Attempting to defuse accusations of hypocrisy over the rush to replace Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff complained that former Vice President Joe Biden has yet to release nominees he would consider for the high court, only to have CNN's Jake Tapper confront him about Donald Trump's taxes.
Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," Marc Short tried to brush aside accusations that Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to voting on Supreme Court nominees in an election year when he stepped in it by attacking Biden.
"We still haven't seen a list from Joe Biden," Short told the CNN host. "We welcome a list from Joe Biden who would show the American people here's who I would appoint to the Supreme Court. But as far as the politics of it, I think the American people wanted Donald Trump to be in a position to make these nominations, and it's his obligation to do so."
"I would love to see a list from Joe Biden. I'd also love to see President Trump's tax returns," Tapper shot back.
"That's clever, Jake," Short sneered. "But the reality is we know that the president has gone through multiple financial disclosures that are more revealing than tax runs. He will continue to fill out those financial disclosures."
"I'm glad you think it's clever," the CNN host fired back. "But let's stick to this issue about Ginsburg and the Supreme Court vacancy. Do you want a vote before the election? Is that important to the president?"
"I think that, as you know, Justice Ginsburg was confirmed within 44 days of her nomination," Short replied. "Today we sit 44 days out from election, so it's certainly possible. But I think that the president's obligation is to make the nomination."
Fox News host Chris Wallace accused Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) of hypocrisy on Sunday after he vowed to push forward with a vote to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an election year.
"Why the rush to judgement?" Wallace asked Cotton after the senator promised a swift vote on President Donald Trump's eventual nominee.
"We're not going to rush," Cotton insisted. "We not going to skip steps. We're going to move forward without delay."
Wallace reminded Cotton that President Barack Obama named Judge Merrick Garland as his nominee after Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016.
"Senate Republicans blocked the choice of Garland," Wallace noted before playing a clip of Cotton defending the move at the time.
In the clip, Cotton notes that the country will have a new president "in a few short months."
"Why would we cut off the national debate about this next justice?" Cotton says in the clip. "Why would we squelch the voice of the people, why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the make up of the Supreme Court?"
Wallace continued following the clip: "Garland was nominated nine months before the election and you were saying then, nine months before the election, it was wrong to deny voters a chance to weigh in. So if it was wrong then nine months before the election, why is it OK now six weeks before the election?"
For his part, Cotton argued that Republicans won the Senate in 2014 to stop President Barack Obama's judicial nominations, and then he claimed that the current Republican Senate is in power to uphold nominations by President Donald Trump.
"You really don't think there is any hypocrisy at all," Wallace pressed, "in saying, we need to give voters -- because you can parse the 2014 election, the 2018 election any way you want -- but you stated a pretty firm principle in 2016 about Merrick Garland: It's wrong to deny voters a chance to weigh in."
"You don't see any hypocrisy between that position then and this position now?" the Fox News host wondered.
"Chris, the Senate majority is performing our constitutional duty and fulfilling the mandate that the voters gave us," Cotton opined.
Michigan state Rep. Karen Whitsett (D) pushed back against Fox News host Pete Hegseth on Sunday after he attacked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in the aftermath of the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"Comrade Cortez firing up her base in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death," Hegseth announced to kick off the Fox & Friends segment. "The New York socialist telling supporters they need to back Biden now more than ever."
"Karen, I will start with you," the Fox News host continued. "Comrade Cortez says let this moment radicalize you. Is that what this should do for Democrats?"
"You know, I honestly feel that this is a time that we ought to be mourning Ruth Bader Ginsburg," Whitsett replied. "We need to be honoring her, giving that time for the rest of the nation to mourn her. She was an icon, she was a movement in herself, she changed so many people's lives. It's not just women."
"And I honestly think that we need to be honoring her at this time," she added. "This weekend should be all about her and taking that time to mourn her. We lost someone that was extremely valuable to the country."
"Point taken," Hegseth stuttered in response. "And -- and -- and totally understandable. Do you not like hearing when someone's saying, hey, instead of remembering, you should be radicalized by this?"
