Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Replacing Her by Tom Reynolds
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being lauded by the liberal media. But by gun owners, not so much. She dissented in 1995 on U.S. v. Lopez saying that she believed Congress can regulate guns in school under the Commerce Clause. She dissented on the District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2016, saying that gun ownership was not an individual right but a collective right. In a 2016 interview with the NY Times she further stated, “I thought Heller was a very bad decision” and she looked forward to reconsidering it. In McDonald v. Chicago, which extended the Heller decision to the states, she joined in the dissent.
This year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to pass on nearly a dozen gun-rights-related cases. This was an admission that the conservative associate justices think Chief Justice John Roberts can’t be trusted to protect the Bill of Rights, with the rest of the court usually divided 4-4. Since President Trump has proven to be pro-gun and Joe Biden to be anti-gun, the person who nominates the replacement for Bader-Ginsburg is important to gun owners; gun rights could be in the majority at 5-3-1 under Trump or back to 4-4-1 under Biden.
The left-wing media is ablaze with Republican quotes from 2016 about delaying Supreme Court nominations until the next election. Missing are quotes from Democrats that they made in 2016.
Let’s start with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself. In July 2016 she stated, “Nothing in the Constitution prevents a president from nominating to fill a court seat. That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year”. (This is interesting for two reasons: it reinforces Trump’s position in 2020 and R B G was actually following the Constitution instead of ignoring it.)
Chuck Schumer said in 2016, “Senate Republicans need to do their job and give Judge Garland (nominated by Obama to succeed Scalia) the hearing and vote he deserves because the American people deserve a fully functioning court. Having a deadlocked, 4-4 court could lead to judicial chaos surrounding environmental protections, voting rights, and so many other issues that are important to everyday Americans…it’s time for the Senate to do the job we were elected to do”.
In the 2016 Democrat primary debates, Hillary Clinton said, "We must all support President Obama’s right to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia and demand that the Senate hold hearings and a vote on that successor."
On March 7, 2016, a group of 356 law professors and other legal scholars released a letter (organized through the progressive group Alliance for Justice) arguing that refusing to consider a nomination was a "preemptive abdication of duty that is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government."
On March 10, 2016, the Democratic Attorneys General of 19 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia released a letter that said refusal to consider a nominee would "undermine the rule of law…”.
And finally, in 1992, Joe Biden was for delaying until after the election but was against delaying until after the election in 2016 and now he is back to being for delaying until after the election.
Oh yeah, Democrats, Antifa and Black lives matter are threatening riots if the nomination is not delayed until after the election. That used to be called blackmail.