One of the arguments that Democrats are pushing to hold off a vote on the SCOTUS vacancy is the claim that it was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “dying wish.”
Here’s Kamala Harris, the Democrat’s vice presidential candidate, pushing this.
“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” – Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her final moments before passing.⁰⁰We must honor that wish and fight for her legacy.
— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) September 20, 2020
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was also pushing the same thing.
Just when you think Trump can’t get any lower, he burrows deeper into the cesspool of callous classlessness.
Democrats are united in fighting to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s last wish:
“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” https://t.co/Sd763urSyT
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) September 21, 2020
Now, I have serious questions about the “dying wish” thing.
I can fully see her saying to family members “I hope that I make it to 2021 so a potentially new president can appoint my successor.”
But that isn’t the same thing as saying that the vote on a vacancy should be held off for months to fill her seat.
RBG was very clear that she was against holding off on filling a vacancy, as she said in 2016.
RBG: "The President is elected for 4 years not 3 years, so the powers that he has in year 3 continue into year 4. Maybe some members of the Senate will wake up & appreciate that that's how it should be." pic.twitter.com/xU2GucJwNk
— Jewish Deplorable 🇺🇸 (@TrumpJew) September 21, 2020
“Cooler heads will prevail,” RBG said. “I hope sooner rather than later. The President is elected for 4 years not 3 years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four, & maybe some members of the Senate will wake up & appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
So do we believe someone’s interpretation of her words or what she actually said about a similar situation? So are Kamala Harris and other Democrats saying that we should undermine the Constitution and do something which RBG herself was clearly against? How is that upholding her legacy? How is that protecting the Constitution?
Plus, with all due respect to RBG, it isn’t up to her to determine. If she wanted to, she could have guaranteed it by retiring under Barack Obama. But it’s up to the President who is in office to nominate. That’s the Constitution, that’s what RBG valued and sought to uphold.
But Democrats don’t want to play by the rules, they will threaten to riot and march on the homes of Senators to intimidate them into doing what they want. They will threaten to upend all norms, doing away with the filibuster, increasing the number of states and the number of justices, even threatening impeachment to stop Trump and the GOP from doing their Constitutional duty.
This commitment to her “dying wish” is just another attempt by Democrats to subvert the Constitutional duty that she herself would have recognized.