Leaders from both parties under fire for previous statements about SCOTUS nominations

In the wake of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, Republican and Democratic leaders are facing fresh scrutiny for stances they took regarding Supreme Court nominations in 2016 and 2020.

Ginsburg's death immediately recalled how Republicans resisted a vote on former President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland while Democrats told the other side it was their job to confirm another justice. On Friday, Obama argued that the Senate should wait, citing the need for consistency.

"A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment," he said. Former Vice President Joe Biden similarly said the Senate should wait, despite previously saying that blocking Garland could result in a "constitutional crisis."

Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S. C., caught special criticism since he vehemently opposed Garland's nomination and even told Americans to use his own words against him. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., saying he would be erecting a "monument to hypocrisy" if he pursued a vote on Trump's nominee.

Each of them, however, appeared to argue that the cirumstances for 2020 were different, justifying a different opinion. "Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year," McConnell said Friday.

When McConnell opposed Garland in 2016, he also cited the "Biden rule," an apparent reference to then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., arguing that the Senate should postpone confirming a nominee if one... (Read more)

Tweets mentioned:

https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1307342669572702208

Latest News