Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) announced on Tuesday that he would support the process of naming and confirming a nominee for the Supreme Court from President Trump to fill the vacancy created by the recent passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Two recent polls, however, show that most Americans want the process slowed down to allow the winner of November’s presidential election to make that decision.
“I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications,” Romney said in a statement regarding his decision.
Also on Tuesday, Trump on Twitter said he would name his Supreme Court pick this weekend.
“I will be announcing my Supreme Court Nominee on Saturday, at the White House!” the president wrote.
Some had held out hope that the Utah senator would not support a vote before the November presidential election, which is just 42 days away, and would further support allowing the winner of that election — either Trump, or his main rival, Democratic nominee Joe Biden — to make the eventual pick for the high court. To prevent rushing through the nomination before the election, however, every senator in the Democratic Party (including those who caucus with them), plus four Republican senators, would have to pledge not to support the process.
Only two Republicans so far — Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — have made such a proclamation. With Romney’s announcement on Tuesday, however, it’s almost a certainty that a vote before the election will happen.
Many legal experts have noted that the push to replace Ginsburg, who died on Friday, is hypocritical, as Republicans refused to even consider hearings for then-President Barack Obama’s judicial nominee when he sought to fill a seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016. GOP lawmakers justified their refusal to act at the time by arguing the American people should have a say in the matter through that year’s presidential election, even though it was 10 months away.
Just six weeks out from this year’s presidential race, Republicans have changed their tune, insisting that a replacement be named and voted on before voters have a say in who the next president will be.
As for the American people, two polls out this week demonstrate they do not agree with the GOP’s move to rush a lifetime judicial appointment to the highest court in the country. Instead, a majority of the people want the same standard used in 2016 to be applied this time around, too.
A Politico/Morning Consult poll published this week found that 50 percent of Americans want the winner of this year’s presidential race to pick the Supreme Court’s next justice. Only 37 percent said that Trump should make the pick, regardless of whether he’s the winner or not.
Respondents in a Reuters/Ipsos poll, also published this week, voiced more opposition to the move by Republicans. Less than a quarter of Americans (23 percent), according to that poll, said Trump should make the pick right now or during the lame duck session after the election, while 62 percent said that the eventual winner of the election should make the pick. Notably within that poll, 5 in 10 Republican respondents also said the eventual winner of the presidential election should be the one to decide.
Since 1975, it has typically taken around 70 days for a Supreme Court nominee to receive a vote in the Senate regarding their appointment. With the election day set to occur 42 days from now, there’s a high possibility that Trump, who is projected by a number of analysts to be losing his election fight against Biden at the moment, could lose the election but have his nominee confirmed nonetheless after the election takes place.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.