Headline of the Day

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has created another political firestorm for the weeks to come. Since we’re so close to the election, doesn’t it seem fair for Trump wait until afterward the election to replace her?

No, Trump should not wait.

Trump has nothing to lose and everything to gain by replacing RGB before the election

Some Democrats have brought up Merrick Garland, who was nominated by Obama but failed to become a SCOTUS judge. The GOP objection was that Obama was in the last six months of his second term, so the upcoming election should decide. Democrats will be quick to point out this occurrence, labeling it hypocrisy for conservatives to replace RGB when they rejected Garland.

Other leftists urged Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell to lead the way by not filling a SCOTUS seat this close to an election. He concluded with: “You’d agree with this, especially in light of the Garland precedent, right?”

Except, that’s not what happened. The Merrick Garland circumstance was different because Obama was in his second term, and there would be a new president in six months, no matter the outcome. In this instance, we might have the same president in six months. What makes it worse is Democrats did not set any “precedent” by deciding it wouldn’t be fair to fill an open SCOTUS seat only months away from a new presidency — they tried to ram judge Garland down our throats anyways!

The only reason Garland is not sitting on SCOTUS is because Mitch McConnell and the Senate refused a hearing on Garland. The rationale was the constitution does not require a timeframe to hear the president’s SCOTUS nomination, so they waited.

(Excerpt) Read more at: