Should a Supreme Court Justice be Appointed During an Election Season?

Of the many powers that the President of the United States holds, appointing Supreme Court Justices is one that can have the longest-lasting effects. According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president shall “nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court….” After the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September, President Trump decided that he would nominate a new judge for the high court before the presidential election in November. This has sparked considerable constitutional debate on the question of whether such an appointment should be made immediately before an election.

Those who support the nomination and confirmation of a Justice before a presidential election argue that it is the correct constitutional path to do so. They contend that the president must nominate a new member to the Supreme Court as soon as possible in order to fill the opening. They may also argue that the current officeholders in the executive and legislative branches best represent the majority of Americans.

Those who oppose the nomination and confirmation of a Justice before a presidential election argue that waiting until after the election will allow the people’s opinions to be better heard on the issue. They contend that a new majority and/or president may emerge after the election, and therefore the entire process should be put on hold. This side may also argue that it will further polarize politics if a nominee is confirmed so close to the election.

So, what do you think? Should a Supreme Court Justice take office immediately before a presidential election? Students can answer Yes, he/she should; No, he/she shouldn’t; or a nuanced answer in-between!

Note: Ideal Think the Vote responses include the following:

-Address the question asked in a thoughtful and meaningful manner

-Use cited facts and constitutional arguments when appropriate to support their answers

-Are expressed in cohesive sentences and are free of distracting spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors

-They address counter-arguments and opposing concerns in a respectful manner

-They organize their answer in a manner that flows logically and reads clearly

Current Standings:
Yes: 41%
No: 59%
  • Rebecca from New York

    Twenty-nine times in the history of the United States has a Supreme Court Justice resigned or died during an election year, so there is ample historical precedent for the situation America faces today. Every time, without exception, the President has nominated a justice to fill the vacancy. This is in accordance with his presidential right, his presidential duty, even, to appoint federal judges, as stated in the Constitution of the United States. There is zero historical precedent nor constitutional basis for a President to refrain from nominating a justice during an election year.
    The strongest argument against the nomination of justices during election years, is that elections give the government more complete insight into the will of the public, whom it is supposed to represent. However, the people vote for a President with the intention that he will be in office for four years, so it is unreasonable to suggest that he must strip himself of his constitutional power for the last year. Shortening the President’s term in order to reflect the potentially transient views of the American people is at the expense of the nation’s stability, which is essential to any successful government. Shortening his term unofficially through media pressure, rather than through an Amendment to the Constitution, betrays the people who voted for him, and undermines the integrity and validity of the presidential elections.
    Yet, while the President can, and should, nominate Supreme Court justices whenever a vacancy occurs, even during election years, the Constitution grants the Senate equal prerogative to either reject or accept the President’s nominee. Political parties have historically played a major role in the Senate’s exercise of this power during election years. Nineteen of the twenty-seven Supreme Court vacancies that occurred during election years, happened when the same party controlled both the Senate and Presidency, and seventeen of those times were the nominees approved. The other ten election-year vacancies occurred when different parties controlled the Senate and Presidency, and only two of the Presidents’ nominees were accepted. In 2020, the Republican Party controls both the Presidency and Senate, so there is the most historical precedent for the nominee to be accepted and appointed.
    However, while the Senate clearly can accept a nominee during an election year, the question remains whether it should. Most media outcry this year surrounds how the Republican Party blocked every nominee of President Obama’s during 2016, saying how they wanted the people to be represented, and many of them seem to be switching sides of the debate in order to further their political advantage. However, this is a weak argument, because many Democrats who passionately supported Obama’s nominees in 2016 switched sides just as completely in 2020. Other important considerations are the politics of the justice and the views of the public. Accepting justices with flagrant political leanings would not be wise during an election year, as it might foment discontent and chaos, which would not be beneficial to the nation.
    Therefore, the Presidency can and should nominate a justice when there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court during an election year, but, reflecting the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution, whether to accept or reject the nominee is up to the Senate’s discrepancy, which should rely on the nominee’s interpretation of the Constitution, no matter the presidential period.

    [read less]

    Twenty-nine times in the history of the United States has a Supreme Court Justice resigned or died during an election year, so there is ample historic…

    [read more]
    11
  • Anthony from Oklahoma

    The president is given job to appoint a new judge when a seat is left vacant. As long as a president is a president, he/she has the ability to choose a new judge – no matter how close to the election the time might be: its their right and job.

    [read less]

    The president is given job to appoint a new judge when a seat is left vacant. As long as a president is a president, he/she has the ability to choose …

    [read more]
    0
  • Karley from Texas

    I believe that it would be more effective during an election because then we could see the peoples opinions.

    0
  • Chase from Texas

    No matter what year of the president’s term, he should be able to appoint a supreme court justice. I fully support President Trump’s appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, just as I supported the appointment of Merrick Garland by President Obama.

    [read less]

    No matter what year of the president’s term, he should be able to appoint a supreme court justice. I fully support President Trump’s appointment of Ju…

    [read more]
    0
  • Aaron from Arizona

    Yes, I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should be allowed to become appointed during an election season. If there were only 8 S.C.Js then that could lead to an imbalance such as a perfect 4-4 split. Whereas having a 9th S.C.J ensures that there will be a tiebreaker vote. People may point to when Obama’s nominee wasn’t allowed a hearing, but the difference between now and then is that while Obama was on his last year, Trump still has a chance at a second term. It isn’t a matter of race, it’s called party politics where one member of a party will act in favor of their party. The world is largely biased especially when it comes to Government Affairs. This is the reality of where we are at as humans. Blaming this whole fiasco as a race issue is just completely wrong as it was never a matter of race, just a matter of bias.

    [read less]

    Yes, I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should be allowed to become appointed during an election season. If there were only 8 S.C.Js then that cou…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nevaeh from Minnesota

    I believe it was the right choice to replace right away because of the fact that its election year anyways and a lot of other reasons as well.

    0
  • Kenneth from Arizona

    I vote yes because there should be someone to go there before the election even if Obama didn’t get to do it, it’s not racist, it’s just that Trump actually wanted someone to take the Supreme Court spot and I don’t think Obama wanted someone there. So that’s why I voted yes, I’m not big on politics and rarely know what is going on but I feel like I understand this.

    [read less]

    I vote yes because there should be someone to go there before the election even if Obama didn’t get to do it, it’s not racist, it’s just that Trump ac…

    [read more]
    0
  • Allison from Colorado

    The President is the president until January 20 following an election year. Barack Obama’s term as president lasted until January 20, 2017, almost 3 months after Donald Trump was elected. Even if another candidate is elected, Donald Trump will remain the president until January 20, 2021. Because of this, all of his duties as president are still his duties, election season or not. One of the duties of the president is to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court in as timely of a manner as possible. This does not change dependent on the election seasons.

    [read less]

    The President is the president until January 20 following an election year. Barack Obama’s term as president lasted until January 20, 2017, almost 3 m…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ainsley from Colorado

    Despite the controversy around President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Barret, I continue to believe that a Supreme Court Justice has the right to be appointed during an election. Each time a seat in the Supreme Court is available the current president nominates a judge to fill it, why should that be different this year? In Article 2, Section 2 of the constitution it states that the president may “nominate, and by with the advice and consent of the Senate” eventually “appoint” the judge to “the Supreme Court”. This clearly explains that no matter who the president is or what their political party affiliation is that they as president have the right to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court. In this section of the constitution, it is never said that this action cannot occur during an election year. In fact every president appoints many judges and even Justices ( if they get the opportunity) to courts so they can gain as much support for their party before they may be leaving office. A great example of this is in the monumental Marbury vs. Madison supreme court case. In this case Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican) just got elected and former President John Adams (Federalist) was in his “lame duck period”. During his final time in office, he decided to appoint many judges and even a justice to the supreme court. Only some of the people got their appointments and a court case followed, trying to figure out if the Supreme Court could force the new president to send out the old appointments. If John Adams, who wasn’t even the current president could appoint judges and justices to the Supreme Court after the election, why can’t Donald Trump and the Senate appoint Judge Amy Barret before the election actually ends.

    [read less]

    Despite the controversy around President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Barret, I continue to believe that a Supreme Court Justice has the rig…

    [read more]
    0
  • Blake from Colorado

    There is nothing that says in any documents that the President is unable to appoint a new member of the supreme court during an election year. I believe that RBG’s death does not change anything about the appointment process

    [read less]

    There is nothing that says in any documents that the President is unable to appoint a new member of the supreme court during an election year. I belie…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jack from Arizona

    It is completely within Trumps power to appoint a new supreme court justice, according to the constitution. Yes it is a election season though Trump is still the president of the United States. He was not elected for three years he was elected for four years.

    [read less]

    It is completely within Trumps power to appoint a new supreme court justice, according to the constitution. Yes it is a election season though Trump i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sophie from Texas

    Yes I think that Presidents can still a point justices because they are still technically President. Way back during the start of the country, John Adams appointed the Midnight Judges whirl he was a Lame Duck, literally at the end of his Presidency. But this was allowed to the resentment of Jefferson who said that the rest of the commission should not be sent out. That would ultimately lead to Marburg vs. Madison. So
    I think that if it was ok for John Adams to pointed the Midnjght judges then it should be ok for any other President to do the same during their election period. Although I think this rule should abide to everyone. President Trump is very close to the end of his first term but he is allowed to appoint someone to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when Obama was President the Supreme Court said he could not replace a Justice because he was in an election period.

    [read less]

    Yes I think that Presidents can still a point justices because they are still technically President. Way back during the start of the country, John Ad…

    [read more]
    0
  • Josh from Washington

    When a supreme judge dies there must be another one to be appointed because with only 8 judges there will be a possiblity of a tie and that is a problem so to keep it a strong 9 one must immediately be appointed and the person for that job is the President of the United States. Right now its Donald Trump. He is the incumbent president until the actual election day so he has the power to appoint someone.

    [read less]

    When a supreme judge dies there must be another one to be appointed because with only 8 judges there will be a possiblity of a tie and that is a probl…

    [read more]
    0
  • John from New York

    Precident had been set in the past. If the Democratic caucas had the majority when Merritt Garland was nominated I’m sure the confirmation process would have proceeded. Amy Coney Barrett is highly qualified and will make an excellent justice.

    [read less]

    Precident had been set in the past. If the Democratic caucas had the majority when Merritt Garland was nominated I’m sure the confirmation process wou…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kelly from New York

    We elect a president for 4 years not 3 1/2!

    0
  • Madison from Kansas

    It is part of the president’s duty to fill a supreme court seat if there is one that is empty. During an election year, the president is still the president and still has that duty. However, it depends on the majority party of the Senate whether the nomination will be considered or not. Former President Barack Obama was barred from appointing a justice because the senate was a Republican majority and he was a Democrat. President Donald Trump is a Republican president with a Republican Senate. This will make his nomination and approval process easier and more likely to go through.

    [read less]

    It is part of the president’s duty to fill a supreme court seat if there is one that is empty. During an election year, the president is still the p…

    [read more]
    0
  • Haize from Pennsylvania

    Yes, I think a supreme court justice should take office even immediately before an election. Under the constitutional right of the president and senate, a supreme court justice should be allowed to be appointed during an election season. Moreover, Donald Trump still holds power until the end of his 4th year. It should be allowed because it’s the president’s job to keep balance and if a supreme court justice is missing then in order to keep the balance you need a new one. He still has about a month or two left so he still has power and since there is a supreme court justice missing it is his job to put one in. If the supreme court needs a new justice why wait, Donald still has the ability to put one in (Stated in the Constitution) so he should.

    [read less]

    Yes, I think a supreme court justice should take office even immediately before an election. Under the constitutional right of the president and senat…

    [read more]
    0
  • Miley from Washington

    yes because it’s the president is supposed to fulfill it

    0
  • richard from Washington

    Donald Trump or whomever is President at time hold all the power until the end of his 4- year term, they are allowed to appoint a member is the supreme court , however it seems injustice to appoint someone at the end of his term. Donald trump had to make this decision because the Supreme court was unbalanced and needed to get it back where it needed to be. you cant have a tied Supreme court, that’ll cause problems

    [read less]

    Donald Trump or whomever is President at time hold all the power until the end of his 4- year term, they are allowed to appoint a member is the suprem…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dustin from Washington

    It all comes down to whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. the Republicans want Trump to appoint a republican judge before the new election so there is a much higher republican vote in the courtroom while the Democrats want to wait till after the election hoping Biden will get into the office and appoint a Democratic judge to try and even out the courtroom. Personally, I am a Republican so I am pushing for an appointed judge before the election. Like I said in the beginning it really comes down to what party you are a part of for most people, but not all.

    [read less]

    It all comes down to whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. the Republicans want Trump to appoint a republican judge before the new election so t…

    [read more]
    0
    • Jacci from Washington

      I think it doesn’t and shouldn’t be about politics but it is so that’s that. when Biden doesn’t answer simple questions like “will he pack the court” it gets complicated. Like I said at the root of it all it doesn’t matter your politics because I don’t think they should before the elections just based off of having double standards from the last election’s reference, and not being subjective due to the tragedy being so close to one

      [read less]

      I think it doesn’t and shouldn’t be about politics but it is so that’s that. when Biden doesn’t answer simple questions like “will he pack the court” …

      [read more]
      0
  • Isabella from Pennsylvania

    Members of the House of Representatives serve two-year terms. Senators serve six-year terms. Supreme Court justices serve a lifetime tenure. Presidents and Vice Presidents serve four-year terms. Each of these terms begins on the first day in office of the respective government official. President Donald Trump’s first day in office was January 20, 2017—Inauguration Day, the day that he was sworn into office and took the oath “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution requires action by the letter of the law—both written and unwritten—which includes the Appointments Clause. It is part of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, and it empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials (e.g., justices). By evaluation, the President swore to uphold the Appointments Clause (among many others). The president has the ability to make decisions regarding other issues, including bills (use of the veto), foreign policy, the military, and virtually anything else one can think of, so my question to you is this: why should the nomination of a Supreme Court justice be any different?
    In The New York Times’s “An Open Letter to Mitt Romney,” opinion columnist Bret Stephens acknowledges that the majority of Republicans argue that Democrats “trashed” bipartisan tradition after bipartisan tradition: confirming well-qualified nominees for the Supreme Court, confirming well-qualified nominees for the lower courts, respecting the filibuster, and ensuring the Judiciary Committee treated nominees with a sense of fairness. He follows this paragraph with the statement “In short, whatever sin is involved in moving forward on Trump’s next nominee this close to a presidential election, it’s a venial one compared with what the other side has done, and may still do.” Yes, the Democrats may be hypocritical, but this is not and should not be the main reason why President Donald Trump clearly has the right as well as the responsibility to nominate a judge to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whether that nominee be openly Catholic, conservative, and pro-life Amy Coney Barrett or a new liberal Ginsburg act-alike. When, Stephens asks, did any person or party ever get clean by following another into the gutter? I respond with this—it’s quite interesting how a writer for The New York Times considers upholding the Constitution “the gutter.”

    [read less]

    Members of the House of Representatives serve two-year terms. Senators serve six-year terms. Supreme Court justices serve a lifetime tenure. President…

    [read more]
    0
  • Olivia from Pennsylvania

    Yes, I do think that a Supreme Court Justice should take office immediately before a presidential election. It is better that this spot is filled sooner than later due to the controversy that surrounds it. You can’t control peoples opinions but one thing you can is voice yours and wish that people respect it. In the New York Times it states, “The Democrats didn’t play by the rules in the past, and you’d be a fool to think they will play by them in the future. So why should we not fill a seat that’s constitutionally ours to have?”. Following this statement it seems as if the Democrats shouldn’t have a say. In ways I disagree and agree with this statement. If the Democrats haven’t followed the rules in the past what makes you think that they will follow them now. A way I disagree with this statement is that our country should all come together and have a say in this decision. Almost 600 years ago people were gathering to discuss civic issues. So much has developed since that time, now is when we should be able to prove that we can actually do it. Having the spot being empty isn’t helping us in anyway, it is just ongoing the debate about it. There is already enough talk about the election, and this is just adding to it. It is Donald Trumps job to fulfill that spot, he took an oath and now it’s time for him to fulfill his duty as the President of the United States.

    [read less]

    Yes, I do think that a Supreme Court Justice should take office immediately before a presidential election. It is better that this spot is filled soon…

    [read more]
    0
  • cael from Pennsylvania

    President Trump was elected in November 2016 and he is to serve a four year term as President of The Untied States of America. He still has about a month left there for he is still the President which gives him the authority under article II of the Constitution to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when there is an empty spot. Wether it is in the beginning of his term or the end he has a job to to do and that is what he is doing. Also all Trump did was nominate doesn’t mean the position has been filled the nominee as to be voted in by the Senate and if the majority rules in there favor then the nominee is appointed to position. This means more than half feel the nominee is right for the job therefor it is a good thing. I understand why people are upset with this saying it is too close to the election and abuse of Trumps power. Like I said before his term is not done yet so he still has to do his job and the Senate has to feel they are qualified if they aren’t a good fit they they will get denied and a new person will get nominated more likely after the election. Also I understand that they are saying so much can change after the election if Biden is elected such as a new majority emerges I get it. But the sooner the Supreme Court Justice spot is filled the better.

    [read less]

    President Trump was elected in November 2016 and he is to serve a four year term as President of The Untied States of America. He still has about a mo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lauren from Pennsylvania

    A Supreme Court Justice should be able to be appointed during an election season. It is not only the President’s constitutional right, “Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court.”, but it is also a necessity. How you may ask. It is a necessity because there will be an even amount of members while making decisions, therefore allowing a possibility for a tie. This becomes a serious issue when there is a major case. Also, why should there be an issue when the candidate, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is smart and very much qualified? Is this a problem just because the Democrats do not want another, not only republican, but a republican elected by Donald Trump? President Donald Trump should be allowed to exercise all of his rights and powers as president until his possible last day in office.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should be able to be appointed during an election season. It is not only the President’s constitutional right, “Article II…

    [read more]
    0
  • Noah from Pennsylvania

    I think that there is nothing that should really stop Trump from nominating a Scotus Justice. Trump won the 2016 election, which gave him all presidential powers for all 4 years of his presidency. Nobody can say for sure, but I think if the situation was reversed, that the Democrats would have done the same thing. When people voted for Trump in the 2016 election, they were willingly giving him the power to exercise all presidential powers for the next four years. If nominating a republican justice in place of a previously democratic position gives him an advantage, then so be it, because he earned it by winning the election. I understand that he is only president for another few months, so in theory it should really be the elected president who nominates because it will help him/her in their four year term to accomplish their goals. However, it is a constitutional power of the president to nominate Supreme Court justices, and no circumstance can really stand in the way. In my opinion, I think the Democrats are using this as an opportunity to attack Trump and make him seem like the bad guy, when he is really just nominating an extremely qualified woman to serve in the Supreme Court. (Disclaimer – the point of this isn’t to say that I am a definite Republican or Democrat, this is purely my opinion on this issue)

    [read less]

    I think that there is nothing that should really stop Trump from nominating a Scotus Justice. Trump won the 2016 election, which gave him all presiden…

    [read more]
    0
  • Shannyn from Pennsylvania

    I believe that the President should appoint a new Supreme Court Justice mainly because of the right of appointing a new justice is given to every president when they enter presidency. Whether people agree with it or not, it is stated in the Constitution that, if a president wishes, he may appoint a new judge. As long as the justice has a good record and appears to be qualified, the candidate should be nominated.
    People with opposing political views are suggesting to wait till after the election to appoint someone. They think that by doing so the citizens will have a better say of who they want to be a member of the court. However, President Trump was elected in to office by the American people. They chose him to be their president. Since they chose him, the majority obviously have had their voices heard. Therefore, it is fair to allow President Trump to appoint a new Supreme Court since he was elected into Office.
    So far, the Democrats are using the fact that she is a Catholic against her. However, as stated in the Constitution, we have the right to “Freedom of Religion.” Therefore making their argument invalid. As proven by many people, Amy Coney Barett is clearly certified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Since she is, President Trump has the right to appoint her to Office.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President should appoint a new Supreme Court Justice mainly because of the right of appointing a new justice is given to every pre…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nicholas from California

    During an election season, under the constitutional right of the president and senate, a supreme court justice should be allowed to be appointed. Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, “he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, … judges of the supreme court.” The constitution states clearly and concisely that the president and senate can appoint new justices if there is a vacant spot on the court.

    The opposing side argues that it is unfair because their voices are going unheard and the senate blocked Barack Obama in 2016 from appointing his nominee, Merrick Garland. To that, I argue a president is elected for four years, not three and ¾’s of a year but four years. America voted for the current president as their voice for the next four years. The president is allowed to nominate a supreme court justice until his term is over. As for the 2016 senate’s decision to block former President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, the senate handled his nomination the correct and legal way. The current senators at the time Obama was in office blocked his nomination, and we chose them to represent our voices. We also chose the current senators in office to represent us, and we chose them because we know they will thoroughly review this nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and make a fair decision.

    If you are currently unhappy with the people in power in the United States, I urge you not to protest the president and senate’s constitutional rights but go out and vote this election for change so that we, the people, are heard the way we want to be in our country.

    [read less]

    During an election season, under the constitutional right of the president and senate, a supreme court justice should be allowed to be appointed. Arti…

    [read more]
    0
  • Betsy from New York

    The Supreme Court inherited its role from the root of our democracy. Legal equality, political freedom, and reason of law are three principles of democracy that have carried its way into our Supreme Court, but does the United States promptly carry out these standards? In my opinion, I think the Supreme Court does hold itself accountable to these expectations, however, historically and even more so in our current political climate, it is inevitable for a percentage of the general public to be upset with some sort of decisions passed by the Supreme Court. It is of high importance for the Supreme Court to be able to decide what cases to hear and the justices serving terms for life. These are two of the most important rights given to the Supreme Court. However, some people may think that these factors allow for bias and prejudice. Although I can understand why these actions the Supreme Court is eligible to carry out upset some people, I do not think it is enough proof to make the assumption that the Supreme Court is unjust. The Supreme Court also does a very good job at reserving and reminding us of our Constitutional Rights. Overall, I think the president should be able to elect a new supreme court justice, with the approval of his supervisors because it is a right that the president should be able to exercise.

    [read less]

    The Supreme Court inherited its role from the root of our democracy. Legal equality, political freedom, and reason of law are three principles of demo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Austin from Virginia

    Yes, Donald Trump should be able to appoint Judge Barrett to replace the vacancy in the Supreme Court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg this soon before the presidential election.

    The president is supported in this by the Constitution, the actions of the previous president when Anton Scalia died, and the very words of the Honorable Ginsburg. In the Constitution, we learn that one of the many jobs of the President of the United States is to appoint Federal Judges who are to be confirmed by the Senate. Our former president, Barack Obama, appointed a judge to the Supreme Court when the former judge, Anton Scalia, passed away. Although the judge appointed was not confirmed by the Senate before the election, the precedent still stands as an example. In response to the former president’s actions, the Honorable Ginsburg supported Obama and to affirmed it was supported by the Constitution.

    Some may object because they say the people are not represented in the Senate, it would be politicized, or that they would vote for a different candidate than the incumbent to appoint a judge. The people are represented in the senate because they should have voted for their senator of choice during the election, and if they did not vote at all, they have no grounds to complain. If the next president will appoint the judge, it would become more politicized than it already is because the people would be voting for their senator, president, and essentially their ideology in the picking of the justice. The person should not be ill because they do not support Donald Trump as their president. After all, he was elected fairly.

    [read less]

    Yes, Donald Trump should be able to appoint Judge Barrett to replace the vacancy in the Supreme Court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg this …

    [read more]
    0
  • Madison from New York

    I believe that the President is able to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. The President, if needed to, is given the Constitutional Right to appoint a new Justice if one is needed during their term. The current President was elected and is still fulfilling their term; therefore, they should have the right to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice. The Senate will then decide whether that nominee is worthy of the position or not.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President is able to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. The President, if needed to, is given the Constitutional Right to appoin…

    [read more]
    0
  • Landon from Virginia

    In the United States today, people are divided over politics more now than they have been in years. Currently, the Democrats are the Anti-Trump party, while the Republicans see the Dems as becoming more radical. One specific topic that has emerged from the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September, and the nomination of a new justice. The Democrats and others believe that whoever wins the presidential election in November should be the one to appoint the next justice, but the Republicans think that Trump should appoint someone, more specifically, Amy Coney Barrett.

    The main argument that the Democrats have for not wanting Trump’s nominee to be sworn in, is the belief that the American people should have a say in the matter via the presidential election on November 3rd. Joe Biden, if elected, would undoubtedly nominate a more liberal justice, while Trump has nominated a conservative. Personally, I believe that the president should be able to appoint a new Justice, and the senate should vote on the nomination. Article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution states:
    He shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other offices of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.
    This clause cements the fact that the president has the right to nominate a justice, and the senate has the authority to vote on the nomination. The 20th Amendment says the terms of the President and Vice President end at noon on January 20th, four years after they start their term. This means that President Trump has all of the powers that a president normally has until 12:00 p.m. on January 20th, 2021 even if he gets voted out of office. The Lame Duck period does not alter the powers of the president, so I believe that a new Justice can be nominated by president Trump and confirmed by the Senate.

    Personally, I find no problem with Trump nominating Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court vacancy. I do have an issue with the argument that whoever wins should nominate a new justice because it was supposedly Ginsburg’s “final wish.” Supreme court justices have no power to

    [read less]

    In the United States today, people are divided over politics more now than they have been in years. Currently, the Democrats are the Anti-Trump party,…

    [read more]
    0
  • Peter from Pennsylvania

    During the most recent presidential debate, there may have 1 one comprehensive thing I got out of viewing it. That is, that Donald Trump should be able to select a new supreme court justice even though his term is almost over. The people of the United Sates elect the president for 4 years, not 3. Though it may cause some political turmoil if the president is not re-elected, he still has the right to appoint a judge based on the constitution. The constitution states that a president can appoint a new justice if the seat is open during the time of his presidency, and that time of presidency is right now.

    [read less]

    During the most recent presidential debate, there may have 1 one comprehensive thing I got out of viewing it. That is, that Donald Trump should be abl…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jaydon from Virginia

    The appointment of justices to the Supreme Court has been a constitutional duty of the president ever since the founding fathers presented the constitution to the states for ratification. Donald Trump is now faced with a vacancy due to the passing of the prominent Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Controversy has arisen due to the fact that her passing has come shortly before the next presidential election. However, I believe that no matter what the circumstances are nor the current party that is in control, it is still the constitutional duty of the president to fill the spot of a Supreme Court Justice vacancy.
    Article 2, section 2 of the United States’ Constitution clearly states that it is the power and responsibility of the president to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when the time arises. This has been argued by both parties in recent years due to the two passings of the Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I am not going to act oblivious to the hypocrisy brought upon by Republican leaders such as Lindsey Graham who have recanted their words from when Obama had the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. It is argued that the circumstances are different, but I still understand the perspective of those who supported Obama’s past appointment. However, the hypocrisy of party leaders is still not a valid reason for why a new justice should not be appointed at the current moment.
    At heart I am a pragmatist, so I understand the thinking behind what an appointment during an election season could mean for the opposing party. However, appointing a justice during an election season is a fair political move. It absolutely does not matter who the president is during the time of a supreme court vacancy or what political identification he or she contains because either party is inevitably going to attempt to push through a justice more in line with their political ideology. This is by no means a justifiable reason for the opposing political party to stir up controversy and unrest. Our Republic was birthed out of our longstanding American Constitution and the minute we deviate away from it and its distributed powers is the moment our country will enter into the phases of hierarchical power-grabbing chaos.
    The concept of having faith in our constitution and its principle of the separation of powers should not be doubted just because of the circumstances of an upcoming election. An action by the president of appointing a Supreme Court Justice is necessary for this principle of separation of powers to stay constant and should never be doubted by either party whether or not it is politically inconvenient for them. We should never forget that this power along with the powers given to the other branches of government were delegated based on Enlightenment ideals brought about by political giants such as Locke or Montesquieu. Questioning the validity and credibility of an appointment is, in turn, doubting our Constitution and our system of government which has outlasted the rest of the world due to its profound central governmental principles.
    Overall, due to the possible future implications that going against the president’s constitutional power could have on our system of government as a whole, I believe that an appointment during an election system is a valid executive action. The specific delegation of the Constitution for this presidential power should not be questioned because of the time period that a Supreme Court Justice vacancy occurs. I trust our American Constitution and no matter what the circumstances are, following it will always be a representation of who the American people are.

    [read less]

    The appointment of justices to the Supreme Court has been a constitutional duty of the president ever since the founding fathers presented the constit…

    [read more]
    0
  • Karington from Virginia

    In recent years, the United States’ political discourse has surcam to a level of polarization that rivals any other period in American history. There seems to be very little issues that we Americans can agree on and even less legislation that we can get passed. As a result of this polarization, there seems to be an aggressive fight for power from both ends of the political spectrum. This struggle can cause many career politicians to sacrifice what they believe to be “right” for the ability to gain partisan power. I believe that the effort to secure Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court is undoubtedly constitutional and I do not condemn the Republicans for their efforts to secure a Justice. However, the effort to appoint a justice this close to an election is clearly a reach for long term conservative influence, so the question of whether or not this appointment is “right” depends on your political identification.
    The argument about whether or not Judge Barret should be confirmed is a partisan issue that largely depends on whether or not you want another conservative Justice on the court. If the roles were reversed, as they have been in the past, the left would surely seize the opportunity to secure their long term influence in the court. While this is not a logically sound argument, the American political system is so divided that it is the reality. The question of whether or not it is ethically or morally sound to appoint Judge Barrett likely does not matter as much to Republicans as gaining the power to influence court decisions like the looming review of the AFA. Because the Republicans have the constitutional right to appoint a Justice and both the Senate and Executive, they would be foolish not to appoint someone who could supplement their political agenda in the court. The sad fact of the matter is that there is not much political courtesy left in politics, therefore, it would be unrealistic to believe that the Republicans would pass up an opportunity to gain more power because it is an election season.
    Also, it should be noted that the Constitution does not say that the president “can appoint a Justice” but it does say that they “shall” appoint a Justice in the event of an opening. The process of appointing justices to the Supreme Court is not just a right, but it is also a duty. Furthermore, if there exists an argument that the will of the people is not expressed when a president appoints a justice during election season, then this must also apply to any other actions made by the executive during this time. Meaning, you cannot merely void one power of the president for the last three months of his term without voiding the rest of them.
    Adversely, the Democrats would be foolish not to televise that the Republicans are abusing their power by moving forward with the appointment. This gives the left ammunition in the current election to push the narrative that Donald Trump is a tyrannical Facist that does not respect the will of the people. While the ability to push this narrative is not nearly as important as getting a Justice on the Supreme Court, it does help the Democrats secure some centrist voters that dislike the idea of presidential overreach. The sole reason for the Democrats pushing against the appointment of the Justice is because they are optimistic about their chances of winning the election and getting to appoint their own justice. Also, there have been talks amongst the members of the Democratic to pack the Supreme Court with more justices that they would appoint in the event they won the presidency and the Senate. This proves that the argument that the Democrats make against the “fairness” or “ethicacy” of the Republicans’ going forth with their appointment is largely a result of their losing power not because of some moral superiority.
    In a final thought, the Republicans’ going forth with the appointment of Judge Barret is unarguably constitutional and politically necessary. The sad truth about our political system is that there is no room for the Republican party to play the morally superior party and sacrifice their right to appoint a Justice. There is a continuous strive for power in our political system that requires our parties to take necessary steps to secure long term influence. While this may not seem to be the most “right” thing to do, it is in inescapable reality that does not look to be changing anytime soon.

    [read less]

    In recent years, the United States’ political discourse has surcam to a level of polarization that rivals any other period in American history. Ther…

    [read more]
    0
  • Hayden from Oklahoma

    My thought on it is presidents will always do what they need to to stay in office. Every president has done something like this and this is the only one we are going to talk about? Also is it really going to matter that much to sway to one side over the other. As well I think that it is important to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg it might be next to voting season but it is still needed to appoint someone.

    [read less]

    My thought on it is presidents will always do what they need to to stay in office. Every president has done something like this and this is the only o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cooper from Kansas

    The question at hand, should President Donald Trump appoint someone to the high court during an election year? The simple answer is yes. An article from The Washington Post clear back from 2016 says that one third of all U.S. presidents appointed a Supreme Court justice in an election year. It might cause backlash, but a president is elected for four years, not three. Unlike what Kamala Harris said during the first Vice Presidential Debate, “In 1864 … Abraham Lincoln was up for re-election. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land.” He never said that, in fact he wasn’t able to fill the seat before the November election because the Senate was not in session until December. That is why in my opinion, due to the fact that a president is elected for four years, not three, that he should have the right appoint someone to the high court.
    Down below are the links from the websites I used.
    https://nypost.com/2020/10/09/kamala-harris-abraham-lincoln-quote-wasnt-true-historians/
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/29/one-third-of-all-u-s-presidents-appointed-a-supreme-court-justice-in-an-election-year/

    [read less]

    The question at hand, should President Donald Trump appoint someone to the high court during an election year? The simple answer is yes. An article fr…

    [read more]
    0
  • Isabelle from Kansas

    Yes, because a Supreme Court Justice is the highest body in the Judicial branch. This person is chosen through the President and Vice President and if the person just happened to die well then we would need to get someone elected right away. They hold very high power and have many aspects on our lives in the ruling on cases. All the violence and free speech that is seen today on tv and shown through public schools is impacted on Supreme Court decision. Many people believe that they should wait till after the elections, but if we did then someone below would take over until the they are able to reelect.

    [read less]

    Yes, because a Supreme Court Justice is the highest body in the Judicial branch. This person is chosen through the President and Vice President and if…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tenzing from New York

    With the recent and unfortunate passing of storied Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the already tense American political climate is thrown even more into disarray. On the cusp of a presidential election in the midst of a global pandemic, former Vice President Joe Biden squares off against the current, and one of the more controversial holders of office, President Donald Trump. On the subject of the latter, President Trump has expressed his wishes to appoint a new Justice to the Supreme Court, in Ginsberg’s place, less than a month before a new President is elected. Despite there being a large debate over this, there is no true answer, and whether choosing to appoint a new Justice or put the process on hold, both sides hold ramifications of their own.
    Although the days until November 3rd are numbered, Donald Trump is still the President, and legally holds all of the power that comes with this executive position. With that, it is entirely within his constitutional right to appoint a new Justice. Directly quoting Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, it is within the President’s domain to “nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint… judges of the Supreme Court…”. Whether or not the Senate agrees in majority is an entirely different issue, but it is within his right. There is nothing legally wrong with him appointing a new justice, but ethically it definitely raises concerns.
    As already mentioned, America has been in a constant state of turmoil since the beginning of the year. Protests and a controversial President amidst the backdrop of a worldwide pandemic have created a bigger rift in partisanship than ever before. And a polarizing decision such as appointing a new Supreme Court Justice will only serve to tear the divide even further. Yes, it won’t destroy the country, but it will only add more turbulence to an already choppy political landscape. If we had to draw a comparison to any other time in history, we can equate this hypothetical appointment to the waning years of John Adams’ presidency, in which just before leaving office, he appointed Chief Justice John Marshall and Associate Justice’s Bushrod Washington and Alfred Moore to the Supreme Court. Seeing as how a Justice serves a lifelong tenure, appointing one, even at the end of your term will have lengthy political consequences for better or for worse. With that being said, there are two answers to the debate of whether or not a new Justice should be appointed. Legally speaking, Trump has every right to appoint a new Justice, as long as that coincides with the Senate’s approval. Morally however, a polarizing figure leaving a lasting imprint on American politics even at the end of his tenure raises just as many concerns for the political landscape for many years to come.

    [read less]

    With the recent and unfortunate passing of storied Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the already tense American political climate is thrown e…

    [read more]
    0
  • Addison from Kansas

    Yes, I think that the President should appoint a new justice. We need a full high court so that the decisions that are being made all have a full impact on a full court.

    0
  • Natalie from New York

    The president’s plan to fill the seat in the Supreme court is perfectly justifiable and the right course of action to take. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a strong choice for this seat, not only is she a mother of 7, including two that were adopted from Hati and one child with Down Syndrome, but the Supreme Court Justices all signed a letter commending her say “smart, honorable, and fair-minded” (Carrie Servino, Fox News). Amy Coney Barrett is more than qualified to fill the open seat on the bench and has every right to have the opportunity to fill the seat. In truth, the election was more than 40 days away when President Trump announced that he will be moving forward with choosing a nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg was nominated and appointed in a time span of a mere 42 days, not much faster than the nominee Amy Coney Barrett would have to be appointed in to beat election day. Not to mention, Sandra Day O’Connor was even faster with only 33 days after being nominated. When in fact, one of the major tasks the President of the United States is dealt with is choosing Supreme Court Justices when vacancies arise. Currently, the Republicans have control over the senate therefore they have the votes to appoint Judge Amy Coney Barrett. When Obama attempted to do the same thing in an election year, the Senate blocked his nominee, Merrick Garland. This is due to the fact that Republicans had control of the Senate. President Obama was a lame-duck president after serving almost two terms. Moreover, Sen. Ted Cruz pointed out that there has been a vacancy in the Supreme Court 29 times before an election (Fox News). 19 of these times the Presient and the Senate were of the same party and of these 19 times 17 nominees were appointed. In contrast, when the Senate and President were different paries, only 2 of those 10 nominees were appointed. Simply put, the precedent is that if the Senate is controlled by the party of the President the nominee is confirmed but if the Senate is controlled by the opposing party the nominee is not confirmed. While an election may be looming, however, the American people and the electoral college elected the president for four full years, and no matter their election results, President Trump is still president until noon, January 20, 2021. The President Trump is not elected for 3.5 years. He has time left in his term and therefore has all the authority to nominate a new Justice to the Supreme Court. Speaking of elections, the Republicans gained seats the Senate in 2018 as a referendum on the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh as well as filling record vacancies in lower courts. Furthermore, if anything, a new Supreme Court Justice should be nominated and appointed before the election due to the Presidential election possibly being contested at the Supreme Court. Without a 9th justice on the Cricut, the court would contain only eight justices, leading to the likelihood of a tie. Leaving a vacancy on the Supreme court is dangerous for democracy and could trigger a constitutional crisis. President Donald J. Trump, was propelled to office based on his promise of appointing orginalists to the Supreme Court. Filling a vacancy in the Supreme Court is something the American people elect a president to do, henceforth, he should fulfill his oath of office and nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court.
    Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted-cruz-on-why-the-senate-must-confirm-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-successor-before-election-day
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-carrie-severino

    [read less]

    The president’s plan to fill the seat in the Supreme court is perfectly justifiable and the right course of action to take. Judge Amy Coney Barrett …

    [read more]
    0
  • Braden from Montana

    The president, though it is during an election season that this court seat has become open, still has a job to fulfill as the president to fill the seat even though people on the other side may disagree

    [read less]

    The president, though it is during an election season that this court seat has become open, still has a job to fulfill as the president to fill the se…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sydney from Pennsylvania

    I believe President Trump should appoint a Supreme Court nominee before the election. The ability to nominate and eventually appoint a Supreme Court Justice is clearly outlined in the Constitution as an executive power. Presently, Donald Trump is still in office and not in a “lame duck” position. Trump sees an opportunity to fulfill his presidential responsibilities and plans to use these responsibilities and powers to his full advantage. That is no crime.
    Many opposed to the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett argue that in 2016, Lindsey Graham and other Republicans were against the notion of Former President Obama nominating a Justice as his presidential term was months away from completion. However, President Trump was not involved with this proposition and should not be held to its standards. After all, not all members of the same party think alike or agree. A political party is a group of people who have similar beliefs, not identical mindsets. In addition, President Obama was easily within Constitutional restrictions to nominate a Supreme Court Justice but chose not to as his administration was not particularly pugnacious. The Trump administration is in a similar position and is far more strong-willed than the Obama administration could ever dream to be.
    Why are some Americans chastising a president for wanting to fulfil his Constitutional duties? I have reason to believe that those opposed to a new nominee are simply eager to vote in a presidential election and unwilling to let the current president perform his obligations regardless of Constitutionally still being in office.

    [read less]

    I believe President Trump should appoint a Supreme Court nominee before the election. The ability to nominate and eventually appoint a Supreme Court J…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mary from Pennsylvania

    The president should be allowed to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, even during an election. Through the Constitution a president can appoint a new justice, as long as there is an open spot, and the senate approves.
    However, since the Constitution does not have any rules as to appointing a new justice during an election, arguments have arisen as to whether a new justice should be appointed at this time. There are arguments that the seat should not be filled until after the election is over, allowing people to have their opinion heard. The opposite can also be said, that since there is an election going one, the peoples opinions are being listened to even more. Each Candidate would be trying to gain favor with people, and taking their opinions in is crucial to that.
    Some argue that if a new president comes through the election, that they should be able to appoint the new justice, so the seat should be left open until the election is over. However, the President has the power to appoint a new justice, and if they are still in office, it is within their power, and right to appoint a new justice.
    When it comes to politics, there has always been fiery debates on topics, and what a president should and shouldn’t be allowed to do. If there is a republican in office, the republicans will agree that the president can appoint a new judge before the election. The same would be true is a democratic was in office, the democrats would want the new justice appointed before the election. The opinion of the people is important, but in the end the final decision comes down to the president and the senate.

    [read less]

    The president should be allowed to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, even during an election. Through the Constitution a president can appoint a ne…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sherfran from New York

    A Supreme Court Justice should be elected during an election year. “ According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president shall “nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court….’” It is the president’s constitutional obligation to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, whether there is an election approaching or not. It is imperative that a Supreme Court Justice fill the seat, because when hearing cases a 4-4 deadlock may result when there are only eight judges instead of a full panel of nine. For example, in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association there was a 4-4 vote on this case, which therefore left the case unresolved forever. If the Supreme Court justice is not confirmed until the election there would only be eight Supreme Court Justices, possibly until as late as March 2021. There are those who argue that waiting until after the election will allow for the opinions of the people to bebetter heard. But the opinions of the people were heard when President Trump won the election. Whether President Trump elects a Justice who may have left-leaning or right-leaning views or the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is left to the victor of the 2020 election, the Senate would have to confirm the nomination, as stated in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. It is not in the best interest of the United States to have a Supreme Court, one of the three branches of our government, hampered by having only eight justices for a prolonged period of time.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should be elected during an election year. “ According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president shall “…

    [read more]
    0
  • Janae from Kansas

    Nominating a Supreme Court Justice before a presidential election could be seen as controversial, but I agree with those who are for it. Donald Trump himself has reminded us that his term has yet to end. I may not agree with everything president Trump does but he has a point. It is also important to state that the current Supreme Court Justices can turn down his nomination if they see fit. There’s a chance that, if they see the nominee as an issue to the election, they could decline him or her the position. Maybe they will consider the nomination until after the votes are in. This is my resolve for the nominee persuading the Supreme Court to vote for Trump. It is important to appoint a new Justice as soon as possible.

    [read less]

    Nominating a Supreme Court Justice before a presidential election could be seen as controversial, but I agree with those who are for it. Donald Trump …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jarek from Kansas

    I believe the president should be able to appoint a supreme court justice. As president Donald J. Trump said he was elected for 4 years to serve the country. During that time he has swore to do what he believes is best for the country such as appointing a supreme court justice. His appointment to the supreme court still has to get approved by the senate. Yes, if most the senate is republican that may seem unfair but it all falls in the luck of the draw. Whoever is controlling the senate can decide whether it is republican or democrat. When they are voted in they have a set amount of years they are in office and they can choose who they please as a nomination.

    [read less]

    I believe the president should be able to appoint a supreme court justice. As president Donald J. Trump said he was elected for 4 years to serve the c…

    [read more]
    0
  • kyler from Idaho

    A supreme court justice, should be elected during this elections season. Since there are only 9 of them, since right now there’s only eighth their vote could end up in a tie or draw, then it would have to move on lower courts, and it would take much more time, if we did elect one then the vote would be more safe and secure, and their wouldn’t be abel to be a tie, if you don’t want to elect one this year then wait and it may even take longer than you expect because if they tie without that 9th supreme court justice it could end up in a tie nd move on to lower courts and take longer.

    [read less]

    A supreme court justice, should be elected during this elections season. Since there are only 9 of them, since right now there’s only eighth their vot…

    [read more]
    0
  • Colton from Kansas

    I personally think that they should, however, I find it to be wrong since last election year when Obama nominated a supreme court justice they wouldn’t even consider it since it was an election year. So in conclusion I find that President Trump should be allowed to nominate a supreme court justice because he is the current and the acting president and his term has yet to end.

    [read less]

    I personally think that they should, however, I find it to be wrong since last election year when Obama nominated a supreme court justice they wouldn’…

    [read more]
    0
  • William from Oklahoma

    As long as the person appointed is someone that the President legitimately believes will make the best decisions to uphold the constitution and not just some random pick to try and help their party, I don’t see why it being an election year matters. The President is the President whether it is the first or last day in office.

    [read less]

    As long as the person appointed is someone that the President legitimately believes will make the best decisions to uphold the constitution and not ju…

    [read more]
    0
  • Julia from Oklahoma

    Trump was elected in 2016 for a term of 4 years, not 3, not 3 and a half– four! Why wouldn’t he appoint the Supreme Court Justice? If you think he can’t, then do you expect him do quit his job as President? Trump can’t stop doing his job because its an election year.

    [read less]

    Trump was elected in 2016 for a term of 4 years, not 3, not 3 and a half– four! Why wouldn’t he appoint the Supreme Court Justice? If you think he ca…

    [read more]
    0
  • Caroline from Oklahoma

    I think Donald Trump should appoint a new Supreme Court Justice because it is an important role. The president’s job is to appoint the Supreme Court Justice and make sure positions are filled. We could have voting problems with an odd number of people.

    [read less]

    I think Donald Trump should appoint a new Supreme Court Justice because it is an important role. The president’s job is to appoint the Supreme Court J…

    [read more]
    0
  • Daniel from Oklahoma

    Donald Trump should appoint a new Supreme Court Justice as fast as possible. It doesn’t matter if it is an election year, as until the 4-year term is up, Donald Trump holds all the powers of the president, including the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices. In addition, the lack of ann odd number in the Supreme Court could lead to ties in decisions on important cases. Therefore, to prevent a tied court, Donald Trump should appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

    [read less]

    Donald Trump should appoint a new Supreme Court Justice as fast as possible. It doesn’t matter if it is an election year, as until the 4-year term is …

    [read more]
    0
  • Angela from Nebraska

    I think President Trump should be able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice because he became President for four years, not three. The president’s job does not stop just because of an election year. Also, in Article 2 of the Constitution, it says, “He shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” This quote does not say anything about not appointing during an election year. In addition, Obama also appointed a Justice during the election year of 2016. The only reason people think that Trump should not be able to appoint a Justice is because of politics.

    [read less]

    I think President Trump should be able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice because he became President for four years, not three. The president’s job d…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jessica from Kansas

    I think a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election season. The presidents are not only elected for three years but four. In that last year they can’t hold off on everything they want to do just because an election is coming up. We need Presidents to take action instead of waiting for someone else to. Let’s say Trump nominates someone and they win, but Trump doesn’t win the next election. That is okay because then there will be diversity, people will not have the same views if this happens. The President should fill the spot as soon as it needs filled. Yes, this might cause controversy because people who want the Democrats to win do not want another Republican to rule against them.

    [read less]

    I think a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election season. The presidents are not only elected for three years but four. In that l…

    [read more]
    0
  • Trenton from Kansas

    I think that appointing a new Supreme Court justice during the election is a good Idea because if anything happened pertaining to the election, say the ballets were messed with, they would need another justice during the trial to ensure that there is not a tie between the votes.

    [read less]

    I think that appointing a new Supreme Court justice during the election is a good Idea because if anything happened pertaining to the election, say th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emma from Oklahoma

    I think it is a logical decision to appoint a supreme court justice during an election season. It is inconvenient for a position to be empty no matter how soon the election is. Plus, we will get to know their opinion on things sooner than if we waited.

    [read less]

    I think it is a logical decision to appoint a supreme court justice during an election season. It is inconvenient for a position to be empty no matter…

    [read more]
    0
  • Blake from Kansas

    Yes, I believe that Trump said it best at the debate he was elected to be president for four years not three and a half. Along with that this would not be the first time this has happened or even second it has happened a multitude of times however this would be first time since 1968 that it has happened. Regardless of when it happened last he has every right and power to nominate someone therefore I believe he should.

    [read less]

    Yes, I believe that Trump said it best at the debate he was elected to be president for four years not three and a half. Along with that this would no…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kirstyn from Kansas

    Yes he/she should, they should be able to take office so that the spot can be filled. It states “that the president must nominate a new member to the Supreme Court as soon as possible in order to fill the opening.” So the president even if it is close to the election is still the current president. He/she still has the power and authority so they can nominate who they think would be best suited for that position. Another reason it would be best for them to get a new person in office before the election as stated in the passage, “the current officeholders in the executive and legislative branches best represent the majority of Americans.” The office is currently the best to represent the Americans so they will make the right decision for what the Americans want.

    [read less]

    Yes he/she should, they should be able to take office so that the spot can be filled. It states “that the president must nominate a new member to th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Griffin from Kentucky

    Yes. As Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years…” The Inauguration Day of any U.S. president occurs on January 20th (For a bit of context, this day was changed from March 4th by ratification of the 20th Amendment, otherwise known as the Lame Duck Amendment [1]). On this day, the president begins his four year term. Within this four year term, the president has the power to “nominate… Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” (Article 2, Section 2). If we were to combine all of this information above, we can create a summary that says, “The president is allowed to nominate and appoint (if the Senate approves) any person they so desire to fill a missing seat within the Supreme Court within their four years of office. Their four years in office are defined as lasting from their Inauguration Day to the Inauguration Day of the next president.” In other words, the president is allowed to nominate Supreme Court Justices within their four year term, no matter if it is election season or not.

    In opposition to this viewpoint, some have suggested that a Supreme Court Justice should not be elected within an election year. But, when analyzing the Constitution, there is nothing that denies the president the power to elect justices during an election year. In fact, the most the Constitution states about Supreme Court Justices occurs in Article 3, Section 1 in which the Supreme Court is recognized as the highest ranking court in the nation (“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court”) and the judges’ compensation is addressed (“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office”). In addition to such an objection, those same individuals have suggested that nominating and appointing a Supreme Court Justice in proximity to the election does not accurately reflect the public viewpoint at that time. But, we should not forget the remaining three and a half months we have entrusted to our contemporary president. Additionally, it is not ethically correct to cut corners around a set term, especially when such a term is defined in the Constitution. After all, the election of a president reflects the public viewpoint, seeing as though that individual would not have received votes without support.

    [1] – https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-first-inauguration-after-the-lame-duck-amendment/

    [read less]

    Yes. As Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He sha…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emma from New York

    As stated by Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, it is the President’s duty to “nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court….” It is clearly stated that it is not only the President’s privilege to appoint judges, but is his duty as leader of the United States of America to do so. This duty was upheld until one man changed the precedent forever, Mitch McConnell. Kentucky’s Republican Senator and Senate Republican Majority Leader single handedly decided in 2016 that because a vacancy occurred on the Supreme Court during an election year, the position should not be filled until after the election, which is not outlined in the clear guide of the Constitution. This should have never happened and currently, President Donald Trump does have the Constitutional power to appoint a justice even though the election is in a matter of weeks.
    Regardless of the impending election, the Constitution clearly states in Article II, Section 1, the president “… shall hold his Office during a term of four years…” Four years. Not, three years and a few days or three years and then stop making decisions when it is an election year, four full years. If he cannot appoint a Justice during this time, where does his power end? Is he still the Commander in Chief and leader of the Army and Navy? Can he still veto a bill? During his full term as President, regardless of the year it is, he still holds his position in the Executive branch and maintains all the rights of a President. In 2016, Mitch McConnell wrongfully stated that a new Justice should not be appointed in an election year, but he should have never placed his own beliefs above the Constitution’s direct instructions for appointing a new Justice. McConnell did not share the same political beliefs as Democrat President Obama and thus wanted to prevent Obama from appointing another Democrat on the Supreme Court, but in doing so, he went against the explicit directions laid out in the Constitution 233 years ago.
    Whether or not the Senate agrees to confirm the nominee made by President Trump is up to each of the 50 Senators, but even though many believe that Donald Trump should not appoint a justice so close to an election in which he may be voted out of office, Trump is still the President now and therefore has the Constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.

    [read less]

    As stated by Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, it is the President’s duty to “nominate, and by and with the advice and cons…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jonah from Kentucky

    When a President is elected, they serve until the end of their term. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that the President and Vice President shall hold office for four years. That is, they serve exactly four whole years following their inauguration. Therefore, regardless of an upcoming election, the President is still the President. Furthermore, Article II, Section 2 states that the President of the United States has the power to nominate public officials and appoint with advice and consent of the Senate.
    Some argue that we should wait until after the election for the next President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill the vacancy so that the people get a voice. However, the people got a voice. The people elected the current President; therefore, their voices are being heard when the current President nominates a Justice. It is the current President’s constitutional right and privilege to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.

    [read less]

    When a President is elected, they serve until the end of their term. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that the President and Vice Pres…

    [read more]
    0
  • Allison from Oklahoma

    Even though the election is only one month away, such a monumental decision still needs to be made now. In 2016, we chose our President for the coming four years. In 2018, we chose our Senators for the coming 6 years. Just because the election is a little while away doen’t mean we should wait. We chose them for those 4 years and they will fufil their duties for those 4 years. A Sumpreme Court Justice is no trivial matter, as they are there for the rest of their lives, dealing with the most difficult cases. Since we elected Trump, we must think he is smart enough to accomplish such an important task.

    [read less]

    Even though the election is only one month away, such a monumental decision still needs to be made now. In 2016, we chose our President for the coming…

    [read more]
    0
  • diamond from Alabama

    I said yes cause then the people can know whos who at once.

    0
  • Mike from Kentucky

    A Supreme Court Justice should be allowed to be appointed during an election season. There is no clause in the US Constitution that forbids this from happening. While some may argue that the opinion of the people will be better represented after an election, this is false because the citizens of America choose to elect a president for a full four year term at a time. According to Article II, Section 1 on the US Constitution a president is elected for a term of four years. It does not state that a president must serve 3 ½ years and stop when an election is upcoming. It is the duty of a president to serve the country until his or her term has ended. If a Supreme Court Justice is not allowed to be appointed for the sake of waiting for the results of the next election, the duty of the president to serve a four year term will be infringed. Keeping a full roster of Supreme Court justices will support the wellbeing of the American people by allowing for easier verdicts to be reached with no possibility of an evenly split vote. Therefore, it is extremely crucial that a Supreme Court Justice is appointed as soon as possible in the event of a vacancy to support the welfare of the United States.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should be allowed to be appointed during an election season. There is no clause in the US Constitution that forbids this from …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jarrett from Kentucky

    Yes, I think the president should nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court. President Trump has the constitutional power and obligation to fill the seat as he pleases and therefore should be allowed to fill the spot. Filling the spot however should not taint the legacy of RGB; it is hard to ignore her bipartisan accomplishments in terms of women’s rights and equality and that is definitely to be commended. However, I do think it’s imperative that the spot is filled soon so the court can return to business as usual. I can certainly see where those who oppose this move are coming from in an election year; it certainly does seem a little sketchy, however if it is allowed in the Constitution then I do not believe there should be anything wrong with the action. “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law” (Article 2 Section 2)

    [read less]

    Yes, I think the president should nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court. President Trump has the constitutional power and obligation to fill the s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Carson from Kentucky

    Supreme court Justices should be appointed during an election season. According to the constitution, the president should be able to appoint a Justice to the Supreme court any time there is an opening. Whether that appointment should be confirmed has a different answer, though. As the American people saw in 2016, Barack Obama tried to appoint someone to the Supreme court during the election season, but, since the senate had a Republican majority, the appointment didn’t go through. The difference between 2016 and 2020 is that when Obama tried to appoint, the senate had a majority of its members as a different party from the president. In 2020 this is not the case. The Republicans hold 53 senate seats now during the election season, so the appointment can go through. I believe that a better question to ask is “should Supreme court nominees be confirmed during an election season” If this were the question the answer is clear; Supreme court nominees should be accepted in an election season if the senate majority is the same party as the president. If the people didn’t want something like this to happen, they should have voted out the republicans in senate when they had the chance in 2018, but, since they added a seat to the republicans, so they should be able to confirm the nomination.

    [read less]

    Supreme court Justices should be appointed during an election season. According to the constitution, the president should be able to appoint a Justice…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alex from New York

    A Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during election season. The President of the United States is elected for four years and should therefore have the ability to make decisions, as long as they are approved, during that time period. Although this sounds very simple, the decision has stirred much controversy. Currently, Republicans contend that the new Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during election season while Democrats generally argue the opposite. However, back in 2016, Republican senators strongly opposed the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice during election season because the nominee didn’t align with their political party. Now that the nominee for Supreme Court Justice is conservative, the Republicans are eager to elect a new Supreme Court Justice during Trump’s turn. Amy Barrett, the nominee for the Supreme Court Justice, is a proud member of the Republican party. She wants to overturn Roe vs Wade, a 1973 court case that ruled in favor of abortion which is one of the main reasons why Democrats do not want her in office. Despite her political views, the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice should not be a partisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have tried to interfere with the process in order to gain political leverage by selecting a candidate that aligns with their political party. Republicans did it back in 2016 and Democrats are doing the same right now.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during election season. The President of the United States is elected for four years and should therefore …

    [read more]
    0
  • Skylar from New York

    I believe that Americans have a voice and should be able to decide their own fate. Electing someone else during this time might be exactly what the United States needs. Each and every person has their own agenda when it comes to their beliefs which is how we are able to make a change depending on what each one of its hopes for. In a way others may disagree with this statement but since the US has dealt with those who aren’t exactly educated a new person could possibly change the fate of our country. As we known their is a significant risk ahead as for who will be appointed but due to the circumstances someone may have to be quickly elected in order to create reform. The views of senators may be uncertain nonetheless since they are unable to have enough time deciding who is right for this role. “In fairness to the American people” the president who is elected should decide”, I as well believe this statement is also a good opinion since Trump really is one of the only people who can make the real decisions and actually execute the idea. The idea of electing someone new can also be a difficult process putting people to a test in a way by being able to quickly work towards a change. I completely agree with electing a new Supreme Court Justice should be elected during this time, though the process is hard we are in need of a new change to help our country.

    [read less]

    I believe that Americans have a voice and should be able to decide their own fate. Electing someone else during this time might be exactly what the Un…

    [read more]
    0
  • Carter from Alabama

    The president and the senate majority were elected with the understanding that they would act and vote in a certain way. Republican voters expect their president and senators to voter in a conservative manner for their entire time in office. If senators and the president only exercise their constitutional power some of the time that was not the intention of the voters.

    [read less]

    The president and the senate majority were elected with the understanding that they would act and vote in a certain way. Republican voters expect th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sydney from Kentucky

    A Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election year. The Justices should be replaced as soon as possible so that the court session does not get too backed up. For this to happen, a Supreme Court Justice should be able to be appointed during an election year. If an appointment is delayed, there is the possibility that the appointed member makes it to a trial and the Senate denies the appointment, leaving the vacancy unfilled even longer. For a Supreme Court Justice to be picked, there is a lengthy process that just starts with the appointment. The appointed member has to go through a trial in the Senate, which takes quite a bit of time. At the end of the trial, there is still the possibility that the appointment is denied, which would start the whole process over. The process would be repeated again and again until someone is approved and sworn in. A Supreme Court Justice being appointed during an election year gets this process started as soon as possible.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election year. The Justices should be replaced as soon as possible so that the court session doe…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alec from Kentucky

    Yes, I see no issue with a Supreme Court Justice being nominated during an election year. The U.S Constitution gives full right to the president to nominate a justice at any time during his presidency and gives the Senate full the full right to vote on an appointment. The president wasn’t voted on to be president for 3 years or even 3 years and eleven months. When Trump won the election in November of 2016, the American people confirmed that they wanted him to be President until January of 2021. One of the president’s most important duties is to appoint justices if necessary and in this case, it is the right and responsibility of President Trump to do so.

    [read less]

    Yes, I see no issue with a Supreme Court Justice being nominated during an election year. The U.S Constitution gives full right to the president to no…

    [read more]
    0
  • Arianna from New York

    I believe that the president is fully in his right to appoint a new justice any time one leaves or dies in office. The constitution gave that right to the president and he can fully act upon it if that is his choice. Whether or not it is election season means nothing, because one way or another politics and political parties will find a way to bash the choice, be it right or wrong in anyone’s eyes.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president is fully in his right to appoint a new justice any time one leaves or dies in office. The constitution gave that right to…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jayden from Illinois

    I believe that the president should be able to elect a Supreme Court Justice, even on election season. In Arcticle II, section 2 of the Constitution, the president shall ¨nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.” So I believe that it is the Presidents right to elect even on election year. Just because it is election season does not make the President anything less than our President. He still has his rights and duties to act as President because he is the President. Even though he may be fighting for his spot as Presidenet again it does not make him anything less.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should be able to elect a Supreme Court Justice, even on election season. In Arcticle II, section 2 of the Constitution, …

    [read more]
    0
  • Will from Georgia

    I think that he should be allowed to pick the supreme court justice because it is part of his job as president, and why should an election make him stop his duties as a president?

    0
  • Hannah from Kentucky

    A Supreme Court Justice should be appointed because Trump should still get to make decisions whether there’s an election coming up or not. He is still the President and should get to nominate someone that he trusts to be a Supreme Court Justice. It should not matter if it is an election year or not. It’s all about who’s president at the time and if their nominee would make a good Supreme Court Justice.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should be appointed because Trump should still get to make decisions whether there’s an election coming up or not. He is sti…

    [read more]
    0
  • Isabella from Kentucky

    Appointing a Supreme Court Justice during an election year is completely okay, as it is the current president’s job to appoint the justice. It is unfair to remove this ability from the president. If we were to wait until after an election to appoint a justice, there would be an unfair balance in what powers the previous president and new president hold.

    [read less]

    Appointing a Supreme Court Justice during an election year is completely okay, as it is the current president’s job to appoint the justice. It is unfa…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joseph from Kentucky

    A Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election season. The current president still has all of his jobs and duties until he is no longer president. Although there could be a shift in power if the current president isn’t reelected it is still his job while he is in power to fulfill his duties. Since one of his jobs is to elect Supreme Court Justices and he is still president he should be able to appoint a new Justice during election season. The president needs to run the country just as if it were any other year during his term.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election season. The current president still has all of his jobs and duties until he is no longe…

    [read more]
    0
  • Adriana from New Mexico

    For a better future not only for the community but for future changes. A person of high power and reliability should be appointed during the election season. Causing less stress and future problem with the new president or the court.

    [read less]

    For a better future not only for the community but for future changes. A person of high power and reliability should be appointed during the election …

    [read more]
    0
  • jonas from Kansas

    The current President at the time of a Supreme Court vacancy should nominate/appoint their choice for Supreme Court Justice. Politics aside, RBG herself is quoted as saying “ẗhe President does not stop being President in the 3rd year¨. The President is chosen by the people for 4 years, so any vacancy within that time frame is his duty to see the seat is filled.

    [read less]

    The current President at the time of a Supreme Court vacancy should nominate/appoint their choice for Supreme Court Justice. Politics aside, RBG hers…

    [read more]
    0
  • Anastashia from California

    We should wait because we don’t want to rush important decisions and we need to appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election.

    0
  • Kate from Georgia

    I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should take office whenever the position needs to be filled, even if it is right before a Presidential election. Regardless of the vexatious influences imposed by each political party, the foundation of our country is ultimately rooted in the Constitution. As stated in Article II, Section 2, “he [the President of the US] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States”. This constitutional Article was created in the infancy of our nation solely to provide a variety of influences in the Supreme Court, ensuring all Justices have a variety of backgrounds and views, and subsequently allowing them to make decisions that take the interests of the widest range of Americans possible into consideration. Our Judicial Branch is arguably the only sector of our government that continues to uphold its original standards of respect, honor, and dignity. This, along with growing tensions from the upcoming election, makes it more important than ever to stay true to the Constitution, and to preserve the sanctity of the Court. It is highly unlikely that the next Supreme Court appointee will bring about as much positive change and powerful influence as Ruth Bader Ginsberg did, but it is necessary to fill her position as soon as possible, in order to ensure that the American population is well-represented, and future decisions are made with the same level of integrity as they were during the time of her service.

    [read less]

    I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should take office whenever the position needs to be filled, even if it is right before a Presidential election…

    [read more]
    0
  • Connor from New Jersey

    2020 has been a year to remember: a worldwide pandemic, a crippled economy, and just recently, the vacancy of a Supreme Court seat in the midst of an election year. The last of these issues has become a controversial one, and rightfully so. After all, the judge who fills this seat will decide upon key issues in the years to come. However, there is more to this debate than ideological difference; there is sparring over procedure and precedent. At first glance, it would appear that Senate Republicans are iconoclasts who flip flop on what they say. For example, those opposed to filling the vacated seat claim that McConnel set a precedent in 2016, in which Supreme Court nominees should not be considered leading up to an election. Now, in 2020, the opposition has seized upon McConnel’s decision to nominate a judge in an election year as pure hypocrisy. Despite this though, the argument goes much deeper, and it is not confined to those parameters.
    When Mitch McConnell decided to block Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016, it was fully within his power. As per the Constitution, the president does have the right to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court, but this nomination must also be made in accordance with the consent and advice of the Senate. Although Mitch McConnel did block customary hearings, the Senate could have still voted on Garland’s nomination. Since the Democrats did not hold a majority in the Senate in 2016, the nomination would be rejected as such. Since the Republicans hold a majority in the senate in 2020, they have every opportunity to get their justice nominated. Furthermore, even though McConnell’s rejection of a hearing seems to have flouted Congressional norms, a hearing would not have mattered anyways, and it likely would not have swayed any Senator’s opinion. Ultimately, the nomination would be decided on a party line vote, as have many decisions in our current political climate, such as the Kavanaugh nomination and the Democrats decision to filibuster Bush’s appellate court nominations.
    As per the argument that filling the Supreme Court contradicts populist Republican rhetoric, this is completely false. The notion among the opposition is that, by placing power in a high court, conservatives are taking away the “power of the people” that they care so deeply about. However, this is not the case. In judicial decisions, conservatives care deeply about state’s rights. Pursuant to this belief, they will often nominate justices who live up to this creed. Arguably, a state deciding matters on its own is more representative than the masses in metro areas creating national laws for everyone to abide by.
    Finally, as stated by the New York Times opinion piece, it is important that conservatives nominate their justice because it’s one of the only counterbalances to the accelerating progress seen today. We are seeing change rapidly unfold in society in many ways- the rise of the language police, the diminishing validity of the second amendment, and even the suicidal tactic of packing the court- and it is only with an extra vote on the court that we can ensure this side doesn’t become too powerful. For this reason and the ones stated above, I believe that the Senate should have the opportunity to vote for a Supreme Court justice prior to the election.

    [read less]

    2020 has been a year to remember: a worldwide pandemic, a crippled economy, and just recently, the vacancy of a Supreme Court seat in the midst of an …

    [read more]
    0
  • Lily from Kansas

    SHOULD A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BE APPOINTED DURING AN ELECTION SEASON? Yes, I think we need to go ahead and continue to fill the open spot. Why do I think that? I think that because right now Trump is the president and just because it is election season does not mean that he is not the president. As the president it is his job to fill this spot and I do not see a valid reason that we should wait to fill the spot. Just because you think the peoples opinions will change during the election is not a good reason to not fill this spot. Right now we have a president and I think he needs to fulfill his job as our president whether it is election season or not.

    [read less]

    SHOULD A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BE APPOINTED DURING AN ELECTION SEASON? Yes, I think we need to go ahead and continue to fill the open spot. Why do I …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kylee from Kansas

    I say yes because I think that since trump is the president now he should be able to do his job. Since it’s his job he should replace the RBG right now because if they wait for the election then they wouldn’t have a RBG until the new president is chosen and they might need one before that so I think it would be best if trump just picked the replacement for the RBG now. I also have no opinion on who should win the election because I dont really pay any attention to that stuff but I just think its best since trump is the president now that he should just replace the RBG.

    [read less]

    I say yes because I think that since trump is the president now he should be able to do his job. Since it’s his job he should replace the RBG right no…

    [read more]
    0
  • kaiden from Kansas

    yes i think they can trump 2020

    0
  • Brandon from Kansas

    I think that the current president should nominate the replacement for RBG. This is happening during Trump’s term, so I think it is his responsibility to deal with this. It is irrelevant how close or far away we are from the election. Either way, it is the current president’s job and responsibility to nominate a replacement for RBG

    [read less]

    I think that the current president should nominate the replacement for RBG. This is happening during Trump’s term, so I think it is his responsibility…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sydney from Kansas

    I do Believe the President of the United States of America should indeed Replace replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg because it’s important we do as soon as possible.

    0
  • Hunter from Kansas

    I do indeed believe that President Donald Trump should have the responsibility to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Although there is an upcoming election, Justice Ginsburg did indeed pass away during Trump’s presidency. I believe that until November 3rd, 2020, he has the responsibility to replace her.

    [read less]

    I do indeed believe that President Donald Trump should have the responsibility to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Although there is an upcoming e…

    [read more]
    0
  • cortez from Kansas

    we should just wait to we see who wins the if trump wins or Biden wins they can pick.

    0
  • Ethan from Kansas

    I think he should vote because he is the president and that is his presidential right.

    0
  • Nicholas from Kansas

    I think he should because he has the power to its in his power and its better to start sooner to get more work done.

    0
  • Emma from Kentucky

    Yes, a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election season. President Trump should be able to appoint a Justice during the time of an election, because he is still in his time as president. A president’s term is four years not three. He is in year three still making him the president no matter where we are in the election period. At the moment President Trump represents us citizens. Even if the views change after the coming up election it still wouldn’t make a difference. Our justice system is controlled under one set of rules no matter where they stand politically. If we wait until after the election, it may never be done. It could take months until the Senate agrees on a person. By appointing a person now we would be saving time and moving forward on the cases the last justice left behind.

    [read less]

    Yes, a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election season. President Trump should be able to appoint a Justice during the time of an …

    [read more]
    0
  • Lucas from Kansas

    I believe that the president should be able to appoint another supreme court justice because it’s a part of his job as our leader. Although I do not think it was fair that the senate didn’t let President Obama appoint another justice at the end of his term. I think the reason they did that Is that the majority of the senate is republican, so they’re trying to get as many Republican justices in the supreme court. At first, I was thinking no because Obama didn’t get to, but then I decided not to base my opinion on a revenge of some sort.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should be able to appoint another supreme court justice because it’s a part of his job as our leader. Although I do not t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brayden from Kansas

    In my opinion I think our current president should have the right to choose a replacement. When you become the president you have certain jobs you are granted one being choosing a replacement in this circumstance, therefore it would be unjust to strip him of the privilege just because of the upcoming election. HE IS THE PRESIDENT SO HE SHOULD BE ALOUD TO CHOOSE WHOEVER WHENEVER HE WANTS!

    [read less]

    In my opinion I think our current president should have the right to choose a replacement. When you become the president you have certain jobs you are…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cade from Kansas

    I think that we should select someone now because we are going threw a hard time with covid-19 and everything and we could use all the help we can get. I understand that we should wate for the election season to be over but i feel that it is best if we just elect now rather then later.

    [read less]

    I think that we should select someone now because we are going threw a hard time with covid-19 and everything and we could use all the help we can get…

    [read more]
    0
  • jacob from Kansas

    I think yes because it sounds like a good ideal and smart decision.

    0
  • Evan from Kansas

    I think the President has the right to elect a new nominee because he is the President at the current time,even though the election is right around the corner.

    0
  • Kole from Kansas

    I think yes because that way we can get it done and over with and if you think about it if trump wins nothing is really going to change sure we have a chance for it to be different but also to be the same.

    [read less]

    I think yes because that way we can get it done and over with and if you think about it if trump wins nothing is really going to change sure we have a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jesse from Kansas

    The constitution says that the president should nominate the judge AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and by waiting we would be violating that. We shouldn’t wait just because the other candidate wants to. The fact that it’s happened during this specific election has amplified it because the democrats don’t want a shift of power.

    If he did it now he would go out with a bang that is, if he loses. I think he should do what’s right by the constitution and not fold under the pressure of the media and the democrats.

    [read less]

    The constitution says that the president should nominate the judge AS SOON AS POSSIBLE and by waiting we would be violating that. We shouldn’t wait ju…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dallas from Kentucky

    The president has the right to appoint a new judge. THis is one of the many powers that comes with being the president of the united states. I don’t think we should wait because the sooner we get someone knew in there, the sooner more things can happen. If someone can hurry up and be appointed, they could get back to work and doing what they are supposed to do. Trump has the power as the President to do this and I think he should be able to. I think it’s stupid and childish if they keep trying to stop it until the election becase they have already nominated someone.

    [read less]

    The president has the right to appoint a new judge. THis is one of the many powers that comes with being the president of the united states. I don’t t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cody from Kentucky

    Yes, I think that a supreme court nominee should be appointed because a President holds his power out until the end of his term. As Ginsburg even said, ” A president holds power for 4 years not 3″. Although the arguing factors from those who disagree do make sense, The president should still carry out the constitutional power given to him no matter what.

    [read less]

    Yes, I think that a supreme court nominee should be appointed because a President holds his power out until the end of his term. As Ginsburg even said…

    [read more]
    0
  • Callie from Kansas

    Yes,i think that they current president should be able to get a new judge

    0
  • Caylee from Kansas

    He might as well just finish the election its not far away

    0
  • Kehlen from Kansas

    I believe that the president should be able to elect a new supreme court justice now, I think this because this is 2020 and the previous supreme court justice passed in 2020. So I think that it should be the current presidents decision.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should be able to elect a new supreme court justice now, I think this because this is 2020 and the previous supreme court…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ashlyn from Kansas

    I believe the president has an option of what he wants to do and if he feels this is the right choice then he should be able to

    0
  • aiden from Alabama

    i think that trump should be able to do what he wants cause its his election and because if he think that thats a good idea it should happen because if its a bad thing than it would come back to him so he would get introuble and have to switch back anyting he does is going to reflect on him so they should let him do what he wants

    [read less]

    i think that trump should be able to do what he wants cause its his election and because if he think that thats a good idea it should happen because i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kelsey from Kansas

    I think we should let Trump vote, he is still in office which makes it his decision. If Biden doesn’t get elected we would have put it off for trump to do either way.

    0
  • ayla from Kansas

    yes I think they should appoint a replacement

    0
  • Jayden from Kansas

    Yes! I think the president should choose a new representative.

    0
  • Raphael from Kansas

    I think that the President should appoint a Supreme Court Justice even during an election season since it is logical, optimal, and the best decision he can enact in my opinion. Let me elaborate on why I think this way. Constitutionally, a President can appoint a new justice if a seat is open and he/she acquires the consent of the Senate. So theoretically, the President has all of the things he needs if those two things are available.

    The views of the Constitution don’t capture every problem though, and through this situation stemmed arguments from those who oppose it. Some argue that waiting until the election season is over so people’s opinions can be better heard on the issue. The way I see it though is that a lot of people are already giving their two cents on this debate. Through the President doing something like this alone, a lot of people already have their eyes on this question. Thusly, further reach is unnecessary.

    Some might argue that a new president or official might come through this election season and thus the appointment should be put on hold. Even though a new president might take the baton, I still think we shouldn’t take our eyes off of the current situation we have right now. Someone that might be kicked off soon electing someone who represents what they want in the Supreme Court might cause some problems later, but it’s still within the power of the President to enact this.

    Finally, some might argue that appointing a new Justice so close to the election might further polarize politics as a whole. And to that I say, politics have always been polarizing. Anything political can be interpreted in many different ways and cause flames of controversy to erupt within people. This is something that I do not see changing anytime soon since politics have been a dividing factor for America since it’s creation. Does this mean we should recklessly make decisions that make the great divider bigger intentionally? No. But I do think that something like appointing a Supreme Court Justice in the face of absence, even if it’s close to an election season, wouldn’t split the political scene afar too much. In fact, holding the absence so a possible new President could take the opportunity would probably polarize politics much more than this current situation right now.

    This is why I think the President should be able to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice during an election season.

    [read less]

    I think that the President should appoint a Supreme Court Justice even during an election season since it is logical, optimal, and the best decision h…

    [read more]
    0
    • Michela from New York

      Yes, I believe that Supreme Court Justices should be appointed during an election season. Just as the President still assumes the same roles and responsibilities whether it be election season or not, there should be no difference with electing Supreme Court Justices. In regards to President Trump electing Amy Cony Barret during the 2020 election season there should be no issue. In 2016, when President Obama wanted to elect Merrick Garland, the reason he could not was because the Republicans controlled the Senate, and therefore stalled his chance to nominate. During this time, Liberals argued that the President should be allowed to elect a nominee during an election season and Republicans argued that they should not be allowed. Both parties have now, in 2020, completely changed their arguments to coordinate with whatever will best suit their party. Since the Republicans still control the Senate, and President Trump is affiliated with their party, they will not do anything to stop his nomination. Although it was unfair that the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination, it can be reasonable to assume either party would do the same if put in that situation. Neither political party has kept one strong opinion on Presidents electing Supreme Court Justices during an election season. In my opinion, both President Obama and President Trump should have the right to elect a nominee because it is still under their jurisdiction, whether it be election season or not.

      [read less]

      Yes, I believe that Supreme Court Justices should be appointed during an election season. Just as the President still assumes the same roles and respo…

      [read more]
      0
    • Adriana from New Mexico

      I believe the president should appoint a new Supreme Court during an election season due to its past experiences in the office , leaving not only the new president but the other Supreme courts with a someone trustable and reliable.

      [read less]

      I believe the president should appoint a new Supreme Court during an election season due to its past experiences in the office , leaving not only the …

      [read more]
      0
    • Trevor from Kansas

      I think he should because the government and every one needs to know who he is selecting.

      0
  • Madison from New Mexico

    Yes, I think that the President should be able to nominate and appoint a Supreme Court Justice right before the election. I think the current President, no matter what party, should be able to get as much work done while they are in office as is possible since they are in there for a full 4 years and should be able to work for it all. I can see the opposing argument, however. When President Obama’s term was about to end, for example, the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice was pushed off, over a much longer time than President Trump currently has. This makes people wonder why, which is reasonable. The reason why is because the Senate, which was of the opposing party then, would not accept any of President Obama’s nominations, up until he was removed from office. This might have happened with President Trump, except the Senate is of the same party, and they liked who he nominated for the position. So, although President Obama had more time, he was working against the Senate which has the ability to pretty much just tell him no until they get what they want. People may say that this isn’t fair, or that the Senate should do the same thing that they did the last election, but it is totally legal and there is nothing wrong with the way they are doing it. There is nothing anywhere is the Constitution that says that it can’t be done.

