Contributor at Western Free Press
Nancy Thorner is a writer, cellist, and Tea Party activist based in suburban Chicago who writes regularly for Western Free Press, Illinois Review, and The Heartland Institute's Freedom Pub blog. Nancy is active in the following organizations: The Heartland Institute, Phyllis Schlafly Eagles, Illinois Family Institute, Family-Pac, Republican Assembly of Lake County, and the Women's Republican Club of Lake Forest/Lake Bluff.
Latest posts by Nancy Thorner (see all)
When Trump first ran for office in 2016, I made it a point to watch most of the Trump rallies. So far in 2020, I have a perfect record viewing Trump rallies.
Unlike the 2016 Trump rallies, the 2000 rallies are being held at airports instead of large arenas, etc. Also, instead of being called rallies, Trump refers to them as “peaceful” protests.
Because Fox News, unlike in 2016, seldom broadcasts Trump rallies in full, by Googling, we can view every Trump rally starting two hours before the rally is scheduled to begin, where young reporters working for the network conduct interviews and present a running, informative commentary to thousands of assembled, enthusiastic Trump supporters sporting an array of Trump paraphernalia.
The excitement builds to a fever pitch when Air Force One is seen on the horizon, assuring those gathered — many having waited hours for this moment — when Trump will be mounting the podium to give one of his trademark, fiery and entertaining speeches. Often lasting for 1-1/2 hours, Trump’s supporters remain mesmerized during the entire time. Unlike Biden, Trump only occasionally opts to use his teleprompter, mostly when when nearing the end of his ad lib remarks.
I first heard of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death when listening to a Trump rally held at the airport in Bemidji, MN on Friday, September 18, 2020, when a caption came across my TV screen that Justice Ginsburg had died at 87 years old. Trump was well into his speech at the time of the alert, receiving the news after his departure from the staging area.
Knowing President Trump would say more about nominating Justice Ginsberg’s replacement, I was eager to listen to a scheduled Trump rally held the following night Saturday, September 19, at the airport in Fayetteville, N.C. 2020. Once again there were thousands of excited Trump supporters.
I wasn’t disappointed. Trump praised Justice Ginsberg for leading an amazing life whether you agree with her or not and for her friendship with the late Justice Scalia, despite differences in their political philosophy, because of their mutual love of opera.
Trump then went on to say, “I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman. I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.” As Trump spoke, supporters chanted: “Fill that seat.”
A more formal White House statement followed a short time later, including an order to lower the American flag to half-staff in Ginsburg’s honor.
Ball in Republican Senate
Senate leader Mitch McConnell in a noteto his colleagues on the night of Ginsberg’s death urged them to “keep their powder dry” and not rush to declare a position on whether a Trump nominee should get a vote this year.
“Over the coming days, we are all going to come under tremendous pressure from the press to announce how we will handle the coming nomination. For those of you who are unsure how to answer, or for those inclined to oppose giving a nominee a vote, I urge you all to keep your powder dry. This is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret.”
McConnell argued that there would be enough time to fill the vacancy and he restated his argument that the 2016 Senate precedent — in which a GOP-held Senate blocked Obama’s election-year nomination — did not establish a rule that applies to the Ginsburg case.
The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg means President Donald Trump will now get to put forth his third conservative Supreme Court nomination. Sadly, that nomination isn’t guaranteed to pass, even though the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate.
For his part, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) recommends a nomination and subsequent vote beginning as early as next week in an effort to avoid the “constitutional crisis” that could result otherwise, as reported by The Hill.
Prior to Ginsburg’s death, GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) had already reportedly announced their decisions to refuse to confirm a justice until after the election.
Here are four Republicans being closely watched as possible defectors. Susan Collins of Maine; Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; Mitt Romney of Utah; and Charles Grassley of Iowa.
With Democrats all but certain to unite in opposition to Mr. Trump’s nominee — or at least the effort to consider one so close to the presidential election — Mr. McConnell can afford few defections on his side. Republicans hold a 53-to-47 majority in the Senate, meaning they can lose only three votes, with Vice President Mike Pence breaking a 50-50 tie, and still confirm Mr. Trump’s nominee.
Partisan divide
In what is seemingly an already divisive year, the passing of Justice Ginsburg has stoked partisan anger and hostility between Republicans and Democrats.
In what was a gift to Democrats, Ginsburg’s final statement on the matter as relayed through granddaughter Clara Spera, according to NPR, was this: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Former CNN host and author Reza Aslan, threatened to “burn the f**king thing down” if the Republicans appoint a new judge in the place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Aslan is also known for eating human brains with cannibals on his CNN show.
RBG Replacement Analysis
Should Trump of shouldn’t Trump nominate a replacement for RBG on SCOTUS before the November 2020 election? The answer is complex, but it favors a nomination. Why?
- It is Constitutionally specified without limitation or conditions that the President make a nomination without delay
- Trump must do so to show his disposition on the temperament of his nomination so voters will have the opportunity to agree or disagree with his choice via the ballot box
- The Senate must advance Trumps choice so that Senators can show their disposition on the selection to voters in the November election
- In the event the Senate is unable to agree on Trump’s selection by the election, the next President will be making the selection for SCOTUS based on his choice in any case
- It is incumbent on the Senate to fill any vacancy by election time so that a contested election (highly likely) that travels to the SCOTUS has the benefit of a full complement of jurist
- The appropriateness of making a nomination so close to an election will be judged by the electorate via the ballot box in the final analysis
- If the roles were reversed, a Democrat President with a Senate majority would make a nomination as demonstrated and evidenced by President Obama
- It was a Democrat, Harry Reid, who broke the filibuster precedent for Senate approval of a nominee for the SCOTUS
- Politically, Trump is obligated to do so in fulfillment of his campaign promises and record of promises made and promises kept.
President Trump on Sunday, September 20, 2020, named Amy Coney Barrett of the Chicago-based 7th Circuit and Barbara Lagoa of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit as possible nominees.
It is vitally important to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court as soon as possible. It is almost guaranteed that elections in key states will be contested in lieu of a landslide victory. An evenly divided Supreme Court is no court at all, leaving national decisions to entry-level federal judges anywhere in the country. Litigation can easily take weeks or months to resolve without an effective SCOTUS, and the Democrats will do everything in their power to run the clock out if they lose. If no decision by January 20, 2021, the Speaker of the House will become the interim President while the House decides the winner from the top 3 candidates.
The wild card in this affair is Chief Justice Roberts, who swings both ways on the court. The court is supposed to be non-political, but reality since the early 19 th century proves otherwise. Congress makes the laws and the President is charged with their enforcement. In between stands the Supreme Court, reluctant to anger either.
[Originally posted on Illinois Review]
