Media understands the “enormous consequences” of Trump’s victory for the future of the Supreme Court
By Dave Andrusko
Congratulations are in order for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Under his leadership, Republicans retained a Senate majority even though the overwhelming number of seats up this year were held by GOPers.
Moreover, he steadfastly held to his commitment that the Senate will act on the next President’s nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia, not lame duck Barack Obama’s.
The headline in today’s Washington Post is spot on: “Trump’s victory has enormous consequences for the Supreme Court.”
Robert Barnes’ opening paragraph reads
The political earthquake that hit Tuesday night has enormous consequences for the Supreme Court, swallowing up Judge Merrick Garland’s ill-fated nomination and dismantling Democratic hopes for a liberal majority on the high court for the first time in nearly a half-century.
Ponder the significance of the following for a moment. President-elect Donald Trump will nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia.
In addition, “Two of the court’s liberals, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, are 83 and 78, respectively,” Barnes wrote, and Justice Anthony Kennedy is 80.
In other words, Trump may have the opportunity to replace as many as four of the nine-member High Court.
Had pro-abortion Hillary Clinton prevailed last night, she would have the same possibilities.
A sobering thought.
Barnes ends his story by channeling some of the liberal, pro-abortion angst over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Even though she is immensely popular in these circles, more than a few have suggested she should have retired early enough for President Obama to nominate her successor. Barnes writes
Ginsburg turned aside calls from some liberals that she retire years ago, so that Obama could name her replacement. She said it was unclear whether the Senate would confirm her successor. And she told The Washington Post that there was no rush: She felt it was likely that another Democrat would be elected after Obama.
What do we know about what kind of justice President-elect Trump would nominate? He has repeatedly held up Justice Scalia as a role model. Moreover, as he wrote on Monday in an USA Today op-ed, “I will restore the constitutional rule of law and nominate Supreme Court justices who will do the same.”
In the context of affirming that he will nominate only pro-life to the Supreme Court, Trump has submitted two separate lists of potential candidates. Both lists were well received by pro-life and conservative organizations.
A very, very good night/early morning. A pro-life president, the two Houses of Congress still led by pro-lifers, and a Movement ready to move forward after the nightmare of eight years of Barack Obama.