. [deleted]
Hazy drunken recollections of an alleged groping from a party 35 years ago doesn't add up to sexual assault