After the Death of Ginsburg, The Fight for Supreme Seat

THE ISSUE: The move to fill the seat of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after her death last week.

With the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the proverbial “October Surprise” came one week early in this presidential election (“Full court prez,” Sept. 20).

As you would expect, the Democrats have raised the specter of a constitutional crisis if President Trump pushes to nominate a replacement before the election. They even cite RBG’s “dying wish” to not have Trump nominate her replacement.

Well, much to the consternation of the Democrats, and with due respect to the late RBG, the Constitution doesn’t recognize Democratic tantrums.

What it does recognize is the requirement that the president nominate a replacement and the Senate vote upon it. As RBG herself said, the Senate should just “do its job.” Jack Kaufman Long Beach

First of all, I grieve with the rest of America over the passing of Justice Ginsburg, who cared about the injustices to women and discrimination against my fellow Americans.

But now there is a need to fill a vacancy to the Supreme Court. Democrats feel it is necessary to wait till after the November election, but I beg to differ.

Trump has the right to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court. He should go forth with a nomination.

Frederick Bedell Bellerose

Michael Goodwin wrote of the need to quickly fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the demise of Justice Ginsburg: “beticians cause disputes are certain to emerge” (“Remember the hanging chad,” Sept. 20).

But the beloved RBG hoped fervently that her replacement be chosen after the election. By contrast, Sen. Mitch McConnell and the Republicans may be perceived as ogres when their blatant 2016 rebuff of nominee Merrick Garland is remembered.

Ironically, Garland was an outstanding candidate. A true moderate, broadly acknowledged as brilliant and dedicated. One wonders how this will play out in the coming election.

Bill Schaefer Springfield, NJ

Four years ago, when Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in February 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy quickly.

However, at that time, Sen. McConnell said the Senate would not take up Garland’s nomination and stated that the new president should get to pick his or her choice for the vacant seat.

It was Sen. Chuck Schumer who at the time thought the Obama nomination should go forward full speed ahead.

Today, both these policiana

have taken each other’s 2016 views on the matter of Trump going ahead quickly before the election and the Senate confirming his choice.

All this drama proves what most of us have long thought: All politicians, regardless of party affiliation, are hypocrites to the core. Salvator Giarratani

Boston, Mass.

With eight months left in Obama’s presidency. Republicans refused to even entertain the thought of having a hearing to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court after Antonin Scalia’s death.

For eight months, Republicans said the next president should appoint the Supreme Court nominee. But now, with 40 days left to go, Republicans want to push through their nominee. Hypocrisy, thy name is the Disgraceful Republican Party. Robert LaRosa

Whitestone

Is there anyone out there who really believes the Dems would not do the exact same thing as Trump and the Republicans want to do if the shoe were on the other foot?

The fact of the matter is that Trump has a constitutional duty to nominate a replacement for RBG, and McConnell has the constitutional duty to bring the nomination to the Senate floor.

In addition, Trump was elected because he promised to fill the courts with conservative justices, and if the Dems do not like it, too bad.

Barry Koppel Kew Gardens Hills