Romney, Senate Republicans pave way for vote on Trump Supreme Court pick

[webfact]

Romney, Senate Republicans pave way for vote on Trump Supreme Court pick

By Andy Sullivan and Richard Cowan

 

FILE PHOTO: People gather to mourn the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., September 20, 2020. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republicans including Mitt Romney on Tuesday lined up behind President Donald Trump's push to widen the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority, leaving Democrats little hope of blocking a confirmation vote on a nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that could come before the Nov. 3 election.

 

Romney, a rare Trump critic among Republican senators, said he favored having a vote on Trump's nominee, giving his party enough support to approve the president's third appointment to the high court. Trump has said he plans to announce his nominee by Saturday and has urged the Senate, where his fellow Republicans hold a 53-47 majority, to vote before the election.

 

His party's unsuccessful 2012 presidential nominee, Romney said it would be appropriate for a nation that he described as center-right politically to have a Supreme Court "that reflects center-right points of view."

 

Trump has mentioned two women who he has appointed as federal appeals court judges as possible nominees: Amy Coney Barrett of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Barbara Lagoa of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump met with Barrett at the White House on Monday and has said he might meet with Lagoa in Florida later this week.

 

Romney and other Republicans have dismissed Democratic arguments that the Senate should wait until after voters decide whether to re-elect Trump or chose Democratic challenger Joe Biden in November. A Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Sunday found that a majority of Americans, including many Republicans, also want the election winner to make the nomination.

 

"I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president's nominee," Romney said.

 

Republican Senator Mitt Romney said on Tuesday he would support holding a Senate confirmation vote for President Trump's U.S. Supreme Court nominee, giving Trump a crucial boost in his bid to install a conservative replacement for the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

Ginsburg, a pioneering advocate of gender equality who served on the court for 27 years, died on Friday at age 87.

 

Democrats accuse Republican senators of hypocrisy, pointing out that they refused to even consider Democratic President Barack Obama's nominee to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat in 2016 because it was an election year.

 

Romney said that was not a concern for him, as Washington was split between a Democratic White House and a Republican-led Senate that year, while this year Republicans control both.

 

"My liberal friends have over many decades gotten very used to the idea of having a liberal court. And that's not written in the stars," Romney told reporters.

 

Four Republicans would have to join the Democrats in opposing a confirmation vote to block the nomination. Only two have taken that position.

 

Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Maine's Susan Collins said the Senate should not consider a nominee this year. Two Republican senators who had been the focus of some speculation as to their position, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, also have made clear they support moving ahead with the confirmation process.

 

There is enough support among Senate Republicans to hold a vote on the nominee before Nov. 3, according to two Republican aides who spoke on condition of anonymity.

 

'THE INSTITUTION OF THE SENATE'

The chamber's top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, said the Supreme Court vote "may now very well destroy the institution of the Senate." Schumer took action to prevent Senate committees from conducting business on Tuesday afternoon in a symbolic protest.

 

Public mourning events for Ginsburg will be held in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday and Thursday and in the Capitol on Friday.

 

Ginsburg's replacement could steer the court in a more conservative direction on abortion, healthcare, gun rights, voting access, presidential powers and other spheres of American life.

 

Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida said he has spoken to Trump about Lagoa. Scott said choosing the Cuban-American judge would help Trump in the election in states with large numbers of Latinos including pivotal Florida.

 

Barrett is a favorite of Christian conservatives, a key constituency for Trump.

 

Democrats have few, if any, options for preventing a vote.

 

Top congressional Democrats have downplayed possibilities such as holding a second impeachment vote, withholding government funding that is due to expire on Sept. 30, or boycotting committee hearings.

 

"I've been around here a few years. You can slow things down but you can't stop them," Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, told reporters.

 

The Senate could also vote in a lame-duck session after the election before a new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3.

 

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey and David Morgan; Editing by Will Dunham and Scott Malone)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-09-23

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

 

[nattaya09]

Three SCOTUS confirmations in four years. He will probably get to fill Breyer's in his 2nd term.

[Somtamnication]

RBG's body not  yet buried. Shame on these people.

[Puchaiyank]

Say it is not so!  I can't stand it!  Let's go out and burn down as few innocent people's businesses!

[simple1]

Another republican hypocrite. Hopefully the republican tyranny by the minority of voters will be wiped out come 03/11.

[Brunolem]

Get ready for more "peaceful protests", especially in and around DC...

