The passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg means that we’re approaching an even more combative election season. And if it’s anything like the last time President Trump nominated someone to the bench, we’re looking at one heck of a fall. Democrats have already warned the president that they will do whatever they can block whoever he nominates to fill RBG’s seat. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t even rule out impeachment.
And yet precedent is on the side of the president. Every single time that there’s been a vacancy on the Supreme Court in an election year, the presidential incumbent has introduced a nominee. It’s a fact that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said the media likes to ignore.
“Twenty-nine times there has been a vacancy in a presidential election year,” Cruz reminded ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. “Now, presidents have made nominations all 29 times. That’s what presidents do. If there’s a vacancy, they make a nomination.”
Important history & context, which the MSM ignores. https://t.co/nn063TfLY4
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 20, 2020
The Senate has been the same party of the president 19 times when a SCOTUS nominee was up, and out of those 19 times, 17 were confirmed. The parties were different a total of 10 nominations, and in those instances only two were confirmed. Cruz chalked that up to checks and balances. You have to have the president and the Senate to forward these nominees. And a big reason Americans elected Trump in 2016, Cruz said, was because they wanted constitutionalist judges.
“The president was elected to do this, and the Senate was elected to confirm this nomination,” the senator concluded.
Cruz’s name is reportedly on President Trump’s new SCOTUS shortlist, along with two other senators, Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Tom Cotton (R-AR). However, at a weekend rally Trump told his supporters that he’ll be nominating a woman, as soon as next week.
— Abigail Marone (@abigailmarone) September 19, 2020
Author: Cortney O’Brien
Source: Town Hall: Ted Cruz: The Mainstream Media Is ‘Ignoring’ Key SCOTUS Context