    [read less]

    Yes, I think that the President should be able to nominate and appoint a Supreme Court Justice right before the election. I think the current Presiden…

    [read more]
    0
  • raul from Georgia

    no

    0
  • Callie from North Carolina

    In 2014, president Obama arranged a lunch with the then-80-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ginsburg had been a cancer patient twice at this point and Obama thought that it would be best if she retired before the midterm 2014 elections. At this point, democrats controlled the senate, and a nomination for a young liberal justice that had values comparable to Ginsburg would be easily passed. Ginsburg refused to retire and told him like she had told Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont earlier, that she planned on serving as long as she possibly could. Antonin Scalia died in 2016, which was an election year. President Obama, who was not up for re-election tried to appoint a new justice but the now republican controlled senate, would not accept any of his nominations, claiming that since it was an election year that this wouldn’t be fair. Ginsburg then told the New York Times that, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year.” The Senate still wouldn’t approve of any of Obama’s nominations, but in the constitution, this is one of their Checks on the president, so this action isn’t unconstitutional. Based on this evidence, I believe that Trump should be able to appoint a judge and leave it up to the Senate to approve of them since we as Americans have elected him for a 4-year term, not just a 3-year term.
    One-third of presidents have appointed a Supreme Court Justice in an election year, some have even appointed ones in between the election and the inauguration of the next president. The biggest problem with Trump nominating a justice is that his nominee will shift the courts balance dramatically to the right since it will be a 6-3 majority in favor of the right side. If the Senate approves of Amy Coney Barret, some of the members who are up for re-election this year may lose votes from their home states and the senate will then swing left. Amy Coney Barret is a moderate conservative and holds a lot of catholic values that may affect her rulings and how she votes on certain topics such as overturning Roe v. Wade.
    “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” was Ruth Bader Ginsbergs dying wish according to Clara Seppa, her granddaughter. This statement blatantly contradicts what she said about replacing Scalia under the Obama administration. Although a lot of people think that we should honor her wish, we have to look at the facts and what was going on at the time. One of the only reasons that Obama didn’t get to appoint a third Supreme court judge was because the senate was mainly republican, which it remains today, if it had been a democratic majority, he would have got to appoint Merrick Garland. I do believe that what Mitch McConnell said to Obama about refusing to vote on his appointee was messed up and hypocritical to say since he now is pushing for Amy Coney Barret to be appointed before November 3rd.
    We all know that Trump will do anything in his power to control this open seat since it will dictate how a lot of things are ruled over the next decade. This action may lose Trump a lot of votes this election, but what’s more important, a 4 year presidency or a 10-20 year majority in the Supreme Court. All in all. I support President Trump on nominating Amy Coney Barret to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat on the Supreme Court.

    Sources:
    https://abc7.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-rbg-died-dead/6449070/
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-in-2016-ginsburg-senate-election-year-vacancy
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/rbg-retirement-obama.html
    https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-29-presidents-were-allowed-supreme-court-nomination-final-year-term-1533117https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/29/one-third-of-all-u-s-presidents-appointed-a-supreme-court-justice-in-an-election-year/
    https://nypost.com/2020/09/18/whats-next-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-dying-wish/
    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248#:~:text=Senate%20Majority%20Leader%20Mitch%20McConnell%20said%20the%20Senate,election%20%E2%80%94%20an%20historic%20rebuke%20of%20President%20

    [read less]

    In 2014, president Obama arranged a lunch with the then-80-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ginsburg had been a cancer patient twi…

    [read more]
    0
    • Ariana from Kansas

      Ruth’s death wish was to have someone new appointed because she knew how power crazy trump was. In america we are supposed to be in the land of the “free” and if we let trump nominate who he wants it will only get worse. If we are wanted anything to get better we will vote for the new president, and hopefully make the right decision to vote blue, and after someone knew gets into office they will nominate the new judge.

      [read less]

      Ruth’s death wish was to have someone new appointed because she knew how power crazy trump was. In america we are supposed to be in the land of the “f…

      [read more]
      0
  • Lucia from Kansas

    yes because they would make great votes.

    0
  • William from Kansas

    I think we should wait to see what happens if Biden wins or Trump wins they should pick whoever after election season.

    0
    • Joe from Illinois

      It’s not even debatable. Let’s just change the rules every time the Demorats don’t get their way. Look it up, the President is in power for 48 months not 47. It’s in the Constitution that it’s thePresidents duty to exercise if he also controls the Senate, something Nobama did not have. You are using the NY Commie Times and the Washington Compost as reference material. How slanted. It’s easy to see you swaying the answer that you want. God help our students if this is the way Liberal, Union goon teachers are brain washing our kids. School Choice is so important

      [read less]

      It’s not even debatable. Let’s just change the rules every time the Demorats don’t get their way. Look it up, the President is in power for 48 m…

      [read more]
      0
    • Cade from Kansas

      I do agree but i think that we should do it now more than later

      0
  • Evan from Kansas

    because they are already great at making decisions

    0
  • Faith from Kansas

    I think that the president should replace RGB now instead of after the election.

    0
    • Zachary from Kansas

      I personally don’t see the point in finding one as soon as now just because it’s a month until the new candidate gets appointed to office whether that’s Trump or Biden. But I can see why you think that this would be a good decision but sometimes patience can provide better decisions because it seems Trump made the new idea for a candidate withing less than a day after RBG’s death. I’m sure Biden also has good ideas for this candidate but it would be better to wait and see what happens rather than jumping teh gun.

      [read less]

      I personally don’t see the point in finding one as soon as now just because it’s a month until the new candidate gets appointed to office whether that…

      [read more]
      0
  • Dalton from Pennsylvania

    I believe that it is not only good and right to confirm a justice prior to the election, but also that it is the civil duty of the President and of the Senate. Partisanship should never get in the way. It should not have in 2016 and it should not now. It is good and right in the fact that our Supreme Court simply cannot function with an even number of justices. To do so would easily allow a tie, especially in the current composition of the court. That being 3 liberal justices, 4 conservative justices, and Chief Justice Roberts who is widely considered to be moderate and a swing vote. It is the civil duty of the President and the Senate as it is explicitly stated in law. The Constitution of the United States establishes a Supreme Court, but never does it state the size of that court. Congress has taken that decision upon itself. In the 1869 Judiciary Act, enacted on the first Monday of December in the year 1869, it is states, “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Supreme Court of the United States shall hereafter consist of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices”. This has not been altered since the time of its passing on April 10, 1869. As such, determined by congress, the Supreme Court requires 9 justices. Any more or any less is simply a violation of the Judiciary Act of 1869. Unless an amendment or replacement to that institution, of which has been in place for over 150 years, is proposed and passed prior to the election, it is simply required that a Justice must be appointed and confirmed as soon as possible. Partisanship must be put aside for the good of the nation! If a senator has a legitimate issue with the nominee, which I expect the majority of democrats do at a ideological level. That being said, Republican Senator Collins of Maine and Democratic Senator Manchin of West Virginia, both of whom have stated they refuse to even consider Amy Barrett, certainly do not fall under the category of major ideological differences with the nominee. The fact that this is a question shows the issue in our system currently and the need for a constitutional amendment to clarify without question the number of justices and manner of action in the case of the death of a Justice.

    [read less]

    I believe that it is not only good and right to confirm a justice prior to the election, but also that it is the civil duty of the President and of th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Rachel from Kentucky

    Yes, a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election year. It is the current president’s job to fill the empty seat in the Supreme Court. Since Ruth Bader Ginsburg died before the election, it should be Trump’s responsibility to find a new Supreme Court Justice to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s spot. With the presidential election coming up, election of a new Supreme Court Justice could be one of Trump’s last acts as president of the United States. As president, Trump represents our nation and has the power to make decisions that will benefit our nation. It is in our nation’s best interest to elect a new Supreme Court Justice as soon as possible. Trump should be the one to place a new justice on the Supreme Court since he has a chance of being reelected to office.

    [read less]

    Yes, a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election year. It is the current president’s job to fill the empty seat in the Supreme Co…

    [read more]
    0
  • Teresa from Kentucky

    Supreme Court Justices should be able to be appointed during an election year because it is still part of the president’s duty to appoint a candidate. The President’s term is four years long, not three, so he should have four full years of complete service which includes nominating and appointing a Supreme Court Justice. If the President waited until after the election because views may change then the United States would never get anything done. Views are constantly changing, but the people in office now are still in office until the election which means they represent the people. As representatives, they cannot forego any of their duties. If each election year the President did nothing because the majority view might change the United States would be in chaos because no decisions would be made. So, because President Trump is still our president before the election it is his duty to appoint a Supreme Court Justice regardless of the fact that it is an election year.

    [read less]

    Supreme Court Justices should be able to be appointed during an election year because it is still part of the president’s duty to appoint a candidate….

    [read more]
    0
  • Zach from Kentucky

    I believe the president does have the right to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice during an election year. If necessary, the president should have the ability to appoint a new supreme court justice, especially if one justice dies, resigns, etc. For example, RBG. If the Supreme Court is in urgent need of a new justice, the president can appoint a new justice before an election, to better aid him in his votes, and will have more discussion amongst his court justices speaking on the future of the country. Therefore I do believe a Supreme Court Justice can be appointed during an election season, to better the government, and balance out the court short of justice.

    [read less]

    I believe the president does have the right to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice during an election year. If necessary, the president should have th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ordie from Colorado

    The need is there to have a Supreme Court Justice to break tie should that happen. It needs to especially happen now to ensure a fair election. The left has been wanting to pull too many shenanigans that will skew things in their favor. This would be a bulwark against it.

    [read less]

    The need is there to have a Supreme Court Justice to break tie should that happen. It needs to especially happen now to ensure a fair election. The …

    [read more]
    0
    • Ordie from Colorado

      The Constitution states that it is the DUTY of the President to appoint Supreme Court Justices. It doesn’t say anything about the timing and when he is allowed to. It was only because of Harry Reid ( Democrat) that this supposedly favor of “waiting until after the election came about. It was done with the hope in mind of the Democrat winning the seat. Ever since FDR with his attempt to pack the court with Liberal judges, the Dems have been trying to fulfill his dream. Only the Conservatives follow the Constitution and preserve the freedoms that I and so many of my brethren have fought for. President Trump has every right to put another Supreme Court Justice on the bench, and he should do so without fail.

      [read less]

      The Constitution states that it is the DUTY of the President to appoint Supreme Court Justices. It doesn’t say anything about the timing and when he …

      [read more]
      0
  • Ian from Tennessee

    In the constitution it states that the president must appoint supreme court judges. That is how RBG was appointed to the seat, it is only fitting that be how her seat is refilled. To wait until the next election would be to leave a supreme court seat open, which could turn the tides of upcoming decisions, ultimately affecting our country in a major way.

    [read less]

    In the constitution it states that the president must appoint supreme court judges. That is how RBG was appointed to the seat, it is only fitting that…

    [read more]
    0
    • M from Minnesota

      Wouldn’t electing a new justice affect the decisions of the supreme court more? If the current president is able to appoint a new justice that advocates for his views on this country, that could mean the loss of rights for thousands of people. The new judge will hypothetically belong to the same political party as Donald Trump, which will throw off the balance of the supreme court for decades. The effect on our country for this short period of time, if any, will be far less than decades of major change that will be ahead of us if a new justice is elected now.

      [read less]

      Wouldn’t electing a new justice affect the decisions of the supreme court more? If the current president is able to appoint a new justice that advocat…

      [read more]
      0
  • Ryleigh from Tennessee

    It is the president’s right to elect supreme court justices in the event of a passing or resignation. Like Trump has mentioned, his presidency is 4 years, not 3. He still remains in office through January, making it fully understandable to elect a replacement for late RBG, rest her soul, seeing as he has 3 months to do so. The Democrats fighting against Trump’s candidate are displaying the utmost double-standard. If put in the same situation, they too would feel the right to exercise what is indeed their right. Furthermore, it is completely inappropriate and unnecessary to be attacking Amy Coney Barrett. She is a remarkable woman and frankly, it goes against Liberal’s preaching to be shaming women– it seems their principles our only valid when pushing thier own agendas…

    [read less]

    It is the president’s right to elect supreme court justices in the event of a passing or resignation. Like Trump has mentioned, his presidency is 4 ye…

    [read more]
    0
  • Antar from Virginia

    The President of the United States has the power of appointing Judges to the Supreme court and the Senate advises and consents according to Article II, Section II of the Constitution. The Senate and President’s terms go until January, after the election, so they have the constitutional duty to fill that seat. During a presidential election year, there have been 29 vacancies, 19 times out of those 29, have the Senate and the President been of the same party, and out of those 19 times, 17 of them were confirmed. Those 10 other times where the President and Senate were of different parties, only 2 were confirmed. In 2016, the President was elected for this season, and 2018, the Republicans in the Senate increased their majority, so they have the duty to fill the seat. The Democrats have themselves to blame for this situation because, then, Majority Leader Harry Reid went with the nuclear option with the judicial nominations, only needing a simple majority instead of the 2/3 of the Senate. At that moment, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned them that they would regret this and sooner than they would think, and he was correct. Also, those claiming the late Justice Ginsburg’s “dying wish,” there is no “dying wish” clause in the Constitution of the United States of America. By the way, it is not the McConnell Rule as some may claim, it is actually the Biden Rule. In his June 1992 speech, Biden refused to confirm any election-year Bush nominees.

    [read less]

    The President of the United States has the power of appointing Judges to the Supreme court and the Senate advises and consents according to Article II…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ella from South Carolina

    I’m 15 years old an a 10th grader who is virtually home schooled due to covid-19. I’ve been paying more attention to politics and listening to the adults around me I trust most, and also fact checking myself the things I hear,see and read. I believe in our constitution and the rights that go along with that. With that being said, the presidential term is 4 year increments thus being rightfully in President Trumps term, so I believe he has until the very last day of his presidency to make a nomination for the Supreme Court. If the roles were reversed I’d feel the same.

    [read less]

    I’m 15 years old an a 10th grader who is virtually home schooled due to covid-19. I’ve been paying more attention to politics and listening to the adu…

    [read more]
    0
    • jacob from Kansas

      this doesn,t sound right to me!

      0
  • Melanie from Arizona

    In the recent Presidential debate, one of the key issues about the SCOTUS arose whether the next supreme court justice would be appointed now or after the election season. There are two main points to this argument. The 1st point is, the President has the power to decide. Trump said, “We won the election and therefore we have the right to choose her.” Trump also mentions that he is President for 4 years, not 3 years, therefore it is his willful right to so, and he’s absolutely right. It is constitutional that the President gets to fill the seat and also the senate gets to decide if the next supreme court nominee is a good fit.
    Now, the 2nd point is, it does not matter when a nominee is appointed, it matters what the nominee stands for. In Amy Coney Barret speech at Hillsdale college she states, “A judge is obligated to apply the law as it is, and not as she wishes it would be. She is obliged to follow the law, even when her personal preferences cut the other way or when she will experience great public criticism for doing so.” A supreme court justice is someone who can interpret the constitution properly. Simply put, It makes no difference if a nominee is appointed during an election period or after because the bottom line is that the constitutional role of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution properly. So when former Vice President Joe Biden states, “The American people have a right to have a say in who the Supreme Court nominee is.” Biden is saying, a supreme court justice is a political tool to enforce policies for majority rule instead of Interrupting if it’s constitutional. In other words Biden doesn’t want Amy Coney Barett because “she thinks that the Affordable Care Act is not Constitutional.” And “Women’s rights are fundamentally changed.” Amy Coney Barrett’s main philosophy is simply putting the Constitution above any personal views on the law.
    If Biden was in the same position as Donald Trump right now, without a doubt he would have appointed a supreme court justice now during the election. Why? Because he wants someone that is aligned with the Democratic beliefs on policies. Yet again, “A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers” – Amy Coney Barret.

    [read less]

    In the recent Presidential debate, one of the key issues about the SCOTUS arose whether the next supreme court justice would be appointed now or after…

    [read more]
    0
  • Hamilton from New York

    The President has a constitutional right to appoint a Supreme Court nominee. The senate has the constitutional right to confirm an appointee. I would look at it this way; it doesn’t matter if it is the President’s first or last day in office, he is still the President of the United States and it is his job to make decisions that are constitutionally appropriate.

    [read less]

    The President has a constitutional right to appoint a Supreme Court nominee. The senate has the constitutional right to confirm an appointee. I would …

    [read more]
    0
  • Edward from Washington

    Republicans will lie and cheat to get their way. There are more Democrats than Republicans how is it that Republicans have cheated And have taken control of state legislatures. Even the vote has become were they disenfranchised people mostly Democrats

    [read less]

    Republicans will lie and cheat to get their way. There are more Democrats than Republicans how is it that Republicans have cheated And have taken cont…

    [read more]
    0
  • Presley from Texas

    It’s unconstitutional to not.

    0
  • Patrck from Massachusetts

    President Trump is absolutely within his rights to appoint a Supreme Court Justice at any point in his term. As he argued in last week’s debate: the president is elected for four years, not three. During the entire course of his presidency, Mr. Trump has the power to command the post to which he was assigned. He can make executive orders even in the midst of an election cycle, he can preside over other appointees even after the election is over, and all of his other powers remain intact throughout his entire term. Why would the Supreme Court be any different? The people should and have had their say, as given by the fact that Trump was elected in the first place.

    The question of whether the president’s appointee — Amy Coney Barrett — will or should be confirmed is an entirely different matter. If the Democrats held a majority in the Senate (as the GOP did during a similar scenario in 2016), then they would, of course, prevent Mrs. Barrett from being confirmed. But they don’t: the Republicans do. As such, this appointee is exactly the same as any other: if the candidate is suitable, she ought to be confirmed by the GOP senators; if there’s something about her character or record that makes her a bad choice for the SCOTUS, then she should be rejected. From what I can tell, she is perfectly fit to be on the highest bench in the country.

    [read less]

    President Trump is absolutely within his rights to appoint a Supreme Court Justice at any point in his term. As he argued in last week’s debate: the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Justus from Pennsylvania

    Absolutely, for three reasons:

    1. Existing precedent clearly states that if the same party controls the White House and the Senate, then Supreme Court justices are commonly confirmed. (2018 was an election year for the senate, I must remind you.)

    2. The constitution gives no bar on making appointments in an election year. What the constitution does say is that a president is elected for four years, and that senate members are elected every 6 years (in a staggered form of course). The president is not elected for 3.5 years.

    3. The people and states decided in 2014, 2016, and 2018 who they want to be in charge of the Senate and consenting to appointees. The people and states decided in 2016 who they wanted to be in charge of appointing judges. (By the way, 2018’s confirmation was in a Senate election season.)

    The precedent, constitution, and elections have all spoken. I don’t see anything that stands in the way of election season appointments.

    There is a practical application as well. A full court can better decide any election dispute than a court that could potentially split 4-4. Especially because one party has told it’s nominee not to “give an inch…” and not to concede the election if the incumbent wins.

    [read less]

    Absolutely, for three reasons:

    1. Existing precedent clearly states that if the same party controls the White House and the Senate, then Supreme Co…

    [read more]
    0
  • Camden from Oklahoma

    The Constitution allows for a sitting President to nominate a Justice. A Presidential term is 4 years. It is the President’s duty and Senate to fill the position. Even though this is an election year. The current President still maintains office until January 2021.

    [read less]

    The Constitution allows for a sitting President to nominate a Justice. A Presidential term is 4 years. It is the President’s duty and Senate to fill t…

    [read more]
    0
  • E from Louisiana

    The law is that the president is in office for four years, and in that time period he may engage in the special rights given to him by the Constitution, among these rights is the right to appoint Supreme Court justices.

    [read less]

    The law is that the president is in office for four years, and in that time period he may engage in the special rights given to him by the Constitutio…

    [read more]
    0
  • Whittaker from Washington

    No, I do not think that a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election season. After the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month, Mr. Trump has scrambled to find someone to replace her now vacant seat, landing on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative. In my opinion, Supreme Court Justices should not be appointed and/or confirmed during an election season. This is a very important decision for our country that should not be rushed nor taken lightly.

    First, we must take into account respect from a moral standpoint. To commemorate the passing of a Justice who served all Americans during her life-long term, opting for the winner of the upcoming November election to appoint a new Justice to take RBG’s place would be the most honorable thing to do. The agendas pushed by either major political party should be put on hold when someone of such status in the United States’ highest court dies.

    Second, historically we turn to precedence when something of this nature occurs. In 2016, during an election year, our country was met with the same decision. In 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. However, the Republican-controlled Senate, led by Mitch McConnell refused to consider this appointee. As quoted by King 5 News, “that example means there is precedent to not fill the vacancy until after the election”. These events are 4 years apart and therefore this is the most recent historical situation to compare for guidance. As explained above, Senate Republicans said that the seat should not be filled in an election year, and refused to even hold hearings. Mitch McConnell, to justify his decision to not hold hearings for Obama’s nominee, said, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” in a statement on February 13, 2016, the day Scalia died. This once again affirms that no selection should be made. If Mitch McConnell, the Republican Leader of the Senate, thinks that vacancies should only be filled by newly elected presidents, there would be no reason to change our minds so suddenly and consequently no such exception when it comes to the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Third, I would like to address the opposing argument and discuss why in this case the points made by the opposition are invalid. Some argue that constitutionally, Presidents may appoint new justices if a seat opens up, with of course the approval of the Senate. However, the Constitution is purposely vague in some sections and articles to allow future generations to interpret it in the most modern and beneficial manner possible (just because the Consitution states it is legal does not mean it is correct or necessarily right). Regarding the nomination of justices, we must consider how it has been done in the past, which brings up the second opposing argument (15 times a Supreme Court vacancy has opened in a presidential election year and the current president nominated someone that same year). While this number is accurate, it leaves out important information. For example, previous presidents have filled Supreme Court seats in election years, but not in an election season (so close to voting). While other justices have been approved in presidential election years, none has been voted on after July, according to the New York Times. For context, Justice Scalia passed in February of 2016, while RBG passed in September of this year. This is extremely unprecedented to nominate someone in September of an election year, therefore, the argument of previous appointments is invalid. This also ties back to the Constitution. Using this precedence and past historical decisions by both parties when met with similar situations, we can deduce that waiting for the November winner to appoint a new justice aligns closest with what our country has done in years before. To quote a well-known Republican, Lindsay Graham stated that “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right. We’re setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year, at least of a lame-duck eight-year term, I would say it’s going to be a four-year term, that you’re not going to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court based on what we’re doing here today. That’s going to be the new rule,” at a Judiciary Committee meeting in March 2016. Graham said to use his words against him so I will. This is a Republican Senator that has lots of experience with justice nominations under his belt. He confidently said that we would be right to let the next president, whoever it might be, decide who would fill the vacant seat. He has a good point in saying that, meaning that from a Republican viewpoint, we should let the 2020 President-elect make the call. To specifically address the first opposing argument, the Constitution leaves it up to us when it comes to appointing nominees in the election season, and historically we have agreed to refrain from doing so. To address the second, if we want to talk about precedence and what has been done by other presidents, then it is vital to realize that no president in US history has ever appointed a justice to the Supreme Court this close to an election. Due to both of the opposing arguments being disproven, it is safe to say that there is more evidence and reasoning to suggest that we should not appoint justices in elections seasons.

    In conclusion, Supreme Court justices should not be appointed during election seasons. The most honorable, historically accurate, and evidence-backed thing to do would be to let the next president of the United States fill the seat. According to an article by the New York Times, “several polls over the past week have shown that most Americans, including many Republicans, believe the next justice should be selected by the winner of the November election, not by Mr. Trump in the meantime”. We should listen to public opinion, which favors what I am arguing. This is more than a partisan issue. It is an issue that concerns the life of someone who served our nation for 27 years, and we owe her gratitude. Rushing ahead less than two months prior to an election is a great insult. All in all, I rest my case that it would be most beneficial to allow the winner of this year’s election to select a replacement for the Supreme Court, whomever that winner may be.

    [read less]

    No, I do not think that a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election season. After the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month, Mr…

    [read more]
    10
    • Grady from Washington

      TRUMP 2020!!!!!!

      0
  • Bianca from Florida

    I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during the election season.
    While it is completely within the power of the President to nominate a justice during his term, we must consider that we are only a few weeks shy of the election and it would be completely unjust for a Justice to be appointed while the people are already in the process of casting their ballots for the presidency. And, while many would argue that the seat cannot be left vacant because they fear that the Supreme Court would have to intervene if the election is disputed, the reality is that not all 9 Justices need to be present for challenges to be resolved. There have been various instances in which court decisions have been made without all 9 justices present, proving that there is no immediate need to hastily fill this position. For example, in the Engle vs Vitale, a 1962 case based on the establishment clause and the prohibition of prayer in public school, a decision was made in favor of Engle with a 6-1 vote, making it evident that 9 Justices are not always needed on the bench for a just decision.

    Moreover, with the election coming up in less than 30 days, rushing to fill this position
    causes speculation that the president’s strategy behind this nomination is to simply secure a favorable vote if a contested election were to reach the Supreme Court. This political power grab goes against the very ideals of Hamilton in Federalist 78, in which he calls for the need for “judicial independence” to ensure that the justices are chosen for their ability and not their political affiliation. When making decisions, Justices must be capable of refraining from any political influences or loyalties and must uphold the Constitution for the protection of our rights, not the protection of the people who put them in power. Even if this is all just speculation, the mere semblance of impropriety for this high-stakes appointment should be resolved in favor of the people and we should air on the side of caution and not allow this nomination to go forward.

    Additionally, there is recent precedent in place that is being ignored by the very people
    who put it in place. In 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland following the death of Justice Scalia, but the senate Republican majority decided to “withhold consent” and not consider his nomination. The Senate Majority Leader and other Republicans argued that they deemed it too close to the upcoming election and wanted to allow the people to cast their ballots for president, a full 10 months later, to make sure the peoples’ voices were heard. Ironically, these same men who claimed they would follow this precedent were a position to arise in the last year of Trump’s presidency, are now back-pedaling which is clearly a political power play and not in the best interest of the people. In fact, recent NYT polls demonstrate more that 57 % of the people disagree with the Senate moving forward with this nomination, compared to 38% who believe the nomination should be filled by Trump. The will of the majority who believe that the next elected president should have the power to make the appointment, as precedent requires, should be respected.

