Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I guess I tend to think in shorter bursts than longer essays, so here are some thoughts on the Supreme Court:
1. Every time there has been a vacancy on the Court in an election year, I say again, every time, the sitting president of either party made a nomination for a new justice. 29 times in all. Presidents from Washington to Obama.
2. When the Senate and the Presidency are held by the same party for 19 of those nominations, 17 were confirmed, including some after the election. When the Senate and the Presidency were held by different parties, 10 times, only 2 were confirmed.
3. When someone tries to say that there shouldn’t be a nomination or a vote because it violates a “norm”, history shows otherwise.
4. Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s confirmation, from nomination to vote, took 42 days. Sandra Day O’Conner’s took 33 days. From today, September 21, to Election Day, November 3, is 43 days. (Yes, I know the nomination won’t be announced until the weekend.)
5. Today, September 21, is the 39th anniversary of O’Conner’s confirmation vote. (Just as a Republican first put a woman on the Supreme Court, I expect the first woman president will also be a Republican.)
6. Now for some politics. Does anyone think that the Democrats, if in the exact same circumstances, holding both the Senate and the White House, would hesitate to nominate and confirm a Justice? Can anyone look at any Democrat in the Senate and say he or she would refuse to expedite a nominee? Is there any Dem who would state they would not vote for their party’s nominee? Here, let me make a list. Hmmm, maybe Manchin, . . . Okay I’m done. Anyone else?Published in