Well said. However, let’s look at what our judicial system represents. Specifically, the Supreme Court and their determination whether challenged laws enacted by Congress are Consitutional or not. Now remember, I am uneducated truck driver about to argue legal principles so this is for entertainment purposes only. Perhaps Constitutional Attorney El OchoCinco will bail me out.
This is entirely the fault of them not doing a better job at explaining to Ginsberg she's been on death's door forever. Obama and his ilk urged Ginsberg to step down before the election because she was frail. She refused. Her hubris is paid in full by the panic being induced in the left now
The above is not relavent to any argument whether Republicans are ethically justified in breaking the long established status quo of not appointing a new Supreme Court Justice before the election and going against their own argument in 2016.
Let’s explore why this long standing policy was set up in the first place. It may have been deemed to be akin to stepping on the toes of a potentially new administration. If the current administration gets reelected, there would plenty of time to get a new justice through confirmation hearings. Each side would have sufficient time to determine the candidates competence. Considering that many Senators are running for reelection makes it even more difficult to properly validate any potential appointee.
Politics is no longer about character. It's simple idolatry. Expecting anything less from actual lizards (or in some cases, tortoises) is giving them too much credit.
Politics are always about character. Or by today’s standards, relative character. The difference makers in the election will be undecideds, most of whom are Independents who think for themselves. These voters are looking for a representative that, well, represents them. Hillary lost because her “Deplorables” comment aligned with what Conservatives have been saying all along: Nasty woman. I believe Trump attempting to appoint a Supreme Court Justice under unethical circumstances in an attempt to gain political power contradicts Trump’s “Clean up the Swamp” campaign promise. The Democrats will have an decisive advantage on an issue that is important to undecided voters. The only strategy that makes sense to me is Republicans going all-in, ethically of course, to win reelection.
This is actually extremely important since paper voting is practically begging for vote harvesting.
The beauty with mail in voting is there is physical evidence of a vote, as opposed to electronic voting. Further, there is no opportunity for voter iintimidation, and if done correctly, less chance of someone voting multiple times. However, there are potential issues of people acquiring someone elses ballot and voting for them. Some people may mail in their ballot and “Forget” on election day and vote again electronically. The key would be to require Valid ID to be scanned in and cross referenced electronically. Further, automatic statistical validation practices should be implemented. We must insure the integrity of the vote. Far more important than which party represents us.
No one will accept the election. As a result it will likely be a repeat of 2000 and the supreme court will be left to decide the president.
This is speculation. If it happens, we will deal with it. This is not a valid justification for ignoring a long term established custom of not appointing a Supreme Court Justice during election season.
An additional right leaning candidate would skew the results of the inevitable recount towards the Republicans.
When it comes down to it, most if not all, laws, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, are based on a lie of some sort. Promissory Estoppel: failure to do what you said you would do. This can be explict, as in “We will not nominate a Supreme Court justice during elections” and then you go do it anyway, or implicit, as in committing a murder. The point is we must make sure our Supreme Court free as possible of political bias and will solely decide on the merits of a case based on whether it is Constitutional.
Yes, the Democrats politicized the FBI and there were blatant political bias as shown on agent texts. Yes, there was FISA fraud by partisan investigators and perjury traps set by partisan prosecutors. Yes, there was evidence and witness tampering by corrupted partisan FBI interrogators and leadership. Yes, there was, and still is, in some Democrat led jurisdictions outside the FBI that failed to prosecute. Yes, there were attempts, some successful, in breaching attorney-client priviledge under questionable circumstances. Yes, there were long standing conflicts of interest where the department head refused to step down. However, none of these are a valid reason for unethical conduct by Republicans. Lead by example by being above board while pointing out the well established unethical conduct by the other side. This is how to win over the undecideds and sap enthusiam out of their base. It takes skill, perhaps more than the Replublicans can muster.
Again, the number one issue is ensuring the voter confidence in our elections. A perceived politically “Stacked” Supreme Court in the event of a contested election, destroys any legitimacy Trump may have with at least half the country. This would have a much more far reaching effect on our country than TDS.
Hillary followed the principle of accepting the election results, even though she received more votes than Trump in 2016, and accepted the results presumably because she felt voter confidence in our election process was more important than her political ambition. Hopefully, if Trump faces the same circumstances Hillary did, he will do the same.