    Finally, during the 2016 election year, Amy Coney Barret herself expressed concern for
    replacing justice Scalia by stating “We’re talking about Justice Scalia, the staunchest conservative on the court, and we’re talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power in the court.” Through her statement, it is very clear that even she knows that justices should not be replaced with those of opposite parties because it would throw off the “balance” in the court. There is no doubt that allowing the nomination of Coney Barrett will throw off the current balance of the court; Amy Coney Barret is a republican with radical religious beliefs that uphold the patriarchy, which is antithesis of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, defender of equality. This contradiction furthers the message that this appointment is purely political and not in the best interest of the nation. We were warned of “ambitious men” by Madison in Federalist 51 and the division that would arise out of the creation of factions (Federalist 10), and yet here we are going against these warnings by nominating a justice during election season, not to protect or defend the nation, but rather out of political self-interest, which is the main reason why a justice should not be appointed during election season.

    [read less]

    I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during the election season.
    While it is completely within the power of the President t…

    [read more]
    7
    • Sofia from Florida

      The election of a new supreme justice before the election encroaches on the balance of the branches and the people’s individual voting rights

      0
  • Caleb from Washington

    Throughout America’s history, there has never been a supreme court justice that has been appointed in even close to the amount of time that Republicans are proposing to nominate Amy Coney Barrett. Even Abraham Lincoln refused to nominate a judge a month before the next election, as he didn’t want to abuse his power. Right now, we’re already in an election. Millions have already voted. If Trump wins in November, great, we can go on with the process. But if he doesn’t win, why should somebody the American people don’t want in office get to chose a justice that will affect Americans the rest of their life?

    [read less]

    Throughout America’s history, there has never been a supreme court justice that has been appointed in even close to the amount of time that Republican…

    [read more]
    3
  • Stella from Pennsylvania

    Recent events have reopened an issue of the 2016 election: should a Supreme Court Justice be appointed during an election season (between the Democratic and Republican National Conventions and Inauguration Day)? Despite the debates that surround this question, the decision was actually made back in 2016. Congress should not approve or disapprove a Supreme Court nominee until the end of an election season. The precedent set by the Senate’s refusal to hold a vote on the 2016 nominee should be upheld during the 2020 election season.

    Several key topics surround this issue, the first of which being the Supreme Court’s position as above politics. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that “the decision we made (on not appointing Merrick Garland, who was appointed during an election season) remains about a principle, not a person.” A Supreme Court justice should be appointed on the basis of merit, not because they appeal to the partisan sensibilities of a president or Congress. Having a Supreme Court position open close to an election ties the decision even further to voters. A Pew Research Center study found that 64% of voters view the Supreme Court as a “very important” issue in the 2020 election, with similar results in 2016. Finally, as stated by Senate Judiciary Committee member John Cornyn, “The next justice could change the ideological makeup of the Court for a generation, and fundamentally reshape American society in the process.” As far back as the John Adams’s Midnight Appointments in 1800, presidents have used Supreme Court nominations as a last chance to exert influence and keep some partisan power.

    In appointing a Supreme Court Justice during an election season, the executive and legislative branches prioritize personal influence over the will of the people. This hypothetical nomination will only lead to a further polarization of American politics and a Supreme Court too factional to be rightly considered the voice of justice in America.

    [read less]

    Recent events have reopened an issue of the 2016 election: should a Supreme Court Justice be appointed during an election season (between the Democrat…

    [read more]
    2
  • Mahika from Texas

    No I don’t think that a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed before or during an election. It is very tense before an election as candidates are getting ready for the presidential campaign. It will further divide politics as well, if people don’t agree with the current president’s choice.

    [read less]

    No I don’t think that a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed before or during an election. It is very tense before an election as candidates are …

    [read more]
    0
  • ava from Texas

    I believe that waiting to appoint a Supreme Court Justice would be the morally correct and less hypocritical option. In the 2016 election, they waited to appoint a Supreme Court Justice because if favored a Republican viewpoint, now that waiting offers an advantage to the Democratic viewpoint, they’re switching it around, which is extremely hypocritical and morally wrong.

    [read less]

    I believe that waiting to appoint a Supreme Court Justice would be the morally correct and less hypocritical option. In the 2016 election, they waited…

    [read more]
    0
  • Isra from Texas

    No, I don’t believe that a supreme court justice should be appointed during a presidential year. To be put on the highest court of the land is an hour that the people placed will serve for life and will rule on cases that will be final, and change the lives of millions. During an election year, the country is going through a change in leadership, and because that leadership is who chooses the nominees they will try to extend their own beliefs and biases onto America forever through their nominees. In this year of change, a president should not be able to make a decision that cannot be overturned by the next president who will have different values, goals, policies. This extension of themselves is very harmful to the progressiveness of America and the reflection of policies on what the American people believe.

    [read less]

    No, I don’t believe that a supreme court justice should be appointed during a presidential year. To be put on the highest court of the land is an hour…

    [read more]
    0
  • Pranav from Texas

    Appointing a Supreme Court Justice during election season is playing power politics. While the past precedent states that nominating and appointing a Supreme Court Justice is legal, it is not the moral thing to do. As a part of any party, knowing that there is a chance of that party losing the Presidential election, rushing to appoint a Justice is not moral. Like I said before, the party is playing power politics and is basically trying to stack power in the Judicial Branch (the one branch that does not have elections and is appointed) to ensure that important court decisions are either upheld or turned over. While I do agree that whoever is in power of the Senate and Executive branch should be allowed to nominate and appoint a justice, I truly do not believe this is right. Understanding that with an election year, opinions can change dramatically, Senators and the President have to be more mindful of the election and the be aware of the fact that they are public servants and should be trying to help the public and not play power politics.

    [read less]

    Appointing a Supreme Court Justice during election season is playing power politics. While the past precedent states that nominating and appointing a …

    [read more]
    0
  • Lexi from Missouri

    I think your political beliefs have a big affect on when this should happen. For me, I believe a presidential election is already a big enough event, that another very controversial topic would be too much for our society to handle. If we do end up appointing a Supreme Court Justice, then if Bide wins and becomes our president. I feel this would cause a greater situation, than if we waited till the election ends.
    One point is, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a blessing to our country, and do we not honor and respect our blessings? Do we not honor the things we are gifted, and that make our country a better place? She impacted our lives, whether you believe that they were good or not. RBG was often times on the loosing side of the decisions, but even though those things did not change, her writing, and argument of what she believed, were amazing. If you believe this not to be true, go and watch “On the Basis of Sex!” No one gets a movie made about them without impacting many, many people.
    Another point is… If the presidential candidates agreed on whom the place should fill. Then I might be on the opposing side. Though there is little to no chance this will, or will ever be true. As our people have minds of our own, which is how things should be. Even if our candidates agree… is this really the time to cause more drama than there already is in our society? With many things up in the air, can we not wait for one thing to be stable before we move on to the next big argument?

    My last question I want to ask you is… Do you want a little less chaos in this chaotic time?

    [read less]

    I think your political beliefs have a big affect on when this should happen. For me, I believe a presidential election is already a big enough event, …

    [read more]
    0
  • naiya from California

    its a very powerful branch to the American government due to the life long duty the justices are tasked with.

    0
  • Rose from Colorado

    I do not think that a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election season. Precident before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg states that a judge shouldn’t be appointed during an election, which makes sense to me. It reminds me of the context surrounding Marbury v. Madison — where John Adams was trying to appoint a bunch of judges that wouldn’t agree with the values of the upcoming president. Such a move is disruptive and desperate in my eyes.

    [read less]

    I do not think that a Supreme Court Justice should be appointed during an election season. Precident before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg states th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Chase from Arizona

    I don’t agree with the current path that things are going on. While technically, yes, the current president does have the right to select a new supreme court justice. This is confirmed by the constitution, “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.” However, there have been cases where this right was not followed. In 2016, President Obama should have been allowed to pick a new supreme court justice but was denied the right because it was an “election year.” It was also his second term, so he was unable to select it even if he were re-elected. So, because of this, I believe that it would be unfair to allow Trump to pick the new judge. We should wait to see who wins the vote and if Trump is re-elected, then he should be allowed to choose the new justice.

    [read less]

    I don’t agree with the current path that things are going on. While technically, yes, the current president does have the right to select a new suprem…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jailey from Arizona

    No. Why? Because it is not equal. When it was Obama’s last year of his term, he was not able to select a new Supreme Court Judge when the previous one, unfortunately, passed away. He was not allowed to replace her because they did not allow it for a valued reason. It was because it was Obama’s last year of his term therefore, the next president should be able to choose the next Supreme court judge. Mitch McConnel did not and would not allow it. He continuously did not want to participate in it and refused to hold meetings. Now it was in Trump’s favor to chose who he wanted to be the Supreme Court of Justice due to him being the next president. He had chosen RGB.

    It is now Trump’s last year of his term and RBG had now unfortunately recently passed. Everyone should now take the same action that they did to Obama which is not allowing him to and leaving it for the next President to decide, but for some reason, Trump is given the option to be allowed to chose a new Supreme Court of Justice Leader.

    This is not the only problem with that. RGBs last wish was to leave it up for the next president for the next term meaning to not have Trump pick as they did to Obama.

    There should be no difference in the actions that they gave Obama than him. Now, many debate if this is a racially motivated situation. It is hard to tell as Obama was the FIRST black president and many did not like him for that reason. Now as far as Trump, he has made several racist statements to Black Citizens including Obama. So personally, I do believe it is racially motivated because Trump is allow to get away with anything no one else is not able to.

    [read less]

    No. Why? Because it is not equal. When it was Obama’s last year of his term, he was not able to select a new Supreme Court Judge when the previous one…

    [read more]
    0
  • Madi from Colorado

    I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during an election season. It is in fact within the power of the President of the United States, but if they appoint a justice before the election, it can’t be changed as justices are there for life. In addition, as a known precedent, President Obama was prevented from appointing a new Justice, even though it was nearly half a year before the election.

    [read less]

    I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during an election season. It is in fact within the power of the President of the Unite…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dylan from Arizona

    No, It would be unfair to let Trump pick a new justice during an election year, when Obama wasn’t allowed to.

    0
  • Brady from Colorado

    I think this is a tough issue to grapple. I personally believe we should wait until after election season so more people have a voice in the matter. That being said, the president appoints, not the people.

    [read less]

    I think this is a tough issue to grapple. I personally believe we should wait until after election season so more people have a voice in the matter. T…

    [read more]
    0
  • Neil from Wisconsin

    A Supreme Court Justice should no longer be appointed during an election season. In the past the reverse was the standard. The Constitution states the president appoints a vacant seat, no matter what. But the decision to block Judge Garland’s appointment has set a precedent despite what McConnell argues. As McConnell himself stated when the decision was made: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” In this decision, to block a court appointment nine months before the next election, the precedent has been set that during an election season an appointment cannot be made. If nine months is short enough, then of course three months should qualify.

    However, McConnell argues that this time, the precedent does not apply, for the Senate majority and the president are from the same party. It can be argued that the Senate indirectly represents the will of the people as they are elected by the people as well, but this was never brought up in the initial ruling. The people’s will was represented in the presidential votes, not in the Senate. Even then, a rule change was pushed at that time that changed the required votes in the senate from 60 to a simple majority. Before this precedent the appointed judge wouldn’t even make it to begin with, as they are now teetering with needing three senators to not switch sides to succeed in the appointment, far below the previously required 60 votes.

    McConnell made a gamble. Such precedents shouldn’t be made so lightly, so let the gamble continue. The supreme court justice should not be appointed during an election season. The judge should be decided by the will of the voters, just as the last judge was.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should no longer be appointed during an election season. In the past the reverse was the standard. The Constitution states the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Angel from Arizona

    No, I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should not be added during an election season. I believe this because of how the tables have turned. When Obama was elected president, he had a Supreme Court Judge, Antonin Scalia. On February 13th, 2016, Antonin died, so Obama hired a replacement in March. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel refused to hold the meeting. His reason was that it was an election year and the next president should select the next judge. That is exactly what happened. With Trump, he got his new judge, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. On September 18th, 2020, Ruth Ginsburg died. Now Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel will allow Donald Trump to get a senate vote to be able to have a new Judge. The only thing that changed with the 2 presidents is that Obama is black and Trump is white. This is extremely racist. If Mitch McConnel did this with Obama he should at least keep his word with Trump.

    [read less]

    No, I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should not be added during an election season. I believe this because of how the tables have turned. When O…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lillie from North Carolina

    I think that a Supreme Court Justice nominee should not be voted on until after the election. During the election season, not only is the power of the person who would be nominating the Supreme Court Justice in question, but so is the power of many of the people who will be voting on the nomination. If a Supreme Court Justice were to pass away at the beginning of the year, it makes sense that the seat should be filled, but not this late in the election season. The people of the Untied States are preparing to vote, to decide their futures. A Supreme Court Justice decision this close to an election would further hinder the voices of the people. As Mitch McConnell said 4 years ago, “Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.” This precedent was set 4 years ago, and the very people that set it are now going back on their word.

    [read less]

    I think that a Supreme Court Justice nominee should not be voted on until after the election. During the election season, not only is the power of the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kayleigh from North Carolina

    I vote no, because I agree that it will help people be heard on the issues. And that it will further polarize politics if a nominee is confirmed so close to the election.

    0
  • Jacci from Washington

    I think that if we don’t want to make this about being right or left, we’d come to a moral consensus instead of having double standards from the last election. I think it’s stupid to be in a rush in such an already controversial elections period.

    [read less]

    I think that if we don’t want to make this about being right or left, we’d come to a moral consensus instead of having double standards from the last …

    [read more]
    0
  • Austyn from Washington

    I believe that a new supreme court justice should not be appointed during an election year. I believe this for one simple reason that it should be the people’s choice. The fact is that the new justice with sit on the seat for life! The issue is that the politicians in power, including Mr. Trump, don’t care about the people only about their party. If the republicans appoint a conservative to the court it will benefit their party for the foreseeable future. The republican party did support the idea of no appointments during election season, but that was back when there was a Democratic president in office and it would serve to hurt the republican agenda if a liberal was appointed. They have shown that they change their decisions and “morals” because of greed. At the end of the day, politicians should do what’s best for the people and not their own interests. With the political atmosphere being what it is in America, I believe the President and his party should honor their sentiments 4 years earlier and let the people decide!

    [read less]

    I believe that a new supreme court justice should not be appointed during an election year. I believe this for one simple reason that it should be the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cam from Oregon

    During the election season, a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed, especially given the current nature of this scenario. In November, whoever the people of America elect as their next president, be it Joe Biden or Donald Trump, should consider who to appoint the late Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg as a replacement.  The next president would best represent the American people’s opinions and will help suit America in the future with the election.

    [read less]

    During the election season, a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed, especially given the current nature of this scenario. In November, whoev…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kara from Pennsylvania

    The Supreme Court in general is a very powerful branch to the American government due to the life long duty the justices are tasked with. The position is supposed to be filled with a candidate who has the qualities to succeed in the court. Right now the Republican party is pushing for the position to be filled before the election, which is rushing the process. This process is not one to be rushed, nor should it be a position to take lightly. The position of a court justice will impact every American citizen from every side of the spectrum, either positively or negatively. No matter what effect it has on the American, the court would also be at a disadvantage. Due to the shift of numbers and parties, there would be an unfair bias in the highest court of the United States. This takes away from the true principles and beliefs written and expressed by the Founding Fathers. The natural right of “innocent until proven guilty” will be taken away in this court of law. With an unfair bias leaning to the conservative scale, progression in the United States will be backlogged. A six to three ratio in the court is called court packing. This is a political strategy that successfully pushes the agenda of one party. This is an unfair advantage to one party, and it shuts down millions of Americans from having their voices heard in the minority. The action of electing another justice, in this election season, will not be for the benefit of the majority. This has two possible endings: 1) The court will successfully be packed with right leaning justices, and give an unfair advantage to the Republican party. Or 2) The appointee process will be rushed and done without thorough checks and balances, which will lead the court to decades of consequences. The issue with appointing a new justice during an election season is the risks taken to benefit a one sided agenda. Now, if the roles were reversed and it was a Democratic president who was pushing for a new justice, I would still believe what I have said here. No matter what side or spectrum, the nominee process should be taken with care and extensive processes. To rush this nomination is putting future American cases at risk. If the good of the people is being questioned, even once, our leaders need to take initiative and responsibility to slow down the process and confirm this is the best choice for our country. The American democracy depends on elected officials to make choices in favor of the people and their futures. Another issue with President Trump or former Vice President Biden choosing the nominee and replacement is that their generation will not be as impacted as younger ones. The younger generations are putting full trust that the next justice will be appointed for the good of their livelihood. Cramming the process into three months is not the best idea, it is not enough time to calmly and responsibly go through this process. A decision that will impact many generations to come should not simply be “fit” between the schedules of presidential candidates and done in the fastest ways possible. The 2020 presidential campaign is stressful and an endless battle on both sides, so why put one of the most important decisions of 2020 in there too. Emotions are running high, and as humans are ran by emotions we tend to make mistakes and rush. There are no second chances in the Supreme Court, and there are no second chances with the livelihood of the American people at risk.

    [read less]

    The Supreme Court in general is a very powerful branch to the American government due to the life long duty the justices are tasked with. The position…

    [read more]
    0
    • Miley from Washington

      I believe that we should allow there to be a newly elected Supreme Court Justice because there needs to be TEN Supreme Court Justices whereas of right now there are only nine. We can not afford to wait for another three to four months for there to be a new one. If the president as of right now thinks she is a good fit then we should trust his judgement.

      [read less]

      I believe that we should allow there to be a newly elected Supreme Court Justice because there needs to be TEN Supreme Court Justices whereas of right…

      [read more]
      0
  • Emilia from Pennsylvania

    Although constitutionally it is the right of President Trump to nominate and replace the seat that belonged to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it may not be the best idea to do this during an election year, nonetheless, just weeks away from possibly the most important election of lives of Generation Z. Because Ruth Bader Ginsburg was such an outspoken and extreme Liberal on SCOTUS, replacing her with Amy Coney Barrett, someone supposedly of the opposite end of the spectrum, would sway the majority on the SCOTUS. This though, is one of the many factors that appeals to the right side of the aisle. It is also a reason why many on the left are speaking out about this nomination and potential approval of Barrett. Logically however, it makes more sense to wait until after the election for the approval in order to better represent the people of the United States in the SCOTUS. After all, that is what a democracy is supposed to be. I think that it is best this way because it ensures that the majority will be represented in the Supreme Court. What the American people must also keep in mind is that whoever is chosen to take the place of Justice Ginsburg will be serving a lifetime on the court and will most likely be there until young voters reach their retirement age. This is an extremely long time to be a part of decisions that will potentially affect everyone. It is important that the successor of Justice Ginsburg is qualified and makes decisions in the best interest of their Constituents, as well as interprets the Constitution to the best of their ability. The answer, although complicated, seems like it should be so simple. I believe that whoever wins the election should make the decision of who succeeds Justice Ginsburg, as it will better represent the American people for possibly a lifetime of Supreme Court decisions.

    [read less]

    Although constitutionally it is the right of President Trump to nominate and replace the seat that belonged to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it may not be the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Ethan from Pennsylvania

    My personal opinion on the situation is no I don’t think that the president should be allowed to appoint a justice during a election year.
    One of the reasons I think this is because when a justice is appointed and put into their position the only means by which their spot can be vacated is by death, impeachment, or resignment, this means that usually justices serve a life tenure. I think that this can be unfair for democrats, especially given the amount of people in favor of Trumps current position as president.

    The second reason is because I think that nominating after the election would be more effective is because we are so close to the election and we don’t know who is guaranteed presidency and I think that whom ever is voted should have a chance to nominate their own justice, instead of rushing to let Trump fill the spot. Also if we wait till after the election I think that the process will go a lot smoother and would be settled without being rushed.

    [read less]

    My personal opinion on the situation is no I don’t think that the president should be allowed to appoint a justice during a election year.
    One of the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dhanica Mae from Pennsylvania

    I believe the position for the new Supreme Court Justice seat should not be filled until the election season is over. The Presidential Election is less than a month away and the election is a much bigger priority to elect the new POTUS. The nomination for the New Supreme Court should be planned out thoughtfully because the role of a Justice has the seat their seat in the court till life. In the New York Times Open Letter to Mitt Romney says ” that it’s no sin for a president to exercise his constitutional right to nominate a judge at any point in his tenure or for the Senate to vote on the nomination.” Yes the president has the power and the right in the Constitution to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice, but during times of a big national election will make things difficult with both sides of the presidential party. In 2016, six months before the 2016 presidential election, Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nominee, Merrick Garland was blocked by the republicans to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat. It’s a fair reason to hold the Supreme Court Justice seat until the 2020 Presidential Election is over. The new elected president should have the power appoint the Supreme Court Justice when the election less than a month away.

    [read less]

    I believe the position for the new Supreme Court Justice seat should not be filled until the election season is over. The Presidential Election is les…

    [read more]
    0
  • Benjamin from Pennsylvania

    I do not think that a Supreme Court Justice should take action before a Presidential election. Because the President might have more pressing issues like working on getting a second term. He might not be thinking straight and might try to make his decision go through, even though it might not be the right decision.

    [read less]

    I do not think that a Supreme Court Justice should take action before a Presidential election. Because the President might have more pressing issues l…

    [read more]
    0
  • Connor from Texas

    While it is within the legal right for the government to appoint said judge, It is not in the best interest of the nation to do so. To push for this is indicative of expanding a political party’s power, and has no benefit for the American people.

    [read less]

    While it is within the legal right for the government to appoint said judge, It is not in the best interest of the nation to do so. To push for this i…

    [read more]
    0
    • Dustin from Washington

      you have a valid point but I believe that I can argue that while not in all American’s interests, it is still there in the people. The main problem is that Trump and the Republicans want to appoint a republican judge, while the democratic party wants to wait till after the election to when they hope Biden will be in the office and appoint a democratic judge. It really comes down to how hard a party pushes and how supporting their party is.

      [read less]

      you have a valid point but I believe that I can argue that while not in all American’s interests, it is still there in the people. The main problem is…

      [read more]
      0
  • Grace from New York

    Although the president holds a constitutional right to elect and appoint a Supreme Court Justice, I believe the seat should remain vacant until the election. The election is less than a month away and the people of the United States should have a say in who is appointed to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat. As Senator Mitch McConnell once said “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice…therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president”. McConnell’s comment refers to Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat in the Supreme Court. Obama’s decision was met with immediate backlash from Republican Senators who vehemently opposed the nomination and refused to provide a hearing for Garland. The seat remained vacant for nine months until President Trump was elected. The Republicans senators set a precedent in 2016 that demonstrated that a president should not appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year as the people should have a say in who fills the vacant seat through voting for a Presidential Candidate. Many of the same Republican Senators who strongly opposed Garland’s nomination, are now some of Trump’s strongest advocates and believe he should appoint the person to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat. Ruth Bader Ginsberg passed away on September 18, 2020, less than three months away from the election. The Senate allowed for the seat to remain vacant for over nine months in 2016 because the appointment of Judge Merrick Garland would not have benefited their party. If Amy Coney Barret’s nomination is passed, it would illuminate to the American people just how hypocritical members of our government truly are.

    [read less]

    Although the president holds a constitutional right to elect and appoint a Supreme Court Justice, I believe the seat should remain vacant until the el…

    [read more]
    0
  • Maya from New York

    A supreme court justice should not take office immediately before a presidential election. Although it is technically “constitutional” for the president to appoint one during an election season, the outcome of the election weighs more heavily on whether it is justified to appoint a new supreme court justice than the current president’s decision. To put things into perspective, the current president should not appoint a new supreme court justice because losing the upcoming election would mean that the majority of the country would not approve their choice of who should be appointed. Waiting until after the election to appoint a new justice gives the country a fair and democratic opportunity to voice who they believe is fit for the position based on the judgement of the president they elect. With the recent passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump’s decision to appoint a new justice before the election has sparked controversy across the country– although he technically does have the constitutional right to according to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, not giving the country the ability to have a say when there is uncertainty of whether he will be reelected is unproductive and unjust to the country he leads. In 2016, the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell blocked President Obama’s nominee preceding the election in order to give the country an opportunity to voice their opinion, however Trump is not affording the nation the same privilege. The position of the new supreme court justice is a significantly impactful role to the United States justice system, and giving the American people the opportunity to participate in the decision is crucial to our nation’s future.

    [read less]

    A supreme court justice should not take office immediately before a presidential election. Although it is technically “constitutional” for the pre…

    [read more]
    0
  • Esveidi from California

    President Donald Trump should not appoint a new supreme court justice at all during this election. There has been a lot of controversy during this election up to this point, and after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, many members of the LQBTQ+ community and women felt threated of their rights being taken away. If the POTUS appoints a new supreme court justice, this will automatically trigger many people, especially democrats, and will feel unfair to them as this will benefit the republican party.

    [read less]

    President Donald Trump should not appoint a new supreme court justice at all during this election. There has been a lot of controversy during this ele…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sydney from Virginia

    After the recent death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it has been a huge topic of debate if President Donald Trump should be able to appoint a new Supreme Court justice this close to Election Day. This is a big deal because Supreme Court justices are justices for life or until they decide to retire. Ginsburg was a supreme court justice for 27 years until her death, and Donald Trump hopes to appoint Amy Barrett to take her seat before the election. However, Ginsburg said before her death, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” I do not think supreme court justices should be appointed in the election season because the American people’s voice will not be heard, and the nomination will be more political than it should be.

    First, I do not think supreme court justices should be elected during an election season because the people’s opinions will not be heard. I believe it should be up to the voters to decide who they want for president, and that president should appoint a new Supreme Court justice nominee. The voters should make their voice heard in the election. A new justice could change a lot of laws and acts currently put in place. The voters should be able to decide the fate of their healthcare and civil rights, and since many voters have already voted it would also be unfair to make any big changes in the government this close to Election Day. Many people believe it is an abuse of power for Donald Trump to appoint someone this close to the election. The Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. If the current political party flips then Donald Trump’s nominee will not get picked. Therefore, if they wait until after the election is held they can tell what political side the majority of the United States sides with. Also, if Joe Biden is elected as president then there will be a different dynamic of people in the House of Representatives and in the Senate which will influence who is appointed.

