1228547863.jpg.0
Share
  • 37
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Loading...
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) listens during a hearing of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee reviewing coronavirus response efforts on September 16, 2020, in Washington, DC. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Several senators who previously opposed high court nominations in election years are now in favor of their own party’s nominee getting a vote.

The prognosticating over how quickly a replacement justice would be nominated to the US Supreme Court began immediately as news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death broke late Friday evening. Saturday, Senate Republicans intensified that speculation as they increased calls to rapidly ram a conservative through the nominating process ahead of the upcoming election.

Friday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and many of his Senate Republican colleagues signaled that they would work quickly to ensure a Supreme Court nominee receives a floor vote.

And several senators who are locked in tight reelection campaigns announced their support for a vote on President Donald Trump’s eventual nominee. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is trailing Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham in North Carolina, went one step further and pledged his support for Trump’s nominee — even though a nominee hasn’t been named as of yet. Tillis, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would be able to help steer any nominee to a full Senate vote.

“There is a clear choice on the future of the Supreme Court between the well-qualified and conservative jurist President Trump will nominate and I will support, and the liberal activist Joe Biden will nominate and Cal Cunningham will support, who will legislate radical, left-wing policies from the bench,” he said Friday evening.

Arizona Republican Sen. Martha McSally also indicated she supports a floor vote for Trump’s nominee, tweeting, “This U.S. Senate should vote on President Trump’s next nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.”

McSally, who was appointed to fill the late Sen. John McCain’s seat, faces a difficult race — recent polls show her down significantly against Democratic challenger Mark Kelly.

Questions around how Supreme Court nominations should be handled in an election year were first raised four years ago, when Justice Antonin Scalia died nine months before the election. Following Scalia’s death, McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by then-President Barack Obama, arguing that it was unfair to voters to seat a new justice ahead of the election.

But Friday, McConnell reversed his position on Supreme Court nominations in an election year, essentially arguing that the rule only applied when the Senate and presidency are held by opposing parties.

Several other senior Senate Republicans who had previously argued against Garland’s appointment have also reversed their positions, now arguing for a vote on Trump’s nominee.

Regardless of what they may have once said, GOP senators now want a new justice as soon as possible

Four years ago, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) — who currently chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee — openly promised that he would not vote on a Supreme Court nominee in the final year of a Republican president’s term.

“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsay Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever that might be, make that nomination,’” he said at the time during a Senate Judicial Committee hearing.

Graham, who is locked in what recent polls suggest is an unexpectedly close race in South Carolina against Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison, tweeted a statement Saturday that he has more recently expressed that a vacancy in Trump’s final year is different from the Garland situation. Like McConnell, Graham has more recently argued that a delay is only warranted when opposing parties control the Senate and the White House.

McConnell and company were able to get away with the electoral year delay in 2016 because they had the votes to do so — and they hold the majority this year as well, meaning if they decide to hold a vote on a new justice, there is likely little to stop them.

There are, however, a number of Senate Republicans who are on the record with recent statements indicating that it would be inappropriate to hold a Senate confirmation vote so close to the election.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins said earlier this month that she would not seat a new justice before the election or in the lame-duck session. “I think that’s too close, I really do,” she said. Collins took heat from her constituents in Maine over her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 as well as her stance during President Trump’s impeachment trial, and, like Tillis, has struggled in recent polls on her reelection campaign.

Collins, who won her last reelection campaign in Maine by 37 percent, trailed Democratic challenger Sara Gideon by 5 percentage points, according to a recent New York Times/Siena poll, with a margin of error of 5.1 percentage points, while a Quinnipiac University poll found Gideon leading by 12 percentage points, with a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn’t address the issue of succession in her statement on Ginsburg’s death, but earlier this year, and just ahead of the justice’s death, she said she would not be in favor of appointing a new justice so close to the election.

To prevent a new nominee from being seated before the election — or during the lame-duck session — four Republicans would need to vote against confirmation. It’s unclear at this point if there are four willing to buck the party to do so.

As figures like Murkowski and Collins remain silent, and the stances of lawmakers like Graham evolve, some Republicans have called for an immediate vote — like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is on a shortlist of potential new justices Trump released recently.

In an appearance on Fox News, Cruz argued that seating a new justice is necessary because there will likely be a challenge to November’s election results and an eight-person Court would be insufficient to settle such a conundrum.

Leaving aside that a justice appointed ahead of the election would face pressure to recuse themselves, leaving the Court again at eight justices, the only candidate who has consistently stated he would contest a lost or close election has been Trump, who is currently trailing Democratic nominee Joe Biden in most national polls. And should a new Trump-appointed justice choose to weigh in, the president would be at an advantage in any ruling given a third Trump appointee would give conservatives a majority on the Court.

And, of course, Cruz’s argument is also a curious one given that his colleagues were fine with an eight-person court during the 2016 election.


Will you help keep Vox free for all?

The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes. It’s essential that all Americans are able to access clear, concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives, and the lives of their families and communities. That is our mission at Vox. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election: Contribute today from as little as $3.

Author: Katelyn Burns

Read More