The Democrats thought they could win this fight.
They never expected to be so soundly defeated.
Now, Democrats heard defeat at the Supreme Court with these two words.
The discussion surrounding the replacement of RBG has only intensified as this week has gone on.
The Republicans are arguing to uphold the Constitution while the Democrats are fighting to gain more power in the Supreme Court.
But Mike Lee has a couple of things to say about this debate.
He is known for not holding back – especially when it comes to the Constitution – and that is demonstrated in his remarks to the Democrats.
“In 2016, President Obama nominated a replacement for Justice Scalia and my Senate colleagues and I gave our advice and consent on the nominee, consistent with the Constitution, by rejecting him. This year, President Trump will nominate a replacement for Justice Ginsburg and, consistent with the Constitution, we will again give our advice and consent. If we like the nominee, we will confirm her. If we don’t, we won’t. It’s that simple.”
Straightforward and to the point, Lee lays out the truth in simple terms.
Simply put, the Democrats are proposing that Trump wait to elect a new Justice until after the Presidential election in November.
Lee points out how this plan is utterly unconstitutional and simply has never been done before.
Many people are attempting to compare this situation to the one in 2016, where Obama nominated Merrick Garland to succeed Antonin Scalia, who had passed one month prior.
Lee offers his words on that situation and explains how they are very different.
In 2016, Lee explained that the Senate followed the Constitution and gave their advice on Obama’s candidate.
They rejected Garland after some debate.
Lee explains that the Senate will treat this situation the same way.
He elaborates that they will consider Trump’s nominee and will reject or accept them according to their best judgement.
Orin Kerr, a law professor at UC Berkeley Orin Kerr, a law professor at UC Berkeley and a Harvard Law Grad, offered his support of Lee’s position.
“I think Lee’s view is correct. If i were a Senator I would have wanted a hearing and voted to confirm Judge Garland to the Supreme Court. But I don’t think the Senate has any constitutional obligation to have a hearing or a vote. FWIW, I would have said that the Constitution requires the Senate’s consent to make the nominee a Justice, and the Senate did not consent, as it is entitled to do, rather than that it “gave its consent” and rejected the nominee. But I think the substance is the same.”
One thing is certain, no one truly knows how this situation will pan out; we can only wait and see.
If you want Conservative Revival to keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content to your friends on social media and email.