    Next, I do not think supreme court justices should be elected during an election season because it may become too political. I believe that the Supreme Court should be focused on the constitution and laws set in place rather than if it fits into their own political views. It’s clear that President Trump electing Amy Barrett is a political move to make the majority of Supreme Court justices conservative in case he is elected out of office. This would be the third Supreme Court justice that Trump would have elected in his presidency. If Amy Coney Barrett is elected many Democratic acts like the Affordable Care Act. Back in 2016, when Barack Obama was president, repubulican leader, Mitch McConell would not let Obama nominate a new Supreme Court justice and this was in February of the election year. It is now only a couple of weeks away from Election Day and Republican leaders think it is okay to appoint a new justice. McConell had already set a precedent back in 2016 that Supreme Court justices could not be elected in an election year, and now he is saying it is okay to elect new justices in an election year. I think there needs to be consistency in the government. There cannot be one set of rules for a Republican president and one set for a Democratic president. Therefore, I do not think they should be able to nominate new judges.

    In conclusion, I believe Supreme Court justices should not be appointed during an election season because the American people should have a say and because it will become too political. However, many people will argue and say it is okay to nominate a Supreme Court justice during an election year because the president should have power until he is elected out of office. In my opinion, if Mitch McConell had not denied Obama back in 2016 then I would be more open to the idea. However, since Obama wasn’t able to appoint a justice during the election year, I do not think Trump should be able to either. I also believe it would be unfair for the thousands of people who had already casted their vote in the election.

    [read less]

    After the recent death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it has been a huge topic of debate if President Donald Trump should be able to appoint a new Supreme Co…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kendall from Virginia

    Though it is not necessarily unconstitutional to appoint a Supreme Court Justice right before an election takes place, President Trump should not appoint one because it makes him look unconfident about the election and will upset the public. If Trump was confident he was going to win, then he would have no problem waiting until after the election to appoint a new justice. He says he wants to appoint a judge immediately in case the election results are tampered with due to a large quantity of mail-in ballots. In the past elections, absentee ballots have only been tampered with 0.0003-0.0025% of the time, which is almost never. There is really no reason for Trump to be worried about ballots being tampered with or thrown out altogether. Especially during a pandemic, there are not many other ways for some people to vote. The only solution Trump has presented is to vote regularly by physically going out, but nothing is normal these days. It is hard to say “be normal” in a world where normal is not in the vocabulary. Even if the ballots were tampered with, the new Supreme Court Justice he appointed would most likely be on Trump’s side if it came down to it. Hopefully, whoever gets placed in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat will be unbiased as soon as they take the job, but this is most likely not going to be the case.
    President Trump would also upset the public by appointing a Supreme Court Justice so close to an election. The numbers are so close right now, it would be foolish of Trump to lose any Democrat he had on his side by appointing a new justice. It almost seems like Trump wants to appoint this justice more than he wants to win the election. Of course, that is not the case, but Trump is making it out to be life or death. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself did not want a new justice until after the election saying, “my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” She served for 27 years on the Supreme Court, so that merits her opinion and legacy to be respected. If for no other reason, Trump still should not appoint a new justice to honor Ginsburg’s wishes.

    [read less]

    Though it is not necessarily unconstitutional to appoint a Supreme Court Justice right before an election takes place, President Trump should not appo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Chadd from California

    A Supreme court Justice should not be appointed during election season as two sides are conflicting upon political matters and two candidates are campaigning for the presidency. If one of the candidates is campaigning for re-election, appointing a supreme court justice during an election season can give their political party a lasting effect on decisions even if they aren’t re-elected. If an election is occurring within a 6-month span from a supreme court justice’s death, resignation, or retirement, then the next elected president should appoint a new justice. Appointing a justice within an election season can be a final blow by a political party lasting for 30+ years. The responsibility should be for new or continuing administrations after the election season.

    [read less]

    A Supreme court Justice should not be appointed during election season as two sides are conflicting upon political matters and two candidates are camp…

    [read more]
    0
  • Agustin from California

    I say no they should just wait because how other people have said the debate is only a month away and it could affect the Presidential debate. Also especially with this pandemic it would be harder because first of all the debate of the presidents is next month,2 This pandemic is the most important one instead of anything else they should worry about getting the curie also to open back schools,3 They should not elect no one for the Supreme Court because it will just cause more problems.

    [read less]

    I say no they should just wait because how other people have said the debate is only a month away and it could affect the Presidential debate. Also es…

    [read more]
    0
  • Fayth from California

    President Donald Trump should not have appointed a new Supreme Court Justice as, although is within the constitution, not a very presidential act. With the election being so close to the time of his appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barret, it seems distasteful as it does not represent the choice of American citizens. The voice of Americans on the nomination of a new supreme court justice should be represented through their vote. Disregarding the opinions of the people is neglecting the very function and purpose of our right to vote: to inform the government of our collective opinions. This is also unfair to the late Judge Ruth Baders Ginsberg, who’s final wish was to wait for a supreme court nominee to be appointed after the elections. For a woman who has contributed so much to America and has helped shaped our society, it is objectively unethical to go against her dying wish.

    [read less]

    President Donald Trump should not have appointed a new Supreme Court Justice as, although is within the constitution, not a very presidential act. Wit…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jordan from Montana

    I think no. I feel that we should have to wait until after election season to appoint a new Supreme Court justice. I feel that opinions may change. Also, if there happens to be a new president then all of the people that were elected were under Mr. Trumps view.

    [read less]

    I think no. I feel that we should have to wait until after election season to appoint a new Supreme Court justice. I feel that opinions may change. Al…

    [read more]
    0
    • Ordie from Colorado

      Opinions may change, but the laws don’t. Do you want to have the freedoms recognized by the Bill of Rights or not? Do you want Judges that will legislate from the bench? Or do you want Judges who follow the established laws of our land? Are we a nation of Laws or is it going to be a “Well my position has evolved, so lets make new laws to accommodate my whims. Justices the ball’s in your Court now!” ? What do you want?

      [read less]

      Opinions may change, but the laws don’t. Do you want to have the freedoms recognized by the Bill of Rights or not? Do you want Judges that will legi…

      [read more]
      0
  • Saylor from Kansas

    No, I don’t think a Supreme Court should be appointed during the election season. With the election being only a short period of time away I think whomever our next president, even if stays Trump, should have the opportunity to vote for who they want. Voting for a Supreme Court position can have major effects and if Trump votes for the position and loses the election then Biden will have an opposing party working in the Supreme Court. Along with the President having a better chance it also gives the people a better chance to be heard about how they feel on the issue.

    [read less]

    No, I don’t think a Supreme Court should be appointed during the election season. With the election being only a short period of time away I think w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Zachary from California

    No, I don’t think President Donald Trump should be able to elect a new Supreme Court Judge and only a little over a month away from the Presidential Election. In my opinion, someone who has had Impeachment accusations and an entire Impeachment trial early this year (2020), should not be able to make a decision like that which affects how an entire country could operate. This decision can be influenced by looking back at said impeachment trials, and one of the charges against Donald Trump was his decision to withheld military aid to Ukraine without even informing Congress. President’s who have an upcoming election should not be able to re-establish a court judge for the supreme court unless they win the office once again.

    [read less]

    No, I don’t think President Donald Trump should be able to elect a new Supreme Court Judge and only a little over a month away from the Presidential E…

    [read more]
    0
  • Christina from New York

    A new supreme court justice should not be appointed during an election season. In March of 2016 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the court with the upcoming election looming. At that time senator Mitch McConnell denied this nomination on the basis that it would be unconstitutional to allow a new judge to enter the court during an election season. Currently, after the death of judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September 2020 Trump was not hesitant to nominate a new judge ignoring the fact that the election was less than two months away. Looking at the logic used in 2016 senate majority leader McConnell should’ve been against this move, but due to the partisanship we see in the country today and the want to push for a new conservative judge McConnell has backtracked his moves from 2016 and sided with Trump. If the proposed new judge, Amy Coney Barrett, is passed this would be an inappropriate demonstration of the feelings of the American people. With the election coming up it is only right to listen to logic and ethics and wait the month now until the election to allow the American people to vote and have a say in their rights.

    [read less]

    A new supreme court justice should not be appointed during an election season. In March of 2016 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the cour…

    [read more]
    0
  • Julia from Virginia

    In the year of 1801, 16 new judges were appointed in the last days of John Adams’s presidency, before the inauguration of new president, Thomas Jefferson. This was mostly because of Adams wanting to fill the court of a more federalist view. Not all of these appointments were approved, leading to a scandal known as the “Midnight Judges”, or more formally known as the Judiciary Act of 1801. Long story short, Supreme Court justices have always been appointed in the first or final stages of a presidency. But this begs the question of should they be appointed in an election season. Though it has been done before, I believe that Supreme Court justices should not be appointed during an election season.
    To illustrate, even though justices have been hastily appointed before, one has never been appointed so close to a major election. In the case of John Adams and the Midnight Judges scandal, these judges were appointed in the lame duck period of his presidency. While he still had power, these appointees did not convey the voices of the people who elected Thomas Jefferson as their new president. This is why the incident is viewed as a scandal. Likewise, the new nomination of a justice just weeks before an election has obviously been drawn in a scandal. Most opposers feel that the nomination doesn’t portray the voices of the people because it is being conducted before the upcoming election. While it is a constitutional right of the president to appoint a justice, it appears to be a more partisan decision to push the appointment in such a haste, rather than a genuine nomination. Also, the Trump administration wants to forgo the hearing of the new nomination made by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a vital part of the whole appointment process. This is mostly why I do not believe that a new justice should be appointed in this election season.
    Similarly, I am against the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice because it shows the hypocrisy of Republican Senate Leader, Mitch McConnel. In 2016, after the death of Antonin Scalia, then President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court 9 months before the presidential election, which was immediately struck down by McConnel. He stated that the president should not be allowed to appoint a new justice during the election year, which is in complete contradiction with his views of Trump’s appointee. I somewhat agree with the McConnel’s statement in 2016, believing that the appointment should reflect the voice of the people in the presidential election, but it is blatantly wrong to advocate this for one president and push at full force for a new nomination from a different president. While I understand that it is politics, and politics typically aren’t fair, but appointing a justice is a constitutional right that should not be denied to one and allowed to the other.
    In conclusion, I do not support the new nomination of a Supreme Court Justice so close to the upcoming election. I have nothing against the nominee, Amy Coney Barett, but this nomination shows the hypocrisy of the Trump administration and the growing partisan climate of our government. If the government truly wants to go forward with the appointment of Barett, it should be conducted in the lame duck period of Trump’s presidency with a formal hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee to fully confirm the nomination. Otherwise, the appointment should be made after the presidential election to ensure the voices of the people can be heard.

    [read less]

    In the year of 1801, 16 new judges were appointed in the last days of John Adams’s presidency, before the inauguration of new president, Thomas Jeff…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ethan from Kansas

    For Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant seat would be the eighth time in all of American history that a situation like this has occurred. President Donald J. Trump should not be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg because not only does it put the Court to a 6-3 conservative advantage at the light of a possible Democratic President. The Senate had also denied President Barack Obama from nominating Antonin Scalia to a vacant seat before the election and during his second term election year. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish stated that her seat not be filled until after the election and if necessary, an inauguration.

    Having a Supreme Court at a 6-3 conservative advantage will cause there to be a very heavy unbalance to the checks and balances of our system. Moving from a 5-4 conservative advantage to a 6-3 conservative advantage would cause the disadvantaged party to have an exceedingly harder time trying to swing the vote in their favor, meaning that even if the disadvantaged party can bring one of the conservative justices to the liberal side in a voting, it still wouldn’t be enough to swing the vote. Not only does it put the liberal justices at a disadvantage but it puts the possible inauguration of Vice President Joe Biden at a disadvantage if he is put in office. This would cause a troubling block between the democratic president and the conservative led Supreme Court.

    Several years prior to this controversial vacancy, President Barack Obama had nominated Antonin Scalia to fill a vacant seat in the Supreme Court. This decision was denied by the 113th Congress and later was filled by President Donald Trump’s nominee Richard E. Myers II. If America truly believed in checks and balances to our nation and government they wouldn’t cause an imbalance such as this. An imbalance as in telling President Barack Obama that no he cannot nominate this Supreme Court Justice because it is right before a presidential election, then tell President Donald Trump that yes you can nominate this Supreme Court Justice right before an election to which you may not win.

    Before Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, she had requested that her seat not be filled until after the election and any proceedings prior. Nothing was official, there was no act or bill passed to restrict President Donald Trump from nominating a Supreme Court Justice to fill her seat. It simply has to do with morals. It is in President Donald Trump’s best interest, especially with the people of the United States and the voters within that he follows Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish. Since he has not, he has lost morality and hypocrisy has been seen in Congress.

    President Donald J. Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barret to fill the vacant seat left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This has gone against Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s wishes and has brought forth hypocrisy in Congress. It also could lead to a massive conflict between the Supreme Court and the possible democratic president following the election of 2020. President Donald Trump should not be allowed to fill this seat nor should any president under these circumstances.

    [read less]

    For Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant seat would be the eighth time in all of American history that a situation like this has occurred. President D…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gabriela from New York

    A supreme court justice should not be appointed during an election season. Because it is so close to the election, the values of the people are not properly represented. Once Americans vote and the President is elected, whether that be Trump or Biden, he will be the person who is able to best represent the American people and their values. Although it is President Trump’s constitutional right, the right-leaning Senate refused to give former President Obama that right in 2016. This decision is very important because a supreme court justice holds their position for life and will have a tremendous effect on the American people. It is much too important of a decision to be rushed into before the election in three weeks.

    [read less]

    A supreme court justice should not be appointed during an election season. Because it is so close to the election, the values of the people are not pr…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sofia from New York

    As the election nears, tension between parties and candidates have risen to a great extent in which they usually aren’t at. To add along to the civil/uncivil disagreements, voting by mail concerns, and the general worry of COVID-19 cases, the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg occurred, leaving the United States in shambles. Now with a vacant seat to fill, a new Supreme Court Justice must be selected. I believe that the 45th POTUS, Donald Trump, should not be granted access in appointing a new Supreme Court Justice during election season. Plethora of reasons stand as to why this shouldn’t be allowed.

    Whoever is to fill the vacant seat in the Supreme Court will be there for the rest of their life. There is no going back within the decision. “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” (The United States Constitution, Article III, Section 1) So, I believe that the candidate who wins the election shall be given the right to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice. The election is a mere 23 days away. There is no security of which candidate will win, and it wouldn’t be correct to occupy the seat if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the election, presumably due to the reason he would choose a different nominee.

    During President Barack Obama’s 2nd term in 2016, when Supreme Court justice Antonio Scalia unfortunately passed, Obama decided to nominate Merrick Garland to the court, but was rejected. His passing occurred in February, nine months before the 2016 election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made sure that any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president. As Obama was unable to run for another term, it wouldn’t even give him the opportunity of nominating him again, unlike the possibility of how President Trump can run for a 2nd term. But, why would Trump have the privilege of choosing the next Supreme Court Justice just 23 days before the election when Obama wasn’t given permission to choose one 9 months before the 2016 election? To keep thoughts and ideas consistent, the next or continuing president should decide.

    Though some may argue that Trump’s presidency still reigns and that since he is still POTUS he still has the power to, if he wishes to resemble the presidential quality of integrity, he should allow the winner of the 2020 elections to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice. As one of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s final wishes was not to be replaced until a new president is installed, Trump and the Senate should honor her legacy and what she has done for the United States by fulfilling this honor.

    Overall, this decision will impact America no matter who is appointed. The new Supreme Court Justice will influence future decisions made in the United States.

    [read less]

    As the election nears, tension between parties and candidates have risen to a great extent in which they usually aren’t at. To add along to the civil/…

    [read more]
    0
  • Daniel from California

    In my opinion, I think they should wait after the election season due to having an unfair advantage of choosing a new supreme court justice.

    0
  • Drake from Kansas

    I think the president should have to wait for the election to end to have a new supreme court representative because who knows if Donald Trump or Joe Biden will win.

    0
  • Maeve from New York

    In accordance with the democratic values on which this nation was built, a new supreme court justice should not be appointed until the start of the next presidential term. While there is no specific law explicitly condemning President Trump’s ability to appoint a new justice, there are a host of reasons as to why he should not be given this power at this time. Considering the next term begins in less than 4 months, the President should acknowledge the voices of the people. The main cause for controversy stems from the Republicans hypocrisy in saying that a new justice should not be appointed in an election year, and then completely acting against that claim. Dating back to Obama’s presidency, there was a vacancy in the supreme court and a great deal of debate had arisen over his right to appoint a new justice. The Republcians claimed that it was unjust to appoint a new judge when the election year was coming up. The idea was that the people should have a say in their next president, and therefore a say in who would fill the next seat in the Supreme Court. Consdiering the limited number of justices in the court, each electee is crucial in determing whether a Democratic or Republican government is created. For this reason, the entire last year of Obama’s presidency consisted of an empty seat in the court. Even when presented with a nominee for the position, the Republican’s refused to interview, or even acknowledge him. As quoted by sentor Lindsey Graham, he essentially stated that if the office were to obey these wishes, the people could then quote him on this if the same situation were presented during the following 4 year term. To no surprise, the Republican’s recanted their statement and are now looking to designate Amy Barrett as the next judge. The Rublicans, in essence, created a new rule to which a supreme court judge could not be selected during the year of an election. When faced with this very situation, but at the hands of a Republican led office, the new rule ceases to exist. Additionally, the timeline to which this is happening is far more crucial and pressing than in Obama’s term. President Obama had the better part of a year left in office when a seat opened in the court. Trump, however, has less than 4 months and the people have already begun voting. Their voices are being heard as millions of votes have already been casted. The lack of bipartisanship that exists merely emphasizes the corruption that exists within the White House. After 4 years of lies and controversial leading, it is time for the people to finally gain back power and confidence in an institution that promises to protect them.

    [read less]

    In accordance with the democratic values on which this nation was built, a new supreme court justice should not be appointed until the start of the ne…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ashlyn from Kansas

    I do not think that the president should be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice this close to an election. During the previous election, Barack Obama was not allowed to nominate a Supreme Court justice almost a whole year till the upcoming election period; therefore, they should mandate the protocol of waiting if there is less than 6 months before the next election. If the Supreme Court was evenly divided between a decision, Mike Pence would have the final say and allow President Trump’s candidate to be inaugurated. This close to the election, the vote should wait until the elected president remains in office or moves into office.

    [read less]

    I do not think that the president should be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice this close to an election. During the previous election, Barac…

    [read more]
    0
  • Meg from New York

    By definition, a supreme court justice is “appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. They serve on the court as long as they choose.” In the recent death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18th, 2020, there is much debate on the question of whether or not President Donald Trump should be able to appoint a new justice during this election season. With the election approaching in one month, tensions are running high. Many argue that Trump should be able to appoint a new justice. However, in the situation that candidate Joe Biden wins the election, it is unfair. Because “Mr. Mconnell insisted four years ago blocking President Barack Obama from filling an election-year vacancy on the court” (New York Times), Trump feels as if he should be able to fill the empty spot.

    However, I personally believe that President Trump should not be able to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. First, Trump would appoint a republican candidate. This is not fair to the democrats in the case that Biden wins the election. Additionally, there is four weeks until the election. I do not think that this is enough time to make a good decision of this prominence. According to the Washington Post, “Before Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, the court was divided 5-4 in favor of conservatives — and if Team Trump can nominate someone and get her through the Senate confirmation process in the next couple of months, it’ll be tipped 6-3 in favor of conservatives for the foreseeable future.” With the republican justices outweighing the deomcratic justices by a whopping one half, this ratio is extremely biased. Although Trump has constitutional authority, when Obama tried to fill a vacancy, he was denied. America is built on the values that the people come first. Statistically, Americans wish to wait until the election is over to fill the seat in the Supreme Court. If America is truly built on integrity, why is this fair?

    For the reasons stated above, Trump should not be able to appoint a new Justice. With just three weeks until the election, it is not only cutting it too close, but it is not fair to America’s democrats. Trump’s potential appointment of a new Justice will make the ratio in the court unbalanced. If the concept of equality is truly the foundation of America’s principles, we must be consistent.

    [read less]

    By definition, a supreme court justice is “appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. They serve on the court as long as they choose.…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mario from Pennsylvania

    I believe that President Trump should not appoint a new Supreme Court justice before the election. I believe this, because if Trump doesn’t get reelected then Biden can’t have the justice of his choice. Therefore President Trump should not appoint a justice until after the election if he wins.

    [read less]

    I believe that President Trump should not appoint a new Supreme Court justice before the election. I believe this, because if Trump doesn’t get reele…

    [read more]
    0
  • Maddie from Kansas

    I believe that the President should not be allowed to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice into office before/during the election season. This could cause an even bigger line between the Democratic and Republican sides. I could see how Americans who voted for our president now would want him to put someone into the Supreme Court Justice as soon as possible, but I think that they should be taking their time instead of trying to rush to get to the point of nominating someone in a very short amount of time. This should be taken seriously and done properly. If our president loses and they elect this nominee before/during the election, this could be completely overthrown by Joe Biden. If President Trump gets this person through the nomination process and he wins, then doing this now versus doing it after the election would not matter either way. So, I could see how people may vote yes, depending on what they believe, but I say that they should wait until after the election has gone through.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President should not be allowed to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice into office before/during the election season. This could c…

    [read more]
    0
  • Arielle from California

    Time and time again has supported the precedent that a president shouldn’t elect a Supreme Court during election year. This established precedent has been upheld through John Adam’s “Midnight Appointments” in 1801, FDR’s court-packing scandal in the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, to more recently, the Senate’s decision to hold off on appointing a new Supreme Court Justice for over a year after Justice Scalia’s death. In this most recent example, Senate Majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, according to Politico, specifically stated that “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president”. Therefore, taking McConnell’s word, Obama didn’t nominate a new Supreme Court Justice. This precedent should’ve been held as well under Trump’s term. However, this time, Mitch McConnell now wholeheartedly supports Trump’s decision to nominate Amy Barret as the new Justice months away from the presidential election. The decision to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice so close to election isn’t a matter of legality and the enumerated powers of the president and Senate, it is the importance of maintaining precedents and consistency within the government. This is something that both parties have respected and relied upon to govern their actions with fairness and justice. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the power of the government is derived “from the consent of the governed”, so in this case, let the American people have a voice in the next selection of the Supreme Court Justice through their elected president. That being said, a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during election season.

    [read less]

    Time and time again has supported the precedent that a president shouldn’t elect a Supreme Court during election year. This established precedent ha…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jack from Tennessee

    I do not believe that Supreme Court judges should be appointed during election season, based both on Constitutional evidence and existing precedents set at various times in our nation’s history. I recognize that this issue is a complex one, and that an acceptable answer to the question of judicial appointments immediately before and during transitions between executive administrations is unlikely to be found easily. Nevertheless, a solution must be given even if a perfect one is not available. Given the choice between allowing a president to appoint a Supreme Court justice right before an election and prohibiting such an action, I believe that the latter course of action would create less opportunities for unsuitable appointments issued in haste or for unsavory reasons.
    According to the Constitution, Article II, Section II, the president appoints judges “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Therefore, it is constitutionally established that the Chief Executive’s power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court has never been absolute. It is arguable that the intent of this Section is to ensure that suitable candidates are appointed, not to prevent appointments under any specific conditions; such a conclusion may even be more aligned with what the authors of our founding documents had in mind. Still, I believe that it is appropriate that we should adapt the values and ideas captured in the Constitution to the rapidly evolving conditions of contemporary times, even when doing so may necessitate changing our understanding of entire paragraphs of the document. Though many parts of the Constitution are open to interpretation, it is generally accepted that Article III, Section I: clarifies that: ”The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office,” with the specific objective of keeping the judicial branch as secure from any partiality as possible. That the Framers anticipated such a problem reinforces the cruciality of maintaining the Supreme Court’s objectivity in every circumstance, as well as supporting the idea that any appointments to government office during a presidential election season would be at least indirectly contradictory to the Constitution.
    One of the most important sources to which justices look for guidance is historical precedent. Near the very end of the Adams Administration, the Judiciary Act’s passage restructured the judicial branche on several levels of the government and led to the appointments of a number of new judges in a very short time. Adams’ successor, Thomas Jefferson, perceived the act as a Federalist effort to retain power through control of the Judicial system. Due to the obvious suspicion falling on the Midnight Judges, as they were termed, most of the Federalists appointed by Adams were not confirmed by Jefferson. In Marbury vs Madison, it was ruled that the Act leading to the Midnight Judges’ appointments was unconstitutional; this sets a clear precedent for the idea that a presidential administration on its way out should not be able to appoint new judiciaries during its final days of office. Much more recently, in the final year of his second term, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. The Senate famously blocked his nomination, announcing that the next president should select a candidate to fill the empty seat on the Court. As stated earlier, precedent is often a deciding factor in legal issues, and I feel that the 2016 decision by the Senate not to appoint Merrick Garland is a constitutionally and logically sound example to follow.
    One of the most formidable arguments in favor of the appointment of judges during the window of a presidential election is that of practicality. It’s common for the nomination and confirmation process to take over two months, which is a substantial amount of time for an entire branch of the federal government to be inoperative. One would also have to develop a practical definition for “election season;” if no part of the confirmation process can occur during this time, an entire half of the year might be bereft of a fully staffed Supreme Court. The only answer available in response to this argument is that this would only occur during presidential election years, and that the Supreme Court’s relatively low numbers of cases per year would help prevent any substantial backlog from forming. Other sources agree that the (hopefully) small amount of time lost by not appointing a judge during an election could be worth it to preserve the government’s legal and moral legitimacy. As Brett Stephens of The New York Times puts in an article addressed to Mitt Romney, “But refusing to cast a vote until next year merely delays her elevation by a few months — assuming, that is, that Trump wins and Republicans retain their Senate majority.” Nearly half of all US presidents have won re-election, including many of the most recently in office. If there’s a decent chance President Trump will be returning to the White House for a second term, what can be lost by waiting a few months? President Obama left office knowing he wouldn’t succeed in appointing his chosen candidate, while President Trump may still have an opportunity to do so. A Supreme Court justice will have a life term in which to make history-shaping decisions; isn’t the most prudent course of action to ensure that each Justice on the bench is fully qualified and that their appointment comes for the right reasons?

    “Frequently Asked Questions.” Home – Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx.
    “Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide: Introduction.” Guides, guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722.
    Stephens, Bret. “An Open Letter to Mitt Romney.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Sept. 2020, http://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/opinion/mitt-romney-supreme-court-nominee.html.
    Elving, Ron. “What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now.” NPR,
    NPR, 29 June 2018, http://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now.
    “The U.S. Constitution.” The Constitution – Full Text | The National Constitution Center, The National Constitution Center, constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text.
    Stark, Caitlin. “By the Numbers: Second Term Presidents.” CNN, Cable News Network, 8 Oct. 2020, http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/politics/btn-second-term-presidents/index.html.
    “Presidents.” The White House, The United States Government, http://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/.
    Urofsky, Melvin I. “Judiciary Act of 1801.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 19 Feb. 2018, http://www.britannica.com/topic/Judiciary-Act-of-1801.

    [read less]

    I do not believe that Supreme Court judges should be appointed during election season, based both on Constitutional evidence and existing precedents s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jada from Kansas

    No, because it would not be fair considering that republicans run the senate. Also no rule can change that considering time is almost out and background checks will need to be ran. Regardless Trump will have the upper hand even if Biden wins Trump stays in office till January and can leave office with making a last statement of picking who he wanted for Supreme Court Justice. In addition, democrats have been using the “Thurmond Rule” to not allow this to even be an option. Which I believe is fair with everything going on; I think taking things slowly and a couple at a time are a fair way to do so everything can be thought through.

    [read less]

    No, because it would not be fair considering that republicans run the senate. Also no rule can change that considering time is almost out and backgrou…

    [read more]
    0
  • Semaya from New York

    A Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during an election season. In order for the American people’s views to be better represented, the vacancy should not be filled until after either the re-election of the incumbent or the inauguration of his opponent. That way when the people vote, they will have a say in who will be appointed to the Supreme Court for what will be the remainder of that Justice’s lifetime. Additionally, President Trump has predicted that the election will be decided by the Supreme Court, as it did in the 2000 presidential election. In this case it would be improper to appoint a new justice solely to make the election go in the Republican Party’s favor.
    Moreover, because the election is less than a month away, the process of vetting a new Supreme Court Justice and having the Senate confirm them would be rushed. Also in the recent past, Republicans in the Senate prevented former president Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Marrick Garland to fill Justice Scalia’s seat during the 2016 election. It would then be disingenuous for the same leaders to allow for an appointment during this election season. For these reasons a new Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed as of yet.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during an election season. In order for the American people’s views to be better represented, the va…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gabrielle from New York

    I believe that a president should not have the power to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice during an election season, particularly only weeks before the election, as it best follows the American ideals of government of the people, by the people, for the people. This means that the American people should have a direct influence on the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice because our democracy is based on consent of the governed, meaning that the government’s legitimacy comes directly from and is justified by the people it represents. In order to best demonstrate this idea, the Senate should consider a nomination made by the next President; if the majority changes, causing a new president to be elected, the president with whom the majority resides should have the power to choose. This is the only fair option, as it best represents the beliefs of the citizens of the United States; it does not benefit the people for a president on his/her way out of office to have a lasting impact on the Supreme Court. Because Supreme Court Justices serve for life, it is in the best interest of the people to wait to see the dynamic majority of the people before making a decision that will continue to affect American citizens everyday, even after a presidency. In the event that the president in office at the time of a death of a Supreme Court Justice is reelected, no harm is being done by postponing the nomination by a couple of months, to ensure that the voice of the American people is best heard; in this case, the delayed nomination would simply act as a safety measure. There is no downside to allowing the ideals of the majority of citizens to influence the Supreme Court, as it best represents the beliefs on which the United States was established. Although these circumstances are rather rare, it is imperative that a rule protect the rights of the people, in pushing a Supreme Court nomination until after a presidential election.

    [read less]

    I believe that a president should not have the power to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice during an election season, particularly only weeks before …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jaylynn from Kansas

    I believe that President Donald Trump should not have the right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. Just days before her death, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that her “most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” Trump has already nominate for that spot with new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. I think that Trump should have respected her request. The big reason that this question is being asked in the first place is because when the previous president Barack Obama dominated his choice for the same position but he was denied this request due to the timing. Trump believes that he could do this but say that Biden gets to be the new president then what then he is a completely different party. He would just nominate some one else.

    [read less]

    I believe that President Donald Trump should not have the right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. Just days before her death, Supreme Court Justice …

    [read more]
    0
  • Tarah from New York

    In the midst of a global pandemic and an impending presidential election, the sudden death of former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has thrust Republicans into an acrimonious battle to sway Supreme Court decisions for years to come as they replace Ginsburg’s puissant liberal voice for a more conservative one. President Donald Trump has made his intentions to replace the late 87-year old feminist icon with conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett very public, going as far as tweeting that he would fill the empty Supreme Court seat “without delay.”

    His intention to fill the new vacancy during an election cycle has garnered somewhat polarizing responses, as this stands in direct opposition to the precedent set under the Obama administration at the time of the previous Supreme Court vacancy. However, despite this powerfully resonant antecedent Article 2 of the American Constitution still confers, as it did back then, that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate….appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.” While there are no footnotes that inhibit the president’s ability to nominate a new Justice during an election year, the question of whether the president should appoint a new Justice during an election season amounts to only one answer: a hard sounding “NO.”

    While there is no denying that the President HAS a constitutional right to exercise, his appointment of a Justice during an election season could amount to some potentially negative outcomes. Not only does he risk the efficacy of his reelection campaign efforts and the long term health of an already polarized country, he also risks the erosion of public trust in the federal government. This is especially true when American citizens take into account that Majority Leader Mitch McConnel vehemently declined Obama’s Supreme Court nomination during the 2016 election year, stating that “The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president,” “And that’s the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment.”

    Not only does this shed light on the absurdity and hypocrisy of the situation, but also on the fact that the intention to nominate is NOT in the interest of the American people. In fact, it reveals the self-serving nature of the Republican party and their unwaning efforts to assert control in both the Senate AND in the highest court of the land. Thus, implementing an immutable conservative agenda, which may stand in direct opposition to the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights, the end of systemic racism, climate change efforts, and other activist causes. In conclusion, YES, the president can appoint a new justice, but NO he should not do so during an election year.

    [read less]

    In the midst of a global pandemic and an impending presidential election, the sudden death of former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has thrust Republican…

    [read more]
    0
  • Francesca from Pennsylvania

    I think that we should wait until after the presidential election to fill the spot on the Supreme Court. This is one of the biggest elections in history, and nothing should take away from that. There are so many pieces of information that factor in to this election, so if throwing in a nominee for the Supreme Court gets in the way, it might take away from other important issues that are not being dealt with currently. Maybe, before we handle this simple task, we focus on more pressing issues that are currently happening, such as the Coronavirus pandemic or the numerous reports of black deaths across the country. Plus, we have more than enough time to fill that spot after the results of the election are announced.

    [read less]

    I think that we should wait until after the presidential election to fill the spot on the Supreme Court. This is one of the biggest elections in histo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Trenton from Kansas

    No think they should wait till after the election day then vote for the sumpreme court.

    0
  • Maddie from Kansas

    I said no since there is only about a month left before the election I think President Donald Trump should not be able to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice at this time. It is a big decision that cannot be taken back. If a new president is elected I believe it should be their right to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

    [read less]

    I said no since there is only about a month left before the election I think President Donald Trump should not be able to appoint a new Supreme Court …

    [read more]
    0
  • Erin from Florida

    No, I do not think a president should vote a new seat in for the supreme court during election season. Due to the fact that who ever might win, might not be the current president. Plus this will affect Roe V. Wade, which will surely get overturned and I 100% dont want that.

    [read less]

    No, I do not think a president should vote a new seat in for the supreme court during election season. Due to the fact that who ever might win, might …

    [read more]
    0
  • Sofiia from Oklahoma

    The Justices should not be appointed during the period of an election. The president can have favor in the election because he chooses the Justice. It may be thought by some to be wrong of the President to try and “cheat” his way into the election with more favor. The election not being long away would only be thought of as fair to everyone.

    [read less]

    The Justices should not be appointed during the period of an election. The president can have favor in the election because he chooses the Justice. It…

    [read more]
    0
  • Reid from Oklahoma

    The president should wait to appoint a new supreme court justice. Although he is allowed to appoint a justice before the election, waiting until after gives the decision to the people. Also, President Donald Trump’s choice to elect Amy Barrett would further polarize the court making it a six to three vote in favor of the republican party.

    [read less]

    The president should wait to appoint a new supreme court justice. Although he is allowed to appoint a justice before the election, waiting until after…

    [read more]
    0
  • Makenzie from Oklahoma

    The president can appoint someone in their favor, which is not fair to the other candidate or opposing political party.

    0
  • Lily from Oklahoma

    That’s what the majority says, so i figured it must be correct.

    0
  • Eleanor from Oklahoma

    A Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life, and therefore have a large effect on society. Since the presidential election is so soon, and Trump might not win again, there could be a lot of conflict between the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch if Trump elected one.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life, and therefore have a large effect on society. Since the presidential election is so soon, and Trump mig…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brian from Kansas

    I side on the more controversial end of this discussion. I do not believe that President Trump, although he has the constitutional authority, should be able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice at the present moment. If we’re to look at this from a more broad perspective, I believe that election season as a whole shall be seen as a “grace period” if you will.

    If we’re to take a glance at the 2020 presidential election calendar, you see that the first Presidential Debate falls on September 29th, with 3 debates falling between that date and the 3rd of November, The Presidential Election. The 3 debates that fall within this period include the 7th, 15th, and 22nd of October, those being the Vice-Presidential Debate, The Second Presidential Debate, and The Third Presidential Debate, respectively. Additionally, The Presidential Inauguration takes place on January 20th of 2021.

    This “grace period” that I described earlier, would begin on September 28th, and end on January 20th, 2021, a day before the First Presidential Debate, and extending into either President Trump having his term extended, or a new president being sworn into office. During this period, The President of The United States would have certain authorities revoked, the constitutional right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice being one of those authorities.

    Most people would view this as a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, as well as an excuse to strip power away from President Trump. The way I see this, implementing a “grace period” of sorts, has the potential to forestall conflict that could, and very likely will occur if a law such as this is not put into effect.

    As it stands, statistically, more Supreme Court Justices have republican tendencies compared to democratic. Those with republican tendencies edge out over those with democratic tendencies with a ratio of about five to four. As a result of this, President Trump, who is a member of the Republican Party, is more likely to succeed at appointing a Supreme Court Justice. That fact, in itself, does not arise any problems. However, if we are to think forwardly, and conceptualize a future in which a member of the Democratic Party is elected, statistically speaking, they would have a much more tedious time appointing a new Supreme Court Justice, due to the fact that, as I stated earlier, a member of the Democratic Party would be outweighed five to four by the current members of the Supreme Court Justice.

    In conclusion, implementing a “grace period,” while controversial to some, makes sense in the way that it could put an early stop to conflicts that could arise if we do not take action. In a world full of unknowns, we are being faced with a situation that is fairly unheard of in our generation, it make sense to err on the side of caution, rather than letting the situation play out unchanged.

    [read less]

    I side on the more controversial end of this discussion. I do not believe that President Trump, although he has the constitutional authority, should b…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sofi from Colorado

    I think that the president should NOT appoint a new supreme court justice because in the 2016 election, Obama tried to to appoint a supreme court nominee but the republicans said no. And now their doing the same thing, so don’t we democrats deserve to appose it? Another reason why it’s not fair is because I feel that the new president should get to decide since Trump’s 1st term is almost up.
    And also because I don’t agree with some of the conservative views. I believe that everyone is equal
    no matter their gender,color of skin, or sexuality. These are just some of the reasons why I do not think that Trump should appoint a supreme court justice at the moment.

    [read less]

    I think that the president should NOT appoint a new supreme court justice because in the 2016 election, Obama tried to to appoint a supreme court nomi…

    [read more]
    0
    • Nicholas from California

      We chose the people in office in 2016 to represent us and the Republican Senators legally blocked Obamas Supreme Court nomination. Although it might not seem “fair”, that is not enough to simply abandon the constitutional right the president and senate has to appoint a new justice. The constitutional right being stated in Article II Section 2. If you do not like the people in office, then either you vote or urge others to vote for changes you want.

      [read less]

      We chose the people in office in 2016 to represent us and the Republican Senators legally blocked Obamas Supreme Court nomination. Although it might n…

      [read more]
      0
  • Abby from Kansas

    Saying yes to letting he/she into the Supreme Court justice now, at the time the 2020 election is going on, would be an a monstrous idea. Former President & Democratic Party representative, Barack Obama had to wait to allow the Supreme Court justice in until after the election in 2016. If they allow he/she in they would get extreme backlash from the Democratic Party. If the former Democratic president had to wait til after election then the Republican president should do the same. We are all equal, and it would be ultimately unfair to the Democratic side.

    [read less]

    Saying yes to letting he/she into the Supreme Court justice now, at the time the 2020 election is going on, would be an a monstrous idea. Former Presi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gavin from Kansas

    I think it would be a bad idea because the president can uses that as an excuse to turn the election in their favor.

    0
  • Emma from Kansas

    I said no to the question because I do not believe you should put someone new into office before an upcoming election. I believe that putting someone new into office before an election would be foolish. When putting someone new into office before an upcoming election, it could be taken wrong, maybe people are thinking that you are putting someone in the office to take your side, to “cheat” your way through the pulls. I don’t think putting someone into office because if you weren’t to become president, they could be fired or moved into a different position. This means they could also be putting someone out of a monthly income, to pay their bills. More or less, the statement trying to be said in that last sentence is, if you don’t think or care about the person you’re putting into office before the election, then go ahead and try to have them in office, but if you do care about them, think about what you could do for their future. There are many reasons why you should not put someone new in office before an election, but these are the ones I chose. I chose these reasons because I believe they expressed my opinion best.

    [read less]

    I said no to the question because I do not believe you should put someone new into office before an upcoming election. I believe that putting someone …

    [read more]
    0
  • Camille from Kansas

    I think that Donald Trump should not be able to appoint a new supreme court justice. With all the election stuff going on these days, people would think that the judge could be biased or that it would be unfair to the democrats. I believe that he should wait until after the election because it is only one month away. It would only be fair to everyone.

    [read less]

    I think that Donald Trump should not be able to appoint a new supreme court justice. With all the election stuff going on these days, people would thi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Anya-Sophia from Kansas

    A new justice should absolutely not be elected until after the inauguration. The simple fact is, America was to be built on integrity. When, in his last year of that term, Barack Obama attempted to fill the seat, he was not allowed. Senator Lindsey Graham is on record saying “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,” on the subject. We must keep America true to its central ideal of integrity. If President Trump is allowed to put Mrs. Barrett we have to ask ourselves the difference between him and former President Obama. The idea that the Senate can pick and choose who has more authority whilst in the same position is simply incorrect. This can be paired with the fact that the majority of the American people not only disagree with filling the seat but with the justice herself. America is constitutionally guaranteed to be for the people, by the people. The governing staff of America cannot forget this. America wants to wait, and so we must.

    [read less]

    A new justice should absolutely not be elected until after the inauguration. The simple fact is, America was to be built on integrity. When, in his la…

    [read more]
    0
  • Colton from Kansas

    I believe that President Trump should not appoint a new Supreme Court Justice because of the election being only a month away. Doing so would allow the President to think about the decision before notifying the Senate. I believe they should do this in order to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that best represents the majority of Americans.

    [read less]

    I believe that President Trump should not appoint a new Supreme Court Justice because of the election being only a month away. Doing so would allow th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Aidan from Kansas

    I don’t believe a Supreme Justice should be appointed right before an election, it feels like a last ditch attempt to sway power their way for as long as they can. I wouldn’t support it if any party tried the same tactic, so it’s not a party issue for me. When both the Senate and the President are of the same party, especially right at the end of their term, a Justice could be appointed that the majority of people do not want. It’s extremely hard to tell whether the people still support certain people after a full presidential term, especially one as hectic as this. Some may argue that it shouldn’t matter since the Justices are supposed to be politically unbiased, and sure while that does work in concept, they are human just like the rest of us and all have their own biases. It would be foolhardy to rush a person into the seat before an upcoming election because of that. So to reiterate, no, I don’t think a Supreme Justice should ever be shoved into office right before a primary election.

    [read less]

    I don’t believe a Supreme Justice should be appointed right before an election, it feels like a last ditch attempt to sway power their way for as lo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mayci from Kansas

    No I think since they made Obama wait it’s only fair to wait and see who wins.

    0
    • Ordie from Colorado

      It doesn’t matter that Obama had to wait. The Republicans held the majority in the Senate. The Constitution does NOT say anything about when the President should fill a vacancy, it only states that it is his DUTY to appoint a Supreme Court justice and the Senate advises and gives consent or rejects the nomination. The Constitution is the Law of the land, like it or not, and it IS either the Law of the Land or it is not worth the paper it is written on. I believe that it is the law of the land and have given 20 years of my life to defend this law and our way of life which this law upholds. Fairness never plays into things and life itself isn’t fair. To cry about being “fair” is the last refuge for the miscreants and scoundrels.

      [read less]

      It doesn’t matter that Obama had to wait. The Republicans held the majority in the Senate. The Constitution does NOT say anything about when the Pre…

      [read more]
      0
    • Queen from District Of Columbia

      I don’t think that it’s fair either. If they didn’t allow President Barack Obama to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during an election year, then why would they allow Donald Trump to do so? I think that since Republicans represent the majority of the Senate (53 to 47) and Supreme Court (5 to 3), they are allowing Trump to do this because they are in the same party and they support him.

      [read less]

      I don’t think that it’s fair either. If they didn’t allow President Barack Obama to nominate a Supreme Court Justice during an election year, then why…

      [read more]
      0
  • genevieve from Oklahoma

    No, because a supreme court justice is a job one takes on for life. The president is the only one who has the power to appoint supreme court justices. I understand people arguing that during re-election years the sitting president should be able to appoint and install justices but who they appoint will remain in court whether or not the president wins. If they lose then we will have justice in court who the new siting president may not want. The new president should have the power because they are the ones who will be in office for the next 4 years.

    [read less]

    No, because a supreme court justice is a job one takes on for life. The president is the only one who has the power to appoint supreme court justices….

    [read more]
    0
  • Daniela from New York

    I personally believe that President Trump should not get to appoint a new supreme court justice during an election season because this decision is for life and so whoever he appoints will have to remain as a supreme court justice for their rest of their life so it’s a big decision, not one you can do right away. Also since it’s election season, and COVID is going on, times right now are stressful and challenging to keep up with,so now isn’t the best timing for Trump to appoint a new supreme court justice. A new supreme court justice should be appointed after election season so that it can give the president more time to decide who shall be placed because if he does it right now then he will be rushing the process.

    [read less]

    I personally believe that President Trump should not get to appoint a new supreme court justice during an election season because this decision is fo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gabrielle from New York

    I believe that the Supreme Court Justice should not take office immediately before a presidential election. Part of my perspective on this issue is influenced by the previous election that occurred in 2016. According to Think the Vote 2020, before the 2016 presidential election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to consier President Barack Obama’s liberal Supreme Court nominee. This was approximately 237 days before the 2016 election and neither a Republican or Democractic nominee had been chosen. This allowed for the next president, Donald Trump, to appoint a new justice since the process had been delayed until 2017.
    If the nomination of a new supreme court justice had been delayed before the 2016 election, why is the presidential debate any exception? It is not necessary to nomate a new supreme court justice and it would be an extensive use of power by the executive and legislative branches. The federal government would be using more power and not listening to the opinions of the people. One opinion argues that the Supreme Court is strutured to be ideallogically imbalanced and politically partisan. Appointing a new justice could be a major win for the Republican party as they would have a greater influence in rulings like matters on voting rights. However, appointing a new justice would tip the political balance in the judiciary branch of the government. This issue was brought to light after the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020. After her death, the court was left with five conservative justices and three liberals. Shortly after, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett as her replacement on September 26, 2020. Barrett is part of the Republican party and a conservative. If she were to be appointed to the court, the ratio of conservative to liberal justices would be 6:3— an highly unjust balance making the Supreme Court consist of ⅔ conservatives. Another argument says that the historical precedent allows for more than nine Supreme Court Justices and there is no law saying that they cannot have more than nine justices. In contrast with this, the historical precedent most strongly supports a nine-judge Supreme Court. Ever since Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency in 1868, the Supreme Court has had nine judges consistently. Breaking the 150 year precedent could mean uncertainty in the country’s outcome as it would be different than Americans are used to growing up with.
    The Supreme Court Justice should not take office immediately before a presidential election because it could lead to an unjust political imbalance, uncertainty due to the breaking of a historical precedent, and lack of the people’s opinion. The number of conservatives could give them an unfair advantage in the court and lead to reform of laws and policies in favor of their political opinions. The breaking of a historical precedent of have 9 judges could mean an unknown for the direction of U.S. politics. Waiting until after the election could also give the people more say in the decision rather than just leaving it to the Senate and executive branch.

    [read less]

    I believe that the Supreme Court Justice should not take office immediately before a presidential election. Part of my perspective on this issue is i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Elizabeth from New York

    No; though this is technically the president’s constitutional right, it is wrong to allow Trump to use this argument, even though the voting process for this year’s presidential election has started, while another lame-duck president was told he was not allowed to exercise this right solely because it was an election year, even though, at the time, it was 8 months before the 2016 presidential election. In response to Obama’s nomination, on March 10, 2016, Senator Lindsey Graham said, “This will stand the test of the time. This is the last year of a lame-duck president. And if Ted Cruz or Donald Trump gets to be president, they’ve all asked us not to confirm or take up a selection by President Obama. So if a vacancy occurs in the last year of their first term…use their words against them…If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say “Lindsey Graham said, let’s let the next president whoever it might be, make that nomination.”….We are setting a precedent here today, Republicans are, that in the last year at least of a lame-duck eight-year term…that you’re not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court based on what we’re doing here today.” Similarly, Mitch McConnell responded with: Either way [regardless of who wins that upcoming election and who they nominate], our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.”
    These words, this “precedent,” have been completely disregarded by Graham, McConnell, and many of their fellow Republican Senators now that Donald Trump, a Republican president, has the opportunity to nominate a conservative justice, which would give the Republicans a larger S.C. majority. Had this precedent not been set four years ago when a similar situation occurred would my opinion and the opinions of many others on this topic be different? Probably. However, because such a precedent was set, it is not fair to allow one lame-duck president to nominate someone and have them put up for a vote when another, who’s term had significantly more time left, was not permitted to do so. Deciding if someone should get a position on the Supreme Court is an extremely important decision, because it is a lifetime appointment, and so it should not be a rushed decision as it will be if President Trump’s nominee is given a vote on the Senate floor before January. Furthermore, since millions of US citizens have already started voting for who they want to be president, the decision should be left up to that person is officially announced president once all votes are counted and electoral votes are in—if it is Trump again, let him choose; however, if Biden wins, he should, based on the 2016 precedent set by the very Republicans who are now supporting Trump’s nomination, be able to nominate a person of his choice for the Supreme Court seat.

    [read less]

    No; though this is technically the president’s constitutional right, it is wrong to allow Trump to use this argument, even though the voting process…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kelly from New York

    Absolutely not! First of all, to think that Republicans would have the audacity to even consider electing a Supreme Court Justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg just WEEKS before the election is absolutely absurd. Back in 2016, when Obama was President, he nominated Judge Merrick Garland eight whole months before the 2016 election and still Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even consider Obama’s nominee saying “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.” Additionally, he spoke of the “Biden rule” which urged the Senate to delay action on a Supreme Court vacancy until after the presidential election. Well this reveals his blatant hypocrisy as now that Trump is President and he vowed that Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the Senate floor very soon. Clearly, he is biased toward his voting which makes a person question the very fundamentals our country was founded on and the principles we as a people try to protect.
    In addition, Republicans keep defending their actions saying that they are only doing “precisely what Democrats had indicated they would do themselves.” So, they are effectively not taking responsibility for their actions and instead pushing the blame onto Democrats to make it seem as if they were forced to make this decision and they had no other choice. The main reasoning behind the Republicans feeling the need to fill the Supreme Court justice seat immediately is so that both the White House and the Senate continue to be controlled by the Republicans. Although they may claim that they are filling the seat so soon for the good of the country, it is really only for their personal benefit, or rather for Trump’s personal benefit per say.
    Nowadays, this Supreme Court justice election is particularly important because all the rights found in our Constitution which are supposed to be protected by the Supreme Court are now at stake. Already Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett who plans to reduce and take away many hard fought rights for LGBTQIA+, people of color, the elederly, the sick, the poor—basically anyone she and the Republicans view as a non-first class citizen will be negatively impacted. If the decision of the new Supreme Court justice was made after the election, it would ensure the ideals of the American people were valued and considered. The person who wins the 2020 election—either Biden or Trump—should be the one to have the say in who the next Supreme Court justice should be. I believe that if a Supreme Court Justice were to be elected during this particular election season, it would only lead to a further divide between Democrats and Republicans, create more chaos between parties, and ultimately put the country in distress rather than unite us as one.

    [read less]

    Absolutely not! First of all, to think that Republicans would have the audacity to even consider electing a Supreme Court Justice to replace Ruth Bade…

    [read more]
    0
  • Erin from New York

    A Supreme Court justice should not be nominated during election season because the ideals of the majority of the public can change during that election. Mitch McConnell explicitly rejected President Obama’s action to nominate a justice back in 2016 even when Justice Scalia died in February. The same situation has occurred four years later, but even closer to the election. McConnell should stay true to his word and maintain his integrity that democracy and the opinions of the people could change with the election and the new justice should be nominated by the next elected President.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court justice should not be nominated during election season because the ideals of the majority of the public can change during that electio…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gabrielle from New York

    The supreme court will be unbalanced with a ratio of conservative to liberal as 6:3, more than 2/3 of the power.

    0
  • Alfonso from Illinois

    I think that they should wait until after election season when the next president is decided. If they appoint a new Supreme Court Justice now, when Election Day is a month away, there would be disagreements between Democrats and Republicans, which will lead to more problems.

    [read less]

    I think that they should wait until after election season when the next president is decided. If they appoint a new Supreme Court Justice now, when E…

    [read more]
    0
  • madison from Florida

    No because it would be more fair to wait until the election happens. Just like president Obama had to wait i would say its fair for trump to wait too. Also adding that it would be an unfair pick too with the court being divided 5-4 with conservatives, now if he gets to pick the nominee it’ll be even more unfair with 6-3in favors of conservatives.

    [read less]

    No because it would be more fair to wait until the election happens. Just like president Obama had to wait i would say its fair for trump to wait too….