"I think we're moving all too fast," Whitsett insisted, "on both sides of the aisle. I think we just need to take a step back, look at the reality and how society feels right now. And society mourns her."
Donald Trump may push Senate Republicans to try to jam a Supreme Court nominee through before the election, but I think it's more likely that he'll opt to run on the vacancy given that it's an issue that could bring Republicans who don't like him back into the fold. It would be better for him than running against the Democratic backlash that would follow a hasty confirmation before the election. And Senate Majority Mitch McConnell would also be hard-pressed to usher through a confirmation in that brief period, and he has vulnerable members who need to be home campaigning.
Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (I-AK) have said that they will not vote for a nominee before next year's inauguration. Mitt Romney (R-UT) was reportedly against moving a nominee this year as well, although his press secretary denied the accuracy of the story. If he's a no, then one more vote kills a confirmation, which would be a devastating blow to Trump just before an election.
That makes it likely that Republicans move during the lame duck session between the election and a new Congress being sworn in in early January. If Trump wins a second term, then it doesn't matter. If Biden wins but Republicans hold the Senate, then in all likelihood, McConnell will rush a Trump pick onto the Court.
Democrats would have a powerful argument about respecting the will of the voters if they win the Senate and the White House, but Republicans tend to be unmoved by majoritarian appeals. They would only have real leverage if they win unified control and can threaten to get rid of the filibuster and expand the Court (or enact other deep, structural reforms).
As if the 2020 election weren't already stressful enough, in all likelihood it will determine the future of the Court, and with it efforts to combat climate change, expand public healthcare and virtually everything else on the Democratic agenda.
United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept. 18, thrusting the acrimonious struggle for control of the Supreme Court into public view.
President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have already vowed to nominate and confirm a replacement for the 87-year-old justice and women’s rights icon.
Garland, a moderate judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, was nominated in March 2016, but McConnell balked on the basis that it was an election year.
“The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president,” said McConnell in March 2016. “And that’s the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham both have consequential roles in the confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice.
The 2020 presidential election was just 46 days away on the day of Bader Ginsburg’s death, but McConnell has apparently abandoned such considerations this time around. Trump tweeted on Sept. 19 that he would nominate a replacement “without delay.”
Since the 1990s, the Supreme Court has increasingly split 5-4 along ideological lines on many important cases, including decisions on voting rights, affirmative action, gay marriage, the Affordable Care Act, gerrymandering and gun rights.
Being able to replace a reliable liberal voice on the Court with a conservative justice would entrench a 6-3 tilt towards the right for years. There is bound to be vehement opposition from the Democrats.
However the politics play out, there is a process for Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. Here are the four steps:
Step 1: The presidential pick
The first thing to know is that the Constitution of the United States gives the power of nomination to the president.
Article II, section 2 provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.”
By law, so long as he is in the White House, President Trump can nominate whomever he wants to replace Justice Ginsburg. Appointment is really a three-step process: nomination (by the president), confirmation (by the Senate), and appointment (by the president again).
Things can get tricky somewhere between nomination and confirmation. But changes made in the Senate – in particular, the rule change in 2017 that allows a Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed with 51 votes, instead of 60 – are likely to smooth the way considerably.
Will the Republican-dominated Senate be able to confirm a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Since the early 19th century, this has meant that the nomination will first be considered by a smaller group within the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee. The only exception was in 2016, when the Judiciary Committee refused to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland.
The Judiciary Committee currently has 22 members – 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats – and has a three-step process of its own.
First, it conducts an investigation into the nominee’s background. This process can take 30 to 45 days, but it’s easy to imagine it going a lot faster.
Second, the committee holds a public hearing, in which the nominee is questioned and may give testimony about everything from her judicial philosophy to her stand on abortion. This may give voters a chance to see the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, who also serves on the Judiciary Committee, display her prosecutorial skills during questioning of the nominee.
