It seems only fair. The over-wrought Democratic rhetoric demands that President Donald Trump not nominate anyone until “the people” have had a chance to make whom they want to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
That would be by electing someone who would appoint a high court nominee who best reflects voter’s views. In line with that, we know from Trump’s list of potential candidates who Trump might nominate.
So, isn’t it fair that Biden should unveil his list of potential nominees? Doesn’t fairness dictate that voters should know in advance if Biden’s choices would reflect the voters’ views?
Of course, Democrats won’t do that because it’s their strategy to keep voters in the dark as much as possible about what a Harris-Biden, err, Biden-Harris, administration would do. In other words: lights out.
Truth is, while voters might not know who in particular might be nominated, they well know what sort of person will be nominated. Trump would appoint someone who interprets the Constitution as it was written. Biden (or whomever has his/hers hands on the throttle) would appoint someone who thinks words have no meaning when it comes to the Constitution.
The further truth is that all the lip service both parties variously give/gave to the idea that voters should have a say in who gets nominated, neither party truly believes it. Not Republicans when they refused to bring President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland up for Senate confirmation at the end of that president’s term. Not Democrats now that Trump will bring his up for confirmation before the election or the seating of the new president.
For both parties, it’s a power play. And why not? Many Trump supporters voted for him because they believed that the courts had become a sponge of soft judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Especially when it came to abortion.
Same for the Democrats. In voting for Obama and now for Biden, they believe that the candidate should reflect their liberal views, especially when it comes to abortion
Trump is right: Delaying the nomination to open the door for a liberal/progressive/radical nominee would be a betrayal of his supporters. Just as not trying to push through Garland’s nomination by the lame duck Obama would have betrayed his supporters.
In essence, Trump is following the same path that Obama took in not waiting for an election to dictate whom the nominee would be. So, let the hypocrisy cease.
By the way. If Ginsburg was so determined to ensure a liberal would be appointed to the court in her place, she would have retired when Obama was president so that he could have made the appointment. Instead she stayed on the court, presumably because she could not imagine Hilary Clinton losing to Trump. She gambled and she lost and so did her supporters. That she didn’t retire so that Obama could have nominated her successor says something about…well, I’m not sure. Either her judgment or her character.
Nicely argued.
Blithe Spirit 