    [read more]
    0
  • Braden from Kentucky

    The selection of Amy Coney Barrett to the position of Supreme Court Justice highlights the hypocrisy within our government today. In 2016 after the death of Antonin Scalia 9 months before the election, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the position but was immediately shot down by Senators like Mitch McConnel and Lindsey Graham. According to the senators, a president should not be able to nominate a candidate during an election year, and in 2016 the senate completely refused to hold a vote for Mr. Garland, however; this year with a Republican president in office the tables have turned. Senators who were against the election of the SCOTUS in 2016 are fighting tooth and nail for Amy Coney Barretts nomination. Senators like Lindsey Graham who once said “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination” are now backtracking on their previous statements. What has our government come to today? We live in the land of the free. A land of laws and fairness. There is absolutely nothing fair about this nomination. When Mitch McConnel refused to hold a hearing for Merrick Garland in 2016, they were 270 days from the election. Now, we are 38 days away, and yet the Senate is still pushing for this nomination. In Mitch McConnel’s own words, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

    [read less]

    The selection of Amy Coney Barrett to the position of Supreme Court Justice highlights the hypocrisy within our government today. In 2016 after the de…

    [read more]
    0
  • Vincent from Kentucky

    The role of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution without any labelings of partisanship. This could suggest that allowing a nomination directly before an election should not be an issue; however, doing so would be feeding into politics that opposes the job of the Supreme Court.
    In February of 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill a spot on the Supreme Court. This nomination was shut down by the Republican majority Senate that argued that a nomination so close to the 2016 election would not be in the best interest of the people. In 2020, a similar situation arises, but the narrative is different. Many people that argue that a nomination is needed now claim that the Supreme Court requires an odd number of justices in case there is contention in the election. However, there were also eight justices that remained after the death of Antonin Scalia in 2016.
    These two scenarios, which are only one presidential term and four years apart, prove that the debate over the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice before an election is more about political gain than the benefit of the people. The role of the Supreme Court is to rule without partisanship, so the idea that President Trump and Congress should nominate a justice feeds into the politics that opposes the integrity of the Supreme Court.
    In 2016, a precedent was set, and it should be followed.

    [read less]

    The role of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution without any labelings of partisanship. This could suggest that allowing a nomination direc…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sidni from Connecticut

    A Supreme Court Justice should not take office immediately before a presidential election.
    With the election so close I would not want a rushed vote, I would especially like for the FBI to have sufficient time to do a proper background check and for the Judiciary Committee to have enough time to decide to confirm or not (these usually take weeks). While the president does not have restrictions on a nomiation’s prior judicial experience( if any) however the recent precedent has been to appoint those with a history of clear case rulings, and being able to have the Senate approval would continue this precedent.
    In line with recent precedent whenever there is a Supreme Court nomination near before election the question is decided by who controls the Senate (and the Thurmond practice), however the senate is not in session.
    Considering this specific circumstance, the Senate is on a recess, so in accordance with the Constitution (Article 11, Section 2, Clause 3) the president can appoint a temporary justice without Senate approval. However, this is an unprecedented recess and doing so would allow for whoever the president picks to vote on cases without senate approval ro a background check. This would contradict any claim on the opposing side that doing so would with the help of those who best represent to American public’s majority opinion. Additionally a recess appointment would restart a precedent of presidents waiting for a recess to appoint a temporary ( the fact that they are temporary is especially important when we consider the fact that the reason for the lifetime appointment is so that justices they don’t have to worry about campaigning or future career options so can interpret the Constitution with less outside bias) justice to help make rulings on cases without senate approval.
    While some may argue that the president must appoint an new member to the Supreme Court as soon as possible to fill the opening, it could be interpreted that this election is a bit different in that there will be more early voters and many of these voters will be mailing in their ballots meaning they are voting earlier so it could be understood that we are currently in an election and by appointing a justice we are having people vote under different understandings (a person and vote now with the vacancy and another person can on that day with the knowledge of a new justice).
    In line with recent precedent whenever there is a Supreme Court nomination near before election the question is decided by who controls the Senate, however the senate is not in session.
    Additionally in accordance with public opinion , a recent poll conducted by Ipsos for Reuters showed that 62% of respondents agreed that this vacancy should not be filled until after the election.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should not take office immediately before a presidential election.
    With the election so close I would not want a rushed vote…

    [read more]
    0
  • Avalon from New York

    A Supreme Court justice should be appointed after the election season. According to the article in the New York Times, Senator Mitch McConnell said in 2016, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Enshrined in the Constitution, states “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.” Theoretically, this allows room for the current President to elect a Supreme Court justice. However, if Trump loses, there’s going to be questions about the circumstances in which the Senate confirmed this nomination. In closing, senators should wait until after the vote to take stock of the situation.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court justice should be appointed after the election season. According to the article in the New York Times, Senator Mitch McConnell said in…

    [read more]
    0
  • Elaina from New York

    A Supreme Court Justice should not take office immediately before a presidential election. The Presidential Election is the most important election in the United States because it determines who will be the Leader in Chief for the next four years. The President has great power and responsibility. Due to the fact that the election is less than a month away (26 days away to be exact) it seems unjust to swiftly confirm a justice in just 26 days. According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate Vote is around 67 days. That is more than two months, so to confirm a Supreme Court Justice in under 4 weeks seems very rushed. We can not rush the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice because the Supreme Court is the highest court in all the land, in other words, it is the top of the judicial branch. The policies the Supreme Court decides on affect the United States for years and years to come. It is essential that a person elected to the Supreme Court be extremely well-qualified and have stances that resonate with the American people. If President Trump elects a Supreme Court Justice that doesn’t align with what the country as a whole wants, then that can lead to problems because a nominee should reflect the core beliefs of the country. Yes, it is true that the President is allowed to nominate a Justice during this time and the Senate does have the right to confirm the Justice, but then the question arises “Is this an ethical thing to do during a tumultuous election year?” Many people remember how Merrick Garland in 2016 was denied a chance to be heard at a Senate hearing and his nomination was ultimately blocked because the election was 237 days away. Hypocrisy is a big problem in our country, but it is safe to say that it doesn’t matter whether the nominee is elected by a Republican or Democratic president, with a mere 26 days till the election confirming a possible Justice is not the right thing to do. It would not be fair to the dignity of the Supreme Court, the people, and the fundamentals of this country.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should not take office immediately before a presidential election. The Presidential Election is the most important election in…

    [read more]
    0
  • Isabelle from New York

    The late Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, should not be replaced prior to the 2020 Presidential election in order to ensure a fair balance of power. Back in 2016, during President Barack Obama’s administration, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away and while President Obama had nominated judge Merrill Garland to fill the seat, this destiny was not carried out immediately due to the will of the people. Now in 2020, we are presented with the same decision. It is almost as if history is repeating itself. Therefore, it is clear that the same standard should be applied in the RBG replacement, or else such prejudice will only further divide our country, as well as create additional turmoil, as we are approaching the 2020 election.

    [read less]

    The late Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, should not be replaced prior to the 2020 Presidential election in order to ensure a fair balance …

    [read more]
    0
  • Will from New York

    It is evident that the Supreme Court seat, held by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, should not be filled until after the election. If either of the political parties one it would allow their side to pack the court, having more than nine representatives, due to the fact that a justice serves for an entire lifetime. Thus, it is imperative that for this reason it is imperative that the seat be filled after the election. The nation should decide as a whole after the election, allowing the American people to see which side the country is on, and thus electing a justice fairly. Another reason that the seat should be filled after the election is because of the historical evidence. In 2016 President Barack Obama waited till after the election and the death of Anthony Scalia to allow Trump to appoint Brett Kavanaugh. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be not partisan when looking at court cases. However, Amy Coney Barrrett has been outspoken about supporting the Roe v. Wade case which only helps start a cultural and political battle. Thus, after all these examples it is evident that justice should be appointed after the election.

    [read less]

    It is evident that the Supreme Court seat, held by the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, should not be filled until after the election. If either of the polit…

    [read more]
    0
  • Casey from New York

    I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should not be elected to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg until after the 2020 Presidential Election. The primary reason I believe this is because I believe that as a country, we should value consistency. Consistency and precedents have played a large role in our country for centuries. Examples of these are George Washington taking two terms, Plessy V. Ferguson, and Brown V. Board of Education. All of these major decisions determined the way in which people live in our countries for years to come after they originally took place. Another example of one of these precedents was seen during the 2016 when Justice Antonin Scali died prior to the presidential election. Senator Mitch McConnell made the argument that the people of the United States have the right to decide the new Supreme Court Justice, which they can do by electing the next president. As a result of this argument, Barack Obama bypassed his right to elect a new Justice and waited for the election. This decision set a precedent that if a Supreme Court Justice dies close to a Presidential Election, the standing president should hold off on their right to elect a new Justice. This logic should be applied to the nearly identical situation which we see today. Those who suggest that a Supreme Court Justice should be elected prior to the election are ignoring past precedents and are down right hypocrites. A lack of consistency within our nation could lead to decisions which ignore the foundations of our country and stray our nation away from democracy and the will of the people. It is crucial that our country stays in line with democracy and electing a Justice before this election would be straying away from the ideal of democracy.

    [read less]

    I believe that a Supreme Court Justice should not be elected to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg until after the 2020 Presidential Election. The primary re…

    [read more]
    0
  • Anna Kate from New York

    No, I think that the president should wait until after election to pick the supreme court justice. “The next president may also nominate someone very different. “ The two president candidates will have different people that they would appoint to the Supreme Court. It will give the American people a voice on who to choose for the Supreme Court Seat that is empty.

    [read less]

    No, I think that the president should wait until after election to pick the supreme court justice. “The next president may also nominate someone ver…

    [read more]
    0
  • Madeline from Virginia

    Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President of the United States is meant to “nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court….” Therefore, President Trump has every right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice; many argue that it is his presidential duty. This is true. However, Senate confirmation is the real debate. In accordance with the Constitution, they do have the right to do so. With a Republican majority Senate, it’s really only logical for them to appoint Ms. Amy Coney Barrett before the election. Get the votes when you have the chance, right? For 2,500 democractic institutions across the globe from the Ecclesia (“gathering of those summoned”) in Athens, the first legislative body for which we have meaningful records, to the Roman Senate to the American Senate function on majority rules. However, the real question bouncing back and forth between the sides in America isn’t can the Senate confirm President Trump’s nomination — but should they?
    Within this debate there seems to be a lot of pointing at the Republican party’s hypocrisy considering their objection to President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, for Supreme Court Justice at the end of his second term. This justice was not appointed due to the fact that President Obama was working against the Republican majority Senate. Now that the time has come for a new Supreme Court Justice to be appointed under President Trump and a divided government is no longer an issue, the majority of the Republicans in the Senate have predictably fli[pped their story in saying it is their duty to appoint a new justice. Is this right? Of course not, but, as disappointing as it is, hypocrisy and pointing fingers have always been and will always be a part of the political game. Therefore, this shouldn’t really be a notable factor in the debate of whether the Trump administration should appoint a new Supreme Court justice.
    There are a lot of questions involving morality in this debate. Is it morally right to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice so close to the election? Is it really fair? Now, if we’re being honest here, morality and fairness for all have never really been at the forefront of American politics. Consider the midnight judges John Adams tried to appoint in the final few days of his term, how this resulted in the revolutionary case of Marbury vs. Madison. Consider that African Americans, women, and Native Americans were barred from voting for extended periods of time throughout our country’s history. However, we have made attempts to right these wrongs with the 15th Amendment, allowing all male US citizens the right to vote regardless of race, the Snyder Act in 1924 allowing Native American citizenship and in the process allowing them the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment allowing women to vote. Even the 26th amendment decreased the minimum voting age to 18 to give a say to young men being sent over to Vietnam. So, with this increased representation of American people along the way, should we as a people not be allowed to have a say in who the next Supreme Court Justice should be? This is a decision that affects all of us. The people of our nation deserve a chance to be heard. This also may increase voter turnout, giving those who may be hesitant to vote more incentive to become educated on their beliefs and choose who they see fit to govern our country. Therefore, I believe that though the Republican party has every right, and in many senses a duty, to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, it would perhaps be better for the people if the appointment came after the election.

    [read less]

    Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President of the United States is meant to “nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the S…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kalyn from New York

    I believe that the President should not have the right to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice due to the fact election day is approaching. My reasons for this are because in 2016, there was a vote on whether or not Barack Obama should be allowed to appoint a new Justice, and they chose to not let him due to the fact that election day was months away. This was in February of 2016, 9 months prior to the election, while we are only a month away from election day. Therefore, I believe that President Trump should not get to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

    [read less]

    I believe that the President should not have the right to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice due to the fact election day is approaching. My reasons …

    [read more]
    0
  • Joe from Kentucky

    Simply put, a Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled in an election year. In a year in which Americans have the power to elect new leadership, the President and Senate should not fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Instead, the President and Senate should wait for the election results before proceeding with nominations or confirmation hearings. Believe it or not, this is a bipartisan issue. For example, when Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, President Obama could not successfully nominate Merrick Garland because Republicans held a majority in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor, “Give the people a voice in filling [Scalia’s] vacancy.” At that point, McConnell and Senate Republicans established the legal precedent that Supreme Court vacancies would not be filled in an election year. Although Democrats were upset with this new rule, they accepted the precedent that Republicans set. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Republicans now point to the “Biden rule” that allows Presidents to fill a vacancy if the Senate majority is the same party as the President. Therefore, McConnell justifies his desire to add Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court before election day because Republicans hold a majority of senate seats. However, 2020 is not an ordinary year, and this will be no ordinary presidential election. As of October 2020, more than four million ballots have already been cast. Unlike previous years, this election will not be held in one day; the 2020 election will occur in the span of over a month. Because Justice Ginsburg sadly passed away in late September, her seat became vacant in the middle of an election. People are already voting, and if polling is accurate, not only will Democrats likely take the presidency, but Democrats might take the Senate majority. Perhaps McConnell recognizes this. If that is the case, his move to nominate Judge Barrett can only be described as a power move. Just because McConnell can place Barrett on the Supreme since he has all the votes he needs, that does not mean he should. If the American people want a new president or perhaps a new senate majority, they should be able to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat. In the past four years, both Democrats and Republicans have agreed that Supreme Court seats should not be filled during an election year. Using Senator McConnell’s logic, if eight months is too close to an election, then certainly one month is too close to an election to fill Ginsburg’s seat. If President Trump wins reelection, he should be able to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. However, if Vice President Biden wins the 2020 election, he should be given the right to fill the seat. Regardless of who wins the presidential election, if Justice Ginsburg’s seat is filled before the election, the President and the Senate would be silencing the voice of the American people.

    [read less]

    Simply put, a Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled in an election year. In a year in which Americans have the power to elect new leadership, the…

    [read more]
    0
  • James from Kentucky

    Although a president should be allowed to nominate a justice whenever in theory, the precedent set in 2016 must be upheld in order to uphold stability and fairness. When Merrick Garland was denied a spot, Republicans argued that it is wrong for a president to nominate a justice during an election year. Yet, just hours after Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, Mitch McConnell announced that he would be filling the seat as quickly as possible. Why is it that when a democrat is in power, they cannot fill an appointment several months before an election, yet when a Republican is in charge, they can fill the seat just weeks before the election? Either the Republicans are disavowing their original commitment to fair and due process and the American people, or they never really cared about “letting the American people decide” and are simply trying to gain more power. If one sets a precedent, it is expected that said person follows it. To tell others what not to do and then immediately doing the exact same thing is the literal definition of hypocrisy. While Senator McConnell has argued that the situation is different because the president and senate are led by the same party, it is unlikely that he would have tolerated the same statement had the situation been flipped for the democrats. Some may also argue that the opening should be filled as soon as possible due to the questions surrounding the election. But why is it necessary this year but not in 2016. While the circumstances surrounding the election are a lot more confusing this year, the possibility of the supreme court becoming involved in the election could come up in any election, as seen in 2000 with the Bush-Gore election recounts in Florida. In conclusion, by refusing to hear Merrick Garland, the Republicans have created a precedent that they must not break unless they wish to sacrifice their integrity. If they wish to continue and push forward a justice regardless, then they can no longer be trusted to keep their word. If Republicans want to continue to claim that they uphold fairness, honesty, and democracy, then they must wait and “let the American people decide”.

    [read less]

    Although a president should be allowed to nominate a justice whenever in theory, the precedent set in 2016 must be upheld in order to uphold stability…

    [read more]
    0
  • Molly from Kentucky

    Given the modern issues and variables facing the American people of today, it is an essential right to not only elect a President that defines their values, but also their law. In other words, a Supreme Court Justice should not be installed in an election year. The facts are this: in installing Amy Barrett, several legal devices that which acutely affect the American people are in danger of being overruled, namely healthcare and reproductive rights. Regardless of religious beliefs or convictions, it is an observed truth that to alter these rights in the depth of a pandemic condemns certain peoples to abusive situations, little care options, and financial crisis. Regardless of whoever ascends the court bench, these legal devices must be set aside until the severity of the pandemic wanes and there is insurance that the people negatively affected by an overturn of these proceedings will have alternate options of care. Furthermore, Mitch McConnel established a precedence in 2016 on the nomination and installment of Supreme Court Justices in an election year, citing similar concerns to the aforementioned. A modern America facing complex choices deserves the right to have sway in the nation-wide legal proceedings that affect them. Furthermore, those in favor of Barrett’s nomination claim that it is right to install her due to the Republican party’s control of the Senate (with the claim that the people have chosen through their election of the Republican Senate). However, it must be remembered that the Senate’s role is not to represent the people directly- that is the House of Representatives, who also handle issues such as tax laws that, similar to a Supreme Court justice, affect the people directly. Although the Senate has the constitutional power of advise and consent, this notion of the Senate representing the issues of the people over that of the state is simply incorrect and voids the opposition’s main argument.

    [read less]

    Given the modern issues and variables facing the American people of today, it is an essential right to not only elect a President that defines their v…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ella from Kentucky

    It should not be allowed for a Supreme Court Justice to be suddenly nominated or appointed during an election you. Throughout history, it has not been possible for a president to do so before an election. It is important for rules to be flexible as times change, but they need to be set well before the time. According to CNN, a similar situation occurred during Obama’s presidency, and his nomination was blocked. It is abuse of power for a president to decide much into the future less than a month before the election. The next president will be in position for more of the Justice’s time, and should therefore have the opportunity to nominate them. If this is to change for the next election, it needs to be set now, and not forced upon people too close to the date.

    [read less]

    It should not be allowed for a Supreme Court Justice to be suddenly nominated or appointed during an election you. Throughout history, it has not been…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gavin from Kentucky

    No depending on how close an election is a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during an election. The current election is less than a month away the Justice should not be appointed until the election is over especially since the polls show that the current incumbent president is not favorable to win. If the statistics showed that the current incumbent president was far more likely to win than the runner up and the election was far less contentious than this one then maybe it would be appropriate for the incumbent president to appoint a new justice. This election however is far different than most typical elections as the nation is in the midst of multiple crises that need to be addressed. We should not allow a supreme court justice to be jammed through by an unpopular incumbent president. While it is a fair point that in the midterm elections the current incumbent’s party did win the senate and this does show their overall popularity times have changed drastically since the midterm elections and as a result, people’s opinions and their votes have changed as well. Ultimately the current attempt to push through a Justice at the last minute is a desperate attempt to ensure incumbent control over the federal courts despite what the people of America may want.

    [read less]

    No depending on how close an election is a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during an election. The current election is less than a month…

    [read more]
    0
  • Olivia from New York

    The current president should not get to appoint a new Supreme Court justice at this time because the election is not far away. President Trump may not win the election so if he appoints a Supreme Court justice right now, it could be bad for the future president. This matter should wait until the election is over.

    [read less]

    The current president should not get to appoint a new Supreme Court justice at this time because the election is not far away. President Trump may not…

    [read more]
    0
  • Divya from Oklahoma

    I believe that the decision for the new Supreme Court Justice should be held stagnant until after the election. The current president, President Trump, was quick to make an appointment of Amy Coney Barrett. The reason Trump wanted to appoint her was to receive some guarantee that certain decisions he makes gets approved by the Supreme Court since he is appointing Barrett in his favor. The real reason for Barrett’s appointment is to make her the new deciding factor for the abolishment of the Affordable Care Act. This reason was so subtly and discreetly slipped into the debate on Tuesday, September 29. The Democratic senators of the majority Republican Senate are doing a filibuster on this issue. Until now, Trump has only suspended the Affordable Care Act of usage and is seeking to abolish it completely with Barrett as judge. The Democratic senators are hopeful that if Biden becomes president, he will appoint a judge that will be the determining factor of bringing back the Affordable Care Act back into usage. Also if Biden gets elected president, Trump appointing a judge now will not be the best choice for future years. Since Biden could be president, he had to have been elected by a majority. The new majority might not like Trump’s decision and could cause a civil unrest.

    [read less]

    I believe that the decision for the new Supreme Court Justice should be held stagnant until after the election. The current president, President Trump…

    [read more]
    0
  • caleb from Georgia

    I don’t think the president should be allowed because if an election is close that effects aren’t reversible. Doing it now would also be unfair to democrats to have to deal with a supreme court justice.

    [read less]

    I don’t think the president should be allowed because if an election is close that effects aren’t reversible. Doing it now would also be unfair to dem…

    [read more]
    0
    • Shannyn from Pennsylvania

      Yes, I agree that it may not be fair. However, the President has the Constitutional right to do so.

      0
  • Sydney from Kentucky

    In agreement with the precedent set in place by the 2016 election, SCOTUS nominations should be put on hold until the election is over in order to give people a vote in the matter. In the 2016 election, Mitch McConnell did not allow a supreme court nomination to go through because the nomination is, “about a principle, not a person,” nine months prior to the 2016 election. However, this year, McConnell is pushing for a vote to go through only one short month away from the election. In the midst of the craziness happening with the election, coronavirus, and civil unrest throughout the country already happening, the least the Senate could do is uphold a precedent set in place previously, regardless of what party controls it. This hypocritical situation proves that politicians are currently more concerned with their own personal gain rather than fulfilling their responsibilities as citizens’ representatives. Therefore, the country and government should work toward focusing more on the people, rather than their own motives. This is especially necessary with the current situation surrounding the SCOTUS nomination.

    [read less]

    In agreement with the precedent set in place by the 2016 election, SCOTUS nominations should be put on hold until the election is over in order to giv…

    [read more]
    0
  • Matt from Kentucky

    Supreme Court Justices should not be appointed during an election year. Waiting to appoint a justice until after an election would be better because the president that wins has time to pick a candidate that will represent them well. Rushing to appoint a justice before an election is hasty and can cause a president to possibly make the wrong decision. After the election a new president could come out on top and a new majority in the senate. This affects the appointment process because if the majority is of the opposite party then in some cases the justice is not appointed. By waiting for the election you are ensuring the president will have plenty of time to fully analyze their nominee and make the best decision they can to uphold their legacy and ideologies.

    [read less]

    Supreme Court Justices should not be appointed during an election year. Waiting to appoint a justice until after an election would be better because t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Kentucky

    No a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during an election year for the following reason. The first reason is that over time the people opinions on who they want to choose the Supreme Court Justice may have changed. There are new people now able to vote, every election year more of the younger generation joins the polls and they might not agree with our current choices. The president is supposed to be the people’s voice and my election year the people may want their voice to say something else.

    [read less]

    No a Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during an election year for the following reason. The first reason is that over time the people opi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Illiam from Florida

    I feel like a president choosing the supreme court representative wouldn’t be fair to the new president and their ways of thinking

    0
  • Hassoon from California

    A Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during an election season, especially considering the current context of this situation. Whoever the American people elect as their next president in November, whether it be Joe Biden or Donald Trump, should make the decision on who to appoint as the replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. The next elected president will best represent the views of the American people and his appointment will better suit America in the future. The Supreme Court is not meant to be a partisan branch of government and this is made clear in the constitution. An appointment before the election will shift the Supreme Court from an apolitical entity to a partisan one. This is why the president who is elected in November should make the decision on the appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during an election season, especially considering the current context of this situation. Whoever the A…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nicolai from Maryland

    My personal opinion on this situation is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s position should not be replaced until after the election is over. In this post, I will provide a couple of reasons why this is my take. One thing that people speaking on the situation usually don’t know is that once a Supreme Court Justice is put into their respective position, they will serve a life tenure. The only manners in which their spot will be vacated Include death, resignation, or impeachment. Another important factor to remember when making this decision is that a significant number of American citizens are not in favor of Trump’s current position as POTUS, considering his reputation for impulsive outbursts and extremely hasty, rash decisions.

    Quoting an article from usnews.com, “ A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS dislike the way President Donald Trump conducts himself while in office, according to a Pew Research Center survey published Thursday. The poll found that 53% of Americans don’t like the way Trump acts as commander in chief, while 15% do. Thirty percent of people have “mixed feelings.” Another article from CNN states: “The President seems headed for … fate, victim of his own intractable impulses. Sadly, he’s taking the country along on his ride to hell. And we all may need some comfort objects of our own before it’s over.” These two articles alone showcase Trump’s tendency for his aforementioned “impulses”, and making a decision as crucial as the next Supreme Court Justice could be if done wrong, catastrophic for the country as a whole.

    One might say, quoting Raphael from Kansas, “holding the absence so a possible new President could take the opportunity would PROBABLY polarize politics much more than this current situation right now”. Personally, given Trump’s controversy, I think it would be more worthwhile to wait until after the election. This is why. First off, nominating a Justice now would be completely and utterly futile. Citing Wikipedia’s article on Justice nomination and confirmation, “According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).” Currently, I’m writing this post on October 8th. That leaves only 26 days for a Justice to be confirmed, and the pick hasn’t even been decided. Therefore, by the time a Justice would be nominated, the election would have been done and over with, and if Trump isn’t the president, PLENTY of things are going to change. Second off, nominating a Supreme Court Justice right now would be completely unethical and against the last wishes of R.B.G. Ruth was a powerful advocate on the topic of gender discrimination, and helped the world get to where we are in terms of freedom today. Honoring a simple final wish would do no harm to the country, especially in the midst of a pandemic, when laws are not being passed consistently.

    My third and final reason for my opinion is, quite simply, that nominating and confirming after the election would be way more effective. Currently, we’re not even sure if the next president will be Trump, but whoever it is should have a chance to nominate their own Supreme Court Justice, and make it their first long-term decision, instead of letting Trump rush to fill the spot before the election. