A vigil on
Friday night outside the Supreme Court after the news of Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg’s death.
McConnell Vows Vote on Ginsburg Replacement as
Her Death Upends the 2020 Race
Democrats warn Republicans to follow the precedent
they set in 2016, when they refused to consider President Barack Obama’s choice
for the court on the grounds that it was an election year.
By Peter
Baker and Maggie Haberman
Sept. 18,
2020
WASHINGTON
— The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday instantly upended the
nation’s politics in the middle of an already bitter campaign, giving President
Trump an opportunity to try to install a third member of the Supreme Court with
just weeks before an election that polls show he is currently losing.
The White
House had already made quiet preparations in the days before Justice Ginsburg’s
death to advance a nominee without waiting for voters to decide whether to give
Mr. Trump another four years in the White House. Senator Mitch McConnell, the
Republican leader, vowed Friday night to hold a vote on a Trump nominee but
would not say whether he would try to rush it through before the Nov. 3 vote in
what would surely be a titanic partisan battle.
The sudden
vacancy on the court abruptly transformed the presidential campaign and
underscored the stakes of the contest between Mr. Trump and former Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his Democratic challenger. It also bolstered Mr.
Trump’s effort to shift the subject away from his handling of the coronavirus
pandemic and remind Republicans why it matters whether he wins or not, while
also potentially galvanizing Democrats who fear a change in the balance of
power on the Supreme Court.
If Mr.
Trump were able to replace Justice Ginsburg, a liberal icon, it could cement a
conservative majority for years to come, giving Republican appointees six of
the nine seats. While Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. lately has sided at
times with the four liberals on issues like immigration, gay rights and health
care, he would no longer be the swing vote on a court with another Trump
appointee.
The
justice’s death presents a major challenge to Mr. McConnell, who blocked
President Barack Obama from filling a vacancy on the court in 2016 on the
grounds that it should wait until after voters decided on a new president, a
move that rallied conservative support for Mr. Trump in the election and after
his victory allowed him to put Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the court.
Despite
that precedent, Mr. McConnell has said that in case of an opening this year, he
would try to push through a Trump nomination before the election, arguing that
it was a different situation because this time the president and Senate
majority are from the same party. But with just a 53-vote majority, it was not
immediately clear whether he could hold his party behind such a move.
“Americans
re-elected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to
work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding
appointments to the federal judiciary,” Mr. McConnell said in a statement.
“Once again, we will keep our promise. President Trump’s nominee will receive a
vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Mr.
McConnell was notably unclear, however, about the timing, not saying explicitly
whether he would hold such a vote before the election or wait until a lame-duck
session afterward. A Trump administration official said there may not be enough
time on the calendar to vote on a confirmation before the election.
Several
members of Mr. McConnell’s caucus face tough election contests and might balk
at seeming to rush a nominee through in such highly partisan conditions. Mr.
McConnell too faces a vigorous challenge.
Senator
Susan Collins of Maine, the most endangered Republican incumbent, told The New
York Times this month that she would not favor voting on a new justice in
October. “I think that’s too close, I really do,” she said.
Senator
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told an interviewer on Friday shortly before the
announcement of Justice Ginsburg’s death that she opposed confirming a new
justice before the election. “I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court
nominee,” she said. “We are 50 some days away from an election.”
Senator
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee that would consider any nominee, told an interviewer in 2018 that if
an opening occurred in the last year of Mr. Trump’s term “we’ll wait to the
next election.” Mr. Graham, who is in a competitive race of his own, made no
mention of when to fill the vacancy in a statement he issued Friday night
mourning Justice Ginsburg.
Senator
Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, who was previously the judiciary panel’s chairman,
likewise said in 2018 that if there was a vacancy in 2020 he would not bring a
nomination before his committee until after the election if he were still in
charge. But he has surrendered his gavel to Mr. Graham and he did not say on
Friday night how he would vote as an individual senator.
Democrats
immediately said they would fiercely resist any effort to confirm a justice
before the inauguration, warning that Republicans should follow their own
precedent from 2016.
