In 2016 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Argued Holding a Seat Vacant Handicapped Supreme Court Without 9 Justices
In the above video the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg clearly argued that the Senate SHOULD confirm a Supreme Court nominee, even in the 2016 election year. She argued that the Senate has “the authority to say yay or nay to a nominee.” She further argued that by holding a seat vacant the Supreme Court was being handicapped with less than the full compliment of nine justices. In the additional video below she also argues that “The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four, And maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
See what the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to say about how the Senate should handle a President’s Supreme Court nomination in an election year in 2016, the last time it happened.
COURIC: President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia, but he has not gotten a hearing in the Senate, let alone a vote. What do you think about the Senate’s refusal to act.
GINSBURG: The Constitution gives the Senate the authority to say yay or nay to a nominee. And they have exercised that power from the very beginning. Ordinarily the President would nominate and the Senate would react to the nomination. Take my nomination for example. President Clinton nominated me on June 14 1993 and I was confirmed by the Senate August 3rd. That made it possible for me to be onboard in good time before the new term started. I could prepare adequately for the upcoming cases. Any Senator could have put a hold on me and kept the confirmation going into the fall but they didn’t. I think they all appreciated the value of the court starting out the term with a full house.
COURIC: So do you believe that the Senate is within its constitutional right to refuse to hold hearings?
GINSBURG: Well, the Senate has the authority. How it should use it – I don’t know of another instance where the Senate has said simply we won’t hold a hearing. But as I say its the Senate’s prerogative.
COURIC: Do you think its appropriate?
GINSBURG: Of course it would be good if we had nine justices. Let’s leave it at that. The court is handicapped. I’m proud that we’ve only had four cases that couldn’t be decided. But we shouldn’t face that same risk well into the new term.
COURIC: If Judge Garland is not confirmed by the time President Obama leaves office do you think Hillary Clinton, if elected, should re-nominate him?
GINSBURG: Your guess about what she would do is as good as mine. All I could say is he’s eminently well qualified to be a supreme court justice.
COURIC: Would you prefer she nominate, if elected, a woman? Because I know you’ve bemoaned the number of women justices.
— Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2016 Interview with Katie Couric
One clear thing to notice about the later portion of this conversion is the hubris which is actually responsible for creating the situation the Dems now find themselves in. Notice how they didn’t even consider the possibility that Donald Trump might win the election and be responsible for nominating Justice Scalia’s replacement. They didn’t even consider that possibility.
As I’ve said before in a previous post “If a Supreme Court Justice wishes to be replaced by their own party, then they may retire while their own party is in power. If they choose not to do that, due to hubris that their own party will remain in power, that’s their prerogative, their choice… and their problem.”
Justice Ginsburg About Election Year Nominations “The President is Elected for Four Years, NOT Three Years”
When asked if President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination should be confirmed in the 2016 election year Justice Ginsburg stated: “The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four, And maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
Listen to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her own words.
– Source CSPAN
“I do think that cooler heads will prevail. I hope sooner rather than later.
The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four, And maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
— Ruth Bader Ginsburg, September 7 2016, Georgetown Law, CSPAN Video
See What Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Herself Had to Say About Filling a Vacancy in an Election Year
When it comes to filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court we should follow what she herself had said the last time there was a vacancy in an election year.
Just because the previous vacancy was while Obama was President and this time Trump is President doesn’t mean the vacancy is any less important. The reason Obama’s vacancy was not filled was because the opposing party controlled the Senate and the Senate chose not to fill the vacancy. Now the Senate is controlled by the same party of the President and it is their constitutional prerogative to fill the vacancy if they so choose.
In July of 2016, when asked by the NY Times if the Senate had an obligation to take up the President’s Supreme Court nomination to fill a vacancy in the election year, her answer was immediate.
“That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
— Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2016 NY Times Interview
Fill That Seat! #FillThatSeat!
If You Enjoyed this Post PLEASE SHARE IT!
Let us know with a comment below, subscribe to our blog, visit our sponsors and bookmark and use our Amazon.com link the next time you buy anything on Amazon!
We may earn a small fee from the links on this site, at NO additional cost to you.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
– PatriotBites.com
