Since the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Americans have looked on as President Donald Trump has pushed for the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, to be her replacement.
Barrett is a strong conservative with stances that go against current Constitutional rights regarding the same-sex marriage, Roe v Wade, and the Affordable Care Act. Her nomination, which would give Republicans a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court, could drastically change many of the laws we know today.
However one may feel about her positions, though, many have concerns about the timing of Barrett’s nomination. Ginsberg’s death on Sept. 18 fell only about a month and half before the upcoming election, on Nov. 4. With such little time between the two, should Trump even try to appoint a new judge, or wait for the outcome of the presidential election?
A similar situation occurred during the 2016 election when Justice Antonin Scalia died in February. At the time, Republicans insisted against the appointment of a replacement, and Senator Mitch McConnell successfully blocked the nomination of a Democratic candidate.
The issue here is complex and multifaceted, but the most glaring problem is the inconsistency between the two situations. The fact that the
primarily Republican Senate held off on a nomination during a Democrat’s presidency and rejected a Democratic replacement, but has chosen to do the opposite when it benefits the Republican party shows the power-hungry motivations that drive these decisions.
Whether the current president or the soon-to-be president choose the next nomination is not really the issue, though it is worth investigating.
The real discrepancy comes from our elected officials changing the rules whenever it benefits them. Senators, supreme court justices, and
presidents alike need to prioritize the needs of the people over their own self-serving interests, and if they cannot, rules must be established to
ensure that politicians cannot twist situations like this for their own gain.