Edited September 22, 2020 by Brunolem

[Poet]

The Republicans can still get their nomination passed if three of their senators refuse to follow precedent, but not four. We already know that two, facing extremely tough re-elections, are lost. Romney, with a great deal of personal animus against the president, was a worry, but clearly sees the bigger picture. What he says about the constitution and precedent is correct.

I am amazed that more Democrats aren't angry about the astonishing selfishness of RBG. Since 1999, she has had five bouts of cancer. She was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the extremely aggressive condition that eventually killed her, at the age of 82 and during the presidency of Barack Obama. It is mind-blowing that she failed to take the simple, obvious step of resigning so that he could safely pass her seat on to another Democrat. That is why Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018 despite being in good health, so that another conservative could take his place. That is how this is meant to work.

The same goes for Stephen Breyer, now 82. Why on Earth didn't he resign at some point during Obama's second term? Can you imagine the hysteria if he now dies before the election, gifting Trump with a 4th Supreme Court judge?

All these Democrat judges presumably understand the constitution. They presumably understand that most humans don't live past their eighties. They also presumably know that most presidents get to serve two terms. So, why do they allow their egos to override the wider interests of their parties?

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Poet

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[Puchaiyank]

Just the prospect of another Constitutionalist on the Supreme Court is enough to send stars shooting over rainbows dreams...

 

Don't get your panties in a wad...the world...your world is not coming to an end if Trumo gets his appointment approved...

[Tug]

17 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

Say it is not so!  I can't stand it!  Let's go out and burn down as few innocent people's businesses!

Ahhh you rember mr Floyd don’t you the guy who was murdered by the police that’s what people have been practicing their first amendment rights about now this rush to appoint Ruth’s replacement will be delt with at the ballot box there will be lots of republicans looking for a job the lady’s aren’t going to take kindly to trump and his minions taking their right to choice away and lots and lots of folks are aware of trump wrecking health care best get the old surf board ready that blue waves gonna be a doozy!

Edited September 22, 2020 by Tug

[Mama Noodle]

Romney is a senator from Utah, so he knows if he wants to keep his job he needs to be onboard. 
 

Great news, regardless. 

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, Poet said:

I am amazed that more Democrats aren't angry about the astonishing selfishness of RBG. Since 1999, she has had five bouts of cancer. She was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the extremely aggressive condition that eventually killed her, at the age of 82 and during the presidency of Barack Obama.

You consider it appropriate to speak ill of the dead before they are buried? You omit the fact Obama was blocked by republicans to appoint a Supreme Court judge to have a balanced Court. Moving along, IMO, it would make sense to legislate a judge for future should automatically retire, e.g. at 70, in order to minimise the exploitation of the Supreme Court appointment process for political advantage close to national elections. In addition, I understand some judges in US States are elected by the voters, given the impact of Supreme Court decisions on US society would it not make sense, though expensive, to have Supreme Court judges elected by a majority vote by the people?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president's nominee," Romney said.

Nice to see Mitt come through and support President Trump (and the Constitution) for a change.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"My liberal friends have over many decades gotten very used to the idea of having a liberal court. And that's not written in the stars," Romney told reporters.

Well spoken, and truthful.  A most excellent quote.

[Tippaporn]

35 minutes ago, Poet said:

<snip>

Can you imagine the hysteria if he now dies before the election, gifting Trump with a 4th Supreme Court judge?
<snip>

I never get tired of winning.  Just more excited.

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

His party's unsuccessful 2012 presidential nominee, Romney said it would be appropriate for a nation that he described as center-right politically to have a Supreme Court "that reflects center-right points of view."

Perhaps a Supreme Court should be the ultimate arbiter of justice, non partisan, unbiased, untainted by political considerations, rather than a reflection of any particular political point of view.

 

I rather thought that was  the point?

 

Selecting a judiciary to reflect political views effectively removes the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branched of government; separation of those powers is absolutely central to any democracy.

[Mama Noodle]

9 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Perhaps a Supreme Court should be the ultimate arbiter of justice, non partisan, unbiased, untainted by political considerations, rather than a reflection of any particular political point of view.

 

I rather thought that was  the point?

 

Selecting a judiciary to reflect political views effectively removes the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branched of government; separation of those powers is absolutely central to any democracy.

 

If that were the case, then RBG would have never been appointed. 

[Poet]

42 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You consider it appropriate to speak ill of the dead before they are buried?

Absolutely.

All this sanctimonious nonsense about RBG, including the laughable "Her dying wish" meme is a cynical abuse of the dead by politicians who know that there is no provision in the constitution for judges to select their successors.

I am not political, I am simply pointing out that the Republicans did not create this situation, and any informed Democrat knows that.

 

42 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You omit the fact Obama was blocked by republicans to appoint a Supreme Court judge to have a balanced Court.

No, he was blocked by the senate, which happened to be majority Republican at that time.

A party that does not retain the senate does not have the clear mandate of the people, or the right to appoint their choice without somehow gaining the senate's agreement.

 

42 minutes ago, simple1 said:

IMO, it would make sense to legislate a judge for future should automatically retire, e.g. at 70, in order to minimise the exploitation of the Supreme Court appointment process for political advantage close to national elections.

Your suggestion would somewhat reduce the problem as judges would be less likely to die before 70. You would also, however, miss out on the wisdom that these great minds have to offer in their 70s. Better to solve the problem by having judges selfless enough to accept that their number is up and grab their opportunity to resign under a Democrat president when diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at the age of 82, instead of clinging on grimly until the middle of a Republican presidency.

There is, however, no exploitation in this case. If you have the presidency and the senate, you have the pick, the constitution is clear on that. The current drama is manufactured.
 

 

42 minutes ago, simple1 said:

would it not make sense, though expensive, to have Supreme Court judges elected by a majority vote by the people?

Okay, at this point I have to conclude that you are definitely not American. The U.S.A. is a federation of states. The terms under which those states agreed to join underpin the whole structure. Provisions such as the senate and the electoral college ensure that the more populated states cannot simply override the concerns of less-populated states. This is most vitally the case when it comes to Supreme Court judges who determine the rules under which all Americans operate.

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Poet

[Chomper Higgot]

Once again, not bringing in any votes that are not already in Trump’s dwindling base while energizing the opposition to Trump and what has become of the GOP.

[Thailand]

Lets hope this is among one of the final acts Trump gets to perpetrate before he and his cronies are stripped of their power. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Romney’s vote to proceed with Trump’s nomination is not yet a vote to appoint Trump’s nomination.

 

This is a political process and has political repercussions.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Perhaps a Supreme Court should be the ultimate arbiter of justice, non partisan, unbiased, untainted by political considerations, rather than a reflection of any particular political point of view.

 

I rather thought that was  the point?

 

Selecting a judiciary to reflect political views effectively removes the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branched of government; separation of those powers is absolutely central to any democracy.

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

[Thailand]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

And impartiallity be damned!

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

So, appointing a person who makes decisions based on their religious convictions wouldn’t be problematic to the idea of ‘adhering faithfully to the Constitution’?

[Mama Noodle]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So, appointing a person who makes decisions based on their religious convictions wouldn’t be problematic to the idea of ‘adhering faithfully to the Constitution’?

 

Any evidence that the person (who is yet to be even named) makes decisions based on religious convictions and not the constitution?

 

Or is this more hogwash from the sour grapes crew. 

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts and replies removed along with post misusing a politician's name.  

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, nattaya09 said:

Three SCOTUS confirmations in four years. He will probably get to fill Breyer's in his 2nd term.

One of many excellent arguments against a second term.

Edited September 23, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Once again, not bringing in any votes that are not already in Trump’s dwindling base while energizing the opposition to Trump and what has become of the GOP.

Agreed.  Confirming an obviously anti-abortion Justice who will allow states, not individuals, to control women's bodies will lead to a lot of apathetic millennials voting.  This will likely result in a blue wave that not only will give the Presidency, the House and the Senate to Democrats, it could also turn a lot of Red states Blue, just in time for the gerrymandering that will follow the 2020 census.

[heybruce]

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree completely.  The Supreme Court should not be a tool for liberal ideologies which run counter to the Constitution.  It should be a Supreme Court which adheres faithfully to the Constitution.  And that's what Trump is moulding it into.

Can you give an example of liberal justices deviating from the Constitution?

[new2here]

i have voted republican in the past; but in the past few electoral cycles i’ve found it harder to consistently do so... but that said.. my thought is a bad “past practice” was apparently set by the earlier handling of Garland... i do get or understand the logic as to not doing an appointment close to an election... but for me at least, i tend to see it a bit more simplistically.. i don’t support purposefully delaying, nor expediting an appointment... they happen when they happen and who ever is in control of the senate at that time gets to handle it.. that’s just how the ball bounces..  

 

i also don’t support ideas like trying to expand/dilute the court by adding  additional justices- as that to me just opens the door to the “other side” just trying to circumvent what the side who has/had the power, to do... i tend not to want to “tinker” too much with how the court operates and its overall structure.

Edited September 23, 2020 by new2here