Love or hate RBG, she loved the Court. She had great respect and admiration for the other Jurists.
Justices and Associate Justices are human beings and have different viewpoints. But they are not to be “presidents judges”
A liberal Executive will nominate a liberal Justice, that’s nothing new. But a Justice shouldn’t be a “my appointing president says to vote xxxx” and she wasn’t.
She was a progressive/liberal Justice and I agreed with very little of what she wrote. But she was who she was.
By many reports, the left wanted her to retire during the Obama administration so that “The Great and Powerful” could get another Justice. By many reports, she was not happy with Kagan and Sotamayor. She considered them political appointments and would be “Presidents Judges” that she disagreed with on principle.
She wanted Hillary to name her replacement. Bill appointed her and she wanted Hillary to nominate her successor. For whatever reason, she was not an Obama fan and Hillary was a shoe in.
We know how that worked out, the left has done everything to include donate internal organs to keep her alive until a Democrap can nominate her replacement.
Now she’s has passed and the Ginsburg Games begin.
Politics is hypocritical, always has been and always will be. When this side is in control “this” when that side is in control “that” only the D and R change. The arguments are literally the same. The left will demand that a liberal/progressive seat must stay that way. A female seat must stay that way, etc, etc
the Senate is in control of the process. The controlling party is going to have their own agenda which may or may not line up with the President’s agenda.
Let’s say you are a Republican Senator. You want another conservative Justice on the court for the remainder if your legislative career. You have a Republican President and you want to do this right now in case he loses the election. Securing the seat for the conservative side.
This is a Court/Party focus, let’s act now and get another seat secured.
Let’s say you’re a Democrook Senator, you want a liberal/progressive on the court to “balance the court” you want to delay and block any vote in hopes of winning the election. You argue about what “they” did last time, hypocrisy, whataboutism, etc
This is Party/Politics focused
Now, say you’re the President. You’re behind and struggling for poll numbers outside of your base. Many republicans have left you and you’re trying to appeal to them again. (The reasons are huge) If you get a nominee through and seated on the Court…you can’t campaign on the “Desperate Need” to vote for you so “they” don’t get a judge. (Leaving for the moment that the Senate is still in Republican control)
This is Trump/Election focused
so….the Senate wants to get a judge RIGHT NOW for the future of themselves and the Party. The arguments over hypocrisy and “last time” can be spun and handled in the media.
the President wants to campaign on the issue of “vote for me or Biden will appoint a commie, America hater, who will take all your stuff” and attempt to regain the voters who will hold their nose and vote to get a conservative Justice. Nominate a controversial judge and argue the Kavernaugh fiasco during the campaign or nominate a good judge and fight the lefts attack on a conservative. Nominate a woman and have the “conservative woman” issue. There are going to be a lot on memes created.
The interesting part is if and when the election is contested, which it almost certainly will be by either side (ala 2000) and there are only 8 Justices on the Court.
The decision would likely be 6 – 2 but it won’t matter. The empty seat will be the headline and the political argument.
It will be interesting