Finally, the committee will report its recommendation to the full Senate as either favorable, negative, or no recommendation.
The 10 Democratic members of the committee have already sent a letter to the chairman, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, calling on him to “state unequivocally and publicly that you will not consider any nominee to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat until after the next President is inaugurated.”
But that seems highly unlikely, given Graham’s new statements backtracking from his 2018 assertions that he would not want a confirmation vote on a Supreme Court appointment in a presidential election year.
“I want you to use my words against me,” said Graham at the time, “[if] a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”
Once the public hearings have concluded, if the Democrats want to buy time, they can delay the committee vote for a week. But after that, it’s on to the main floor of the Senate.
So let’s move on to the next stage, shall we?
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden and others question Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Step 3: The full Senate
There are 100 senators in the United States Senate – two for each state. Currently, the Senate is majority Republican, with 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two Independents, who both caucus with the Democrats.
While the Senate has historically followed rules so arcane and incomprehensible that otherwise reasonable writers freely refer to them as “insane,” they can now be changed by a simple majority vote, which simplifies matters for the majority party considerably.
If the motion that the nomination be considered is made during a special “executive” session of the Senate, then the motion itself is debatable and can be blocked by filibuster – that movie-ready delay tactic in which which a senator recites Shakespeare, Dr. Seuss or recipes for fried oysters until everyone gives up and goes home.
But closing debate on the motion so that the Senate could move on to a vote no longer requires a supermajority of 60 votes, just a bare 51-Senator majority. So filibustering is likely to be about as effective as a paper hammer.
After that, the Democrats can insist on a minimum of 30 hours of debate, and then, they will be out of options to delay or stop a confirmation vote.
Not all nominees get confirmed by the Senate. In 1987, Reagan nominee Robert Bork was not confirmed. Bork, center, is introduced at the start of his confirmation hearings by former President Gerald Ford, to his right.
The vote to confirm requires a simple majority of the senators present and voting. If the nominee is confirmed, the secretary of the Senate will transmit the confirmation vote to the president.
The president then will sign a commission appointing the person to the Supreme Court.
The timing
The real question is whether all of this can be accomplished before the election on Nov. 3, or if it will roll over into the lame-duck session of Congress after the election.
Either way it will be a first. The Senate has never filled a Supreme Court vacancy this close to a presidential election. The closest time in the past was when Chief Justice Charles Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court to run for president. And that was 150 days before the election.
The Republican Party's own base of voters is not buying what President Donald Trump is selling when it comes to his promise to deliver an effective COVID-19 vaccine quickly.
According to a recent survey conducted by ABC News and Ipsos, only 9% of Americans "have a great deal of confidence in Trump to confirm vaccine effectiveness," ABC News reported.
An additional 18% said that they had a "good amount" of confidence that a COVID-19 vaccine might be effective under a Trump administration.
Trump personally vouching for a vaccine leaves 69% of voters without confidence in the treatment.
When asked if they would take a "safe and effective coronavirus vaccine," only 64% of respondents said they would likely get it. That's a 10-point decrease from May, a drop which ABC News noted is almost entirely driven by Republican respondents.
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery, where her husband was buried a decade ago.A private ceremony will be held for Ginsburg at the cemetery, which is also the final resting spot for many of her fellow Supreme Court judges, the top court said in a statement.Details were still scant Saturday about funeral plans.Jewish tradition normally calls for the deceased to be buried within 24 hours of death. But the Rosh Hashanah holiday started Friday night, which could delay a ceremony until Monday.Ginsburg passed away Friday night at age 87 af...
Washington (AFP) - Ruth Bader Ginsburg racked up numerous wins in the fight for women's rights long before she joined the US Supreme Court, but her death Friday puts at risk one of American feminists' key victories: the right to have abortions.Ginsburg's death at 87 left women's rights advocates in deep mourning at the loss of a revered idol.Women's groups lauded "RBG" as a giant of the law and a source of inspiration for millions.But feminists are quickly turning to the battle ahead to protect the gains achieved during Ginsburg's decades of activism and her tenure on the US high court."Tonigh...
Los Angeles (AFP) - This year's ferocious wildfires on the US West Coast are taking a heavy toll on exhausted firefighters who see no end in sight to the blazes, with the coronavirus pandemic adding another layer of risk.For Darrell Roberts, a 20-year veteran firefighter in California, the more than two dozen major wildfires raging across the state and the unprecedented scale of the blazes are a stark reminder of climate change and the new normal."When resources are stripped thin and literally every firefighter is out on the frontlines, and you have firefighters coming from all over the US and...
According to interviews in Politico with former associates of Donald Trump, the president is reveling in the fact he may very well be able to make a third lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court before the November election but it is only a matter of time before he goes overboard and causes another controversy.
With the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the president is riding high because it has knocked reports of a poor economy and over 200,000 dead from the coronavirus pandemic off the front pages giving Trump a reprieve as the election nears.
Trailing in the polls, the president's opportunity to make waves with Republicans with his high court pick could help invigorate his campaign but it also comes with a downside according to some who know Trump all too well.
According to the report, "Close observers of Trump’s career know that such moments are fraught with risk for him," with Politico's Michael Kruse adding, "So many questions, of course, roil this tumultuous moment in American politics, but the most operative for Trump might be this: Can he, at 74 years old, continue to do for days or weeks what he did Friday night—arguably for the first time in his whole life—and just hold himself in check, say the diplomatic thing rather than the nakedly partisan one, and let the possible or even probable spoils of this development wash over him?"
One Trump associate admits it's not likely.
“He might be a little reserved for a day or two,” explained former Trump casino executive Jack O’Donnell, “but then look out.”
Trump biographer David Cay Johnston agreed.
“Donald can act for a time,” Johnston said, “but he can’t sustain it.”
Former Trump Organization Executive Vice President Barbara Res couldn't even put it into words, telling Politico, "I’m sure his staff will try to get him to hold back, but..."
According to another Trump biographer, Tim O'Brien, the president can't help himself when he thinks he's on a roll.
“No. Absolutely not. Does Trump ever lay low? And this is a major event. It’s like red meat for him. He’s not going to be, you know, a wallflower while people are debating Ginsburg and the future of the court,” he explained. “He’s first and foremost, because he’s so insecure, an attention addict—so any event that he can participate in, in which he gets attention, he does, no matter how grotesque or crass it is.”
Casino exec O'Donnell went so far as to make a prediction, telling Politico, "It will not be long before he says she [Ginsburg] was actually a very bad judge.”
Los Angeles (AFP) - TV stars picked out their favorite pajamas ahead of Sunday's reinvented, pandemic-hit Emmys, which will see nominees accept prizes live from their homes, with dark superhero satire "Watchmen" tipped to dominate the night.Hollywood's first major Covid-era award show will look radically different to previous editions, with no red carpet and a host broadcasting from an empty theater in Los Angeles, which remains under strict lockdown.Winners at the 72nd Emmys -- the small-screen equivalent of the Oscars -- have been sent cameras to hook up in their own living rooms, gardens an...
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — The future of the three deputies who were fired for their failures in the Parkland school massacre may come down to a key phrase left off investigative paperwork: “Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts in it are true.”Under Florida law, internal affairs investigators must swear, among other things, that they’ve read reports about officers in their entirety and that the forms are accurate. But the version of the oath that the Broward Sheriff’s Office used on its forms over the past decade omitted that one line — an...
WASHINGTON — California is supposed to burn.Before settlers populated the region in the 1800s, about 5 to 12% of the land that now makes up the Golden State caught fire each year — more than has burned so far in 2020, the most destructive year in modern history. Some of the historic fires were caused by lightning and others were set by Native Americans as a land-management tool, but they mostly burned with low intensity and touched much of the state with great regularity.But after more than a century of aggressive fire suppression, California’s vegetation has grown much denser than the fire-ad...
