Leading conservatives in advocacy and media immediately ramped up the pressure Friday night on Republican senators to support an immediate vote on a GOP replacement for deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The agitation that Republican senators agree to vote on a Trump appointee to replace Ginsburg signals the tremendous pressure that they will be under to confirm a replacement on the Supreme Court before the election or inauguration.
Sean Davis, a former aide to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), laid out the logic that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would use to justify the decision to hold a vote later in the evening. The argument goes that Republican control of the Senate and White House justifies nominating a new Supreme Court justice weeks before the 2020 Presidential election.
The McConnell rule applies when the Senate and White House are controlled by *different* parties, which is obviously not the case in 2020. Journos understand this, but many will deliberately mislead their readers and viewers who do not. https://t.co/uznuz4Jz6r
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 18, 2020
The Susan B. Anthony List, an influential anti-abortion group, described the appointment as “a turning point for the nation in the fight to protect its most vulnerable, the unborn.”
“The pro-life grassroots have full confidence that President Trump, Leader McConnell, Chairman Graham, and every pro-life senator will move swiftly to fill this vacancy,” the group said in a statement.
Hugh Hewitt, a conservative columnist, name-checked Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), saying that he “has to hold the hearings quickly or his SC voters will revolt.”
Yes they have and yes they will. As a practical matter, @LindseyGrahamSC has to hold the hearings quickly or his SC voters will revolt. And the Court must be at a full compliment should any election disputes such as Bush v Gore occur. https://t.co/8HQr53lR4L
— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) September 19, 2020
Others have argued that the Republicans simply have no choice but to confirm a replacement before the election. Their hands are tied, you see, because otherwise a 4-4 split could leave any election-related cases decided by a lower court ruling.
Ted Cruz with an excellent point. If election is litigated can't risk having just 8 justices and the possibility of a deadlocked court. Could cause a constitutional crisis.
— Marc Thiessen (@marcthiessen) September 19, 2020
David Brody, a conservative journalist, suggested that it would be “political malpractice” if Republicans didn’t ram through a nominee before the election or inauguration.
If the Republicans don’t attempt to get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed before Election Day then when you look up, “political malpractice” in the dictionary, all of their faces will appear.
— David Brody (@DavidBrodyCBN) September 19, 2020
Matt Mackowiak, a Republican political consultant, said that Democrats would “whine about Senate tradition and precedent,” but argued that such concerns should be disregarded amid suggestions that a Democratic Senate majority would eliminate the filibuster.
On the SCOTUS nomination, Dems will whine about Senate tradition and precedent after signaling that they will eliminate the filibuster if they get the majority. You reap what you sow.
— Matt Mackowiak (@MattMackowiak) September 19, 2020
Jay Sekulow, an attorney for President Trump, described it to Sean Hannity as “a historic moment for really the United States Senate.”
Later in the evening, McConnell said that “President Trump’s nominee would receive a vote on the floor” of the Senate.