SBC's Moore and Floyd welcome Barrett nomination

"Southern Baptist leaders Russell Moore and Ronnie Floyd commended President Trump’s nomination Saturday (Sept. 26) of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court." - BPNews

763 reads

There are 12 Comments

Mark_Smith's picture

but Trump would have nominated ACB during ANY SCOTUS vacancy, let alone 5 weeks from the election.

Ken S's picture

I very much like the pick. Personally, I feel that a president should be allowed to fill any vacancy during his term. But I find it distasteful that Republicans are pushing this pick through when they wouldn't allow Obama's pick before the last election. It's blatantly hypocritical. Republicans should learn to practice what they preach.

Dan Miller's picture

Ken S wrote:

I very much like the pick. Personally, I feel that a president should be allowed to fill any vacancy during his term. But I find it distasteful that Republicans are pushing this pick through when they wouldn't allow Obama's pick before the last election. It's blatantly hypocritical. Republicans should learn to practice what they preach.

I think that liberal judges who legislate from the bench are a huge threat to our democracy. What I would find distasteful would be Senators doing less than their very best and using whatever legal parliamentary means they have to ensure that the bench moves towards originalism. 

Ken S's picture

I agree on legislating from the bench being a problem. But I'll always find it wrong for a political party to go by one set of rules for themselves, and a completely different set of rules when the tables are turned. What was good for the Democrat president should be good for the Republican president as well. Republicans are being blatant hypocrites here, and in my view it lessens their integrity.

Larry's picture

Moderator

But I'll always find it wrong for a political party to go by one set of rules for themselves, and a completely different set of rules when the tables are turned. What was good for the Democrat president should be good for the Republican president as well. Republicans are being blatant hypocrites here, and in my view it lessens their integrity.

I think the GOP made the wrong argument in 2016. They should have simply said, "We don't consent. Nominate someone else." But McConnell has claimed a precedent. In election years when WH and Senate were held by different parties (as in 2016), the nominee was not confirmed. In election years when the WH and Senate were held by the same party (as in 2020), the nominees were confirmed. So the GOP is being consistent with what they say is the historic precedent. There is also a difference in that Obama was a lame duck president. Trump is not. How big is that? I don't know.

Furthermore, in 2016, the Constitution was upheld. Obama exercised his right to nominate. The Senate exercised their right to not consent. There is no constitutional requirement for a hearing. They are not even required (and are bad ideas). Obama refused to pick another justice even though he had seven months to do so. It lis likely Obama picked a suitable justice, they would have confirmed him or her. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch or Kavanaugh or Barrett, perhaps any one of them would have confirmed. But he was stubborn and refused to change.

As Obama said, elections have consequences, and for him, the Senate election of 2014 had a huge consequence. And now, the elections of 2016 and 2018 have huge consequences. 

Mark_Smith's picture

The Senate's job is advice and consent. Obama was a Democrat. The Senate was Republican. They did not consent to Obama's pick. This time the president and the Senate are Republican. It's as simple as that.

Rob Fall's picture

difference is Obama was a lame duck. He was not up for re-election. Trump is.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Ken S's picture

As Larry said, the GOP did make the wrong argument in 2016 and they should have just said "We don't consent". Instead, they made the argument that the next president should be the one to make the nomination. I understand the distinctions McConnell is making today vs 2016, but that's not the way he framed it in 2016: 

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

"The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

"The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

Yes, it's absolutely hypocritical. Maybe they should just say that they made the wrong argument in 2016 instead of trying to say the circumstances were different. I don't really care if they appoint a new justice now or after the election, but at least acknowledge that this position is inconsistent with the one they held in 2016.

Mark_Smith's picture

in 2016. Each senator made their argument. Don't fall for what the media now tells you. Like you, I was alive in 2016. I heard many people say the reason was simple, Obama was an outgoing president in his second term. The Republicans were in charge of the Senate. His nominee was a non-starter.

Do you honestly think for a second if Obama had a Democrat Senate Merrick Garland would not have been approved? If Clinton were president with a Democrat Senate would they not approve her third pick right now?

 

Ken S's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

in 2016. Each senator made their argument. Don't fall for what the media now tells you. Like you, I was alive in 2016. I heard many people say the reason was simple, Obama was an outgoing president in his second term. The Republicans were in charge of the Senate. His nominee was a non-starter.

Do you honestly think for a second if Obama had a Democrat Senate Merrick Garland would not have been approved? If Clinton were president with a Democrat Senate would they not approve her third pick right now?

 

Why are you asking me this? Of course they would have been confirmed. I'm not suggesting that they wouldn't have. My only point is that the argument made by Republicans in 2016 was that they should wait until after the election as the new president should be the one to make the pick. So now in 2020 they are being inconsistent with what they said in 2016 when they are trying to confirm this candidate with 5 weeks until the election.

Mark_Smith's picture

it was not addressed to you specifically in any way.

 

Once again, "the Republicans" made no argument in 2016. Individuals made arguments that changed from time to time and interview to interview.

To say it another way, no person speaks "for the Republicans."

I heard interviews in 2016 were people stated they were not voting because they did not support Garland or Obama, and didn't want to vote.

Bert Perry's picture

If the President is from the same party that controls the Senate, nominees are almost always confirmed.  Otherwise, they're almost always rejected.  That's your history.  The Senate is, really, just hedging bets based on who might be President next.  So if they have the votes and like the guy, they go forward, and if they have the votes and don't like the guy (or gal), they don't.  

Really, the Democrats are chanting "hypocrisy" when four years back, they were chanting the exact opposite thing.  They need a mirror and a history book.

Regarding judicial theory, absolutely on an originalist/textual argument vs. that for an evolving document.  The former gives people an idea what things actually mean, and the latter tells both sides they can "nudge" the law in the direction they want--a recipe for fights.  So if we want to have a peaceful society, we've got to get back to the originalism/textualism of Scalia and Thomas.  We won't like every decision, but at least it gives us a common ground to stand on.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.