The process of confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court and the reactions of the Democrat senators is yet another example of how politicians can resort to hypocrisy and shamefully distort clear facts.
From the moment of nomination of Barrett up to her confirmation, the Democrats’ main argument was the “precedence” and in their view, the “unfairness” of appointment of a justice during the presidential election. Perhaps it would be helpful to remind them that 14 U.S. presidents appointed 21 justices during the election year. Furthermore, six lame-duck presidents appointed justices when their successors had already been elected.
The fact is that presidents are elected to be in the office for full four years and even in the last minute of their term they have all the powers that the Constitution grants them.
The Democrats repeatedly refer to President Barack Obama’s nominee, Judge Garland, who was rejected by the Republican Senate in 2016. Well, if the appointment of a justice to the Supreme Court during the election year is not “fair,” why did Obama make that nomination? And if the Democrats had the Senate majority in that year, wouldn’t Garland be sitting on the Supreme Court? Even the late Justice Ruth Ginsberg at that time declared that a president has the constitutional authority to appoint a justice at any time during his term in the office.
Within the framework of the U.S. Constitution the presidents have certain powers and there’s nothing “unfair” about it if they exercise those powers. A more powerful fighter wins the fight fair and square, as long as he follows the regulations. The challenges in the politics are exactly the same. The Republicans in the Senate had the power and exercised it justly.