“They must
exhibit a shred of integrity and recognize that abandoning their word now, and
breaking all precedents by ramming a nominee through — most likely after the
election — would cause the nation tremendous pain,” said Senator Patrick J.
Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.
No one
understood the broader political consequences of her death better than Justice
Ginsburg, who battled through one ailment after another in hopes of hanging
onto her seat until after the election. Just days before her death, NPR
reported, she dictated this statement to her granddaughter, Clara Spera: “My most
fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is
installed.”
On the
campaign trail in recent days, Mr. Trump has sought to stress the possibility
that he could name more members to the court, rolling out a list of about 40
possible candidates he said he would consider. He was onstage at a rally in
Minnesota on Friday night when news of Justice Ginsburg’s death arrived and,
not aware of what had happened, and told the crowd that he planned to name a
conservative if given the opportunity.
Mr. Trump
specifically named Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, joking that he would
be unanimously confirmed because he is widely disliked by his colleagues who
would like to move him elsewhere.
“I have to
have somebody we are going to make sure we get approved,” the president said.
“The only one I can think of is Ted because he is going to get 50 Republican
votes and going to get 50 Democrat votes — they’ll do anything to get him out
of the Senate.”
After the
rally, reporters told Mr. Trump of Justice Ginsburg’s passing. “She just died?”
he said. “Wow. I didn’t know that. You’re telling me now for the first time.
She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman,
whether you agreed or not. She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life.
I’m actually sorry to hear that.” He made no comment on a replacement and took
no questions.
Mr. Biden
learned on a plane ride home from a stop in Minnesota and likewise praised
Justice Ginsburg before addressing the looming fight over her replacement.
“The voters
should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the
Senate to consider,” he said. “This was the position the Republican Senate took
in 2016 when there were almost 10 months to go before the election. That’s the
position that the United States Senate must take today and the election’s only
46 days off.”
Mr. Cruz
has already said he would not be interested in the court and administration
officials indicated they had other choices in mind. The broader list, they
said, has been narrowed down to a much shorter one that includes at least one
woman. But Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, a favorite of conservatives, has often been
mentioned by Mr. Trump’s advisers in the past.
Other candidates
on the list who have been on Mr. Trump’s previous rosters of candidates include
Judges Thomas M. Hardiman of the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia; and William H.
Pryor Jr. of the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta. The president also cited two other
Republican senators, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Josh Hawley of Missouri, as
well as his former solicitor general, Noel J. Francisco.
White House
advisers privately described Justice Ginsburg’s death as a significant boost
for Mr. Trump’s re-election chances. One person familiar with White House
planning said that the new nominee will be announced sooner rather than later,
and that the White House hopes that Mr. McConnell moves forward with a vote.
The president is likely to meet again with those on his short list in the
coming days, the person familiar with the planning said.
Democrats
argued that the open seat would rally their own supporters as well but it was
not clear it would make a major difference since they are already motivated to
defeat Mr. Trump for other reasons.
“I don’t
know how much angrier the left can get,” said Jennifer Palmieri, the
communications director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. She said that
Democrats would be animated by the turn of events, and that if Mr. McConnell
were to go ahead before the election and move the nomination through, it would
cost Republicans the Senate.
Peter Baker
reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Adam Liptak
contributed reporting from Washington, and Michael Crowley from Bemidji, Minn.
Peter Baker
is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the last four presidents
for The Times and The Washington Post. He also is the author of six books, most
recently "The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker
III." @peterbakernyt • Facebook
Maggie
Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015 as a
campaign correspondent and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018
for reporting on President Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. @maggieNYT
Opinion
Will the Election Turn on R.B.G.?
The nation was divided enough already.
By Maureen
Dowd
Opinion Columnist
Sept. 18,
2020
WASHINGTON
— I used to feel pretty optimistic that the country would get through the Trump
years intact.
In 2016,
America got mad — and went mad. This administration has unleashed so many fresh
hells that a portrait of the last four years looks very Hieronymus Bosch. But
the idea of this country is so remarkable; surely it could withstand one cheesy
con man who squeaked in.
Now we
might have passed a point of no return. No matter who wins in November, can the
harsh divisions abate?
The
stunning news Friday night of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg guaranteed a
political bonfire. President Trump is in a position to reshape the Supreme
Court long past his time in office with a third justice, giving conservatives a
6-to-3 majority.
With
Democrats still smarting over Republicans’ refusal to consider Barack Obama’s pick
of Merrick Garland for the court, this will push them over the edge, and maybe
to the polls, especially women. And Trump’s base could race to vote, because
the president has talked about nominating Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz, aiming to
have a court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Mitch McConnell said Friday that
Trump’s nominee — hopefully not Jeanine Pirro — will get a floor vote.
“We cannot
have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 court,” Cruz told Sean Hannity.
Imagine a Bush v. Gore scenario with a 4-4 court.
As it
turned out, the founders created a country painfully vulnerable to whoever
happens to be president. They assumed that future presidents would cherish what
they had so painfully created, and continue to knit together different kinds of
people from different areas with different economic interests.
But now
that we have a president who takes those knitting needles and stabs the country
mercilessly with them, we can see how fragile this whole thing really is.
All the
stuff we took for granted — from presidential ethics to electoral integrity to
a nonpolitical attorney general — is blown to smithereens. The president who
does not believe in science has been conducting a science experiment for four
years: What happens to a country when you have a president who is doing
everything in his power to cleave it?
It wasn’t
long ago that Obama started on the road to the White House with a stirring
speech about ignoring those who would slice our nation into red states and blue
states because this is the United States of America.
Now Trump
blames the “badly run blue states” and “Democrat cities” for everything. He
clearly doesn’t see himself as president of a majority of the country. Whenever
he talks about the half of the country that didn’t vote for him, he paints a
picture of a Scorsese urban hellscape the minute you cross state lines.
On
Wednesday, the president offered the heinous hypothetical that the death toll
from the coronavirus would not be as bad “if you take the blue states out.”
As the
president of Red America, Trump “regularly divides the country into the parts
that support him and the parts that do not, rewarding the former and reproving
the latter,” The Times’s Peter Baker wrote.
The line
between politics and governing can be blurry, certainly. But with Trump, there
is no line.
Jared
Kushner bragged to Bob Woodward that Trump can “trigger the other side by
picking fights with them where he makes them take stupid positions.” Woodward
writes that Kushner told an associate, “The Democrats are getting so crazy
they’re basically defending Baltimore.” This gleeful assessment from Kushner, a
Baltimore slumlord, is the height of cynicism.
The anxiety
about our fractious nature was reflected in the question of Susan Connors at
Joe Biden’s CNN Town Hall Thursday night. “Mr. Vice President,” she said, “I
look out over my Biden sign in my front yard and I see a sea of Trump flags and
yard signs. And my question is, what is your plan, to build a bridge, with
voters from the opposing party, to lead us forward, toward a common future?”
Biden was
soothing, reassuring that he could pick up those knitting needles once Trump
was “out of the way, and his vitriolic attitude, and his way of just getting
after people, revenge.”
But will it
be so easy? The cultural ecosystem, and the fever swamps of social media that
amplify Trump’s craziness, will remain. Fox News and Facebook will continue to
validate the biases and conspiracy theories of a nation that’s increasingly
proud of its ignorance, anti-intellectualism and denial of science.
Isn’t the
simple fact that the race is this close, when Biden should be crushing Trump,
given the president’s lethal negligence and willful subterfuge on the virus and
his racial demagogy, proof that our realities are so disparate from one another
that unifying will be akin to cleaning a dozen Augean stables?
After
Woodward’s book revealed that Trump knew early on how dangerous the virus was
but downplayed it, I heard from those two alternate universes.
“I can
hardly breathe, it’s so incredible,” my friend Rita said angrily.
“He was
just trying to buck people up,” my sister, Peggy, said placidly.
In Duluth,
Minn., at a campaign stop on Friday, a man in a MAGA hat jeered at Biden and
told him he could never win. Biden approached the man from the alternate
reality, elbow bumped him, chuckled and assured him that if he does win, Biden
would work for him, too.
If
McConnell has his way, that work wouldn’t include replacing R.B.G.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário