The Left’s Ginsberg Argument is Fair, but Irrelevant

Vincent Gambini: I object to this witness being called at this time. We’ve been given no prior notice he’d testify. No discovery of any tests he’s conducted or reports he’s prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of any witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we may properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have the witness’s reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.
Judge Chamberlain Holler: Mr. Gambini?
Vincent Gambini: Yes sir?
Judge Chamberlain Holler: That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection.
Vincent Gambini: Thank you, your honor.
Judge Chamberlain Holler: Overruled.

My Cousin Vinny 1992

Our friends on the left are getting increasingly worried about Justice Ginsberg’s health and are terrified that Donald Trump will get a chance to replace her when she dies.

In this panic they are making an argument that because the GOP congress decided to use what they called at the time the Biden rule namely to, with an election pending, wait till the results of the election so the decision will have the sanction of the people and they point to the “fairness” argument that if Garland didn’t get a hearing during such a year then neither should a Trump nominee.

It doesn’t happen often but that final argument is actually not an unreasonable one, here is why we should ignore it:

1.  It’s not yet the election year

Justice Scalia died on Feb 13th 2016 and Judge Garland was nominated on March 16th 2016.  2016 was an election year 2019 is not.

If Justice Ginsberg hangs on till then then call me

2.  The election is not in full swing.

Debates not withstanding, by the time Justice Scalia died the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primaries had taken place meaning the election had offically begun.  As of today, debates not withstanding it has not.

If Justice Ginsberg hangs on till Iowa votes then call me

3.  Obama was a lame Duck Trump is not

In the 2016 election the person picking the nominee would regardless of the result be gone and unaffected by the people’s decision.  Donald Trump will not be a lame duck so his decision would have consequences for him

4.  It would be a valid voter metric for him and others

Not quite a separate point but because he Trump on the ballot his pick would be a valid metric for voters to decide on his re-election just as the Senate’s decision to not have a vote was a valid metric for their election or re-election

5.  Democrats crying fairness NOW?

Am I to understand that after 3 years of treating this president in ways unprecedented from the day of his election from trying to game the electoral college to the with help from the Obama administration trying to frame him as a Russian against they expect to have him answer the “fairness” argument.

6.  They would do it in a second. 

Does anyone seriously believe that if in the same position the Democrats would hesitate for a moment to use this power if they had it?

And the final and clinching argument….

7.  We CAN!

One of the things about elections is they give confer certain powers, those powers do not expire until the said people are officially replaced.  Donald Trump holds the power to appoint a person to fill a Supreme Court Vacancy.  The Senate holds the power to move forward a nomination or to hold it up that power is not dependent on Democrat outrage.

Tomorrow I will explain why democrats might be smart to go along with such an appointment.

Leave a Reply