2016 vs. 2020: Dems become hypocritical as Trump, Senate Republicans push for RBG replacement before presidential election
Democrats have gone into full-blown hypocrisy mode as Republicans contemplate a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court if Donald Trump successfully appoints his nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
But while Democrats shout about principles, past comments show that what they really care about is the extra power that comes from having another liberal on the bench.
In 2016, Democrats, who are now saying that a new Supreme Court Justice should wait until after the election and “let the voters decide,” launched a public relations campaign to allow President Barack Obama to appoint a liberal replacement for justice Antoine Scalia, who died suddenly.
“The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a Supreme Court nominee, and on average confirmation or rejection has taken just two months,” said Hillary Clinton in 2016, who then demanded that the Senate immediately vote to confirm Obama’s nominee.
“That is what the American people deserve, it is what our Constitution demands, and with millions of people’s lives in the balance, anything less is entirely unacceptable,” she concluded.
Drew Holden, a journalist at The Resurgent, has cataloged a nice collection of volte-faces from Democrats who argued in 2016 that the Senate should immediately approve of Obama’s appointment for the Supreme Court, but who are now threatening impeachment if Trump makes a nomination and the U.S. Senate approves the nominee.
“@POTUS has done his job” said Socialist U.S. Senator, Bernie Sanders in 2016. “It’s time for Republicans to do theirs.”
But now Sanders is using Ginsburg’s supposed last words as justification for Democrats trying to hold up the nomination.
“Unfortunately, Senator McConnell has decided to go against Justice Ginsburg’s dying wishes and is cementing a shameful legacy of brazen hypocrisy,” Sanders said in a tweet about McConnell’s plan to allow a Senate vote on a Trump nominee.
Ginsburg’s dying words, according to liberals, were: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
But even Ginsburg had a different take in 2016.
Ginsburg at the time was showing a little garter as a Supreme Court Justice, opining about the upcoming presidential election, which the New York Times thought Hillary would win. Talking about elections and partisan political issues are supposed to be a no-no amongst members of the court.
That didn’t stop Ginsburg for pushing for another liberal judge on the court.
“That’s their job,” Ginsburg said when asked whether the Senate should vote on Obama’s nominee.
“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
Or in the months leading up to an election.
Scroll down to comment!