Lindsey Graham Says He Backs Trump in ‘Any Effort to Move Forward’ on RBG Vacancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest

Lindsey Graham Says He Backs Trump in ‘Any Effort to Move Forward’ on RBG Vacancy​

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Win McNamee/Getty Images

DAVID NG

19 Sep 2020

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that he is supporting President Donald Trump “in any effort to move forward” concerning the vacancy left by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham would preside over confirmation hearings for the president’s choice to fill Ginsburg’s seat.

Graham, who posted his comments to Twitter on Saturday afternoon, said that his decision to back President Trump was driven by two factors — former Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) judicial confirmation rule changes and the Democrats’ ultimately unsuccessful attempt to derail Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanugh’s nomination to the high court.

“The two biggest changes regarding the Senate and judicial confirmations that have occurred in the last decade have come from Democrats,” Graham wrote. “In light of these two events, I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.” . . .

. . . Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, the South Carolina senator said, “Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”

He repeated the sentiment in a 2018 interview with The Atlantic magazine. “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait till the next election.”

But the Kavanaugh hearings clearly served as a game changer. Earlier this year, the senator reportedly said: “After [Brett] Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I’m concerned.” . . .
Click to expand...
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If 9 months before an election is too soon for a nomination, then 45 days before and election is definitely TOO SOON.
 
Last edited:
RidgeSprinter said:
If 9 months before an election is too soon for a nomination, then 45 days before and election is definitely TOO SOON.
Click to expand...
Well here is what RBG had to say about it. I say let the Senate do their job.
But how did Ginsburg feel about election year Supreme Court nominations?

Fortunately, she made it clear in 2016 when Republicans and Democrats fought over filling the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s sudden death nine months before the election.

When asked if the Senate should consider then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, Ginsburg said, “That’s their job,” the New York Times reported.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,” Ginsburg added.

Several months later, Ginsburg said having only eight justices on the
Supreme Court is not good.

“Eight is not a good number,” she said, the Washington Post reported.
Click to expand...
 
4 of the 5 leftist Judges were appointed by Democratic Presidents.
While Republican Presidents don’t always nominate/appoint a superior Justice like Scalia, Thomas, or Alito, they’re almost always better than Democratic Party appointments Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg when it comes to life, religious liberty, freedom, and following the Constitution.

That’s why there’s no excuse for values-voters to sit home on Election Day, unless they already voted.
 
Last edited:
RidgeSprinter said:
If 9 months before an election is too soon for a nomination, then 45 days before and election is definitely TOO SOON.
Click to expand...
It’s about power. Has nothing to do with consistency or fairness.

But, remember, they’re the values party.
 
More projection,here.Its about securing the integrity of the SC,rather than have it controlled by the left.Considering with all the nefarious efforts being employed to ensure JB prevails,it’s of utmost urgency that Trump nominate a high quality judge,now!
 
vz71 said:
So why risk an installation that does not value life?
Click to expand...
I’d rather there not be a political litmus test, on any issue.

I’m not naive. But, you’re basically saying that you want a nominee that no matter what the case is, will vote to overturn Roe, because of their personal viewpoint. I think that is terrible for the Court.
 
Planned Parenthood and abortion in this country are the most racist things in America. We really need to rid ourselves of this law. Amazing that someone actually stands up for this. And now, the Democrats have veered towards infanticide itself. The list goes on.
 
PaulinVA said:
But, remember, they’re the values party.
Click to expand...
the goal is the same now as before, they just finally see what the Dems were saying before and now agree? why did the Dems change their minds this time?
PaulinVA said:
I’m not naive. But, you’re basically saying that you want a nominee that no matter what the case is, will vote to overturn Roe, because of their personal viewpoint . I think that is terrible for the Court.
Click to expand...
a person who would overturn Roe would be righting a constitutional wrong. roe was a shady decision at best. legal murder.

Biden has said he would appoint a pro-abortion judge, same thing just a different side of the coin
 
upant said:
a person who would overturn Roe would be righting a constitutional wrong. roe was a shady decision at best. legal murder.
Click to expand...
In your opinion.. Now, I’m pro life. But I also am appalled at the Republicans applying a personal litmus test to nominees. Roe is law. Yes, It can be overturned if the right test case comes up.

First, though, you need a legal theory of why the right to privacy doesn’t apply. Then, you have to convince five Justices.
 
upant said:
Biden has said he would appoint a pro-abortion judge, same thing just a different side of the coin
Click to expand...
That’s right. Biden wants to “codify” abortion into law. Shameful. What’s that? The Democrats wish to expand abortion as much as possible.


So, Roe v Wade being overturned would send it back to the States to make law. And just that is unacceptable to Democrats.

Believe me, when we talk about money, following the money, one party certainly has no corner on the market.
 
Biden is a puppet for the left.I don’t really think he stands for anything other than what he is instructed to espouse.
Trump on the other hand able to speak without notes and a prompter.He know what he believes
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA . . .
I’d rather there not be a political litmus test, on any issue.

I’m not naive. But, you’re basically saying that you want a nominee that no matter what the case is, will vote to overturn Roe, because of their personal viewpoint . I think that is terrible for the Court.
Click to expand...
.

I’d rather there not be a political litmus test, on any issue.

I’m not naive. But, the national left is basically saying that they want a nominee that no matter what the case is, will vote to uphold Roe, because of their personal viewpoint. I think that is terrible for the Court.

And if the court would have done their job back in the early 1970’s we would not be here.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
I’d rather there not be a political litmus test, on any issue.

I’m not naive. But, the national left is basically saying that they want a nominee that no matter what the case is, will vote to uphold Roe, because of their personal viewpoint . I think that is terrible for the Court.
Click to expand...
Clever!

A pox on both their houses! What I said applies to all appointments.
 
Victoria33 . . .
So, Roe v Wade being overturned would send it back to the States to make law. And just that is unacceptable to Democrats.
Click to expand...
You are right. Premeditated murder by state (vrs. Federal) fiat is a disaster too.

But as the issue gets closer to subsidiarity, it will be easier to hold to account the state lawmakers.

This is part of WHY the pro-murder crowd is becomming so unhinged regarding the abortion issue in my opinion.

One state doing the right thing, will have a domino effect upon the states.
 
Last edited:
People bloviate about McConnell in 2016 holding up Obama’s nomination that year. The same people completely and totally forgot that this conduct did not originate with McConnell. In fact, the precedent was set by their very own Chuck Schumer.


It’s politics, boys and girls, it’s always politics. The Democrats love to dish it out but they can’t stand it when the stuff they dish out comes back to bite them in the rear end.

As seen on Twitter:
Schumer in 2007: “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation.”

McConnell in 2016: OK.

Schumer in 2016: That’s not what I meant!

Media in 2020: We’ll all pretend that Democrats didn’t start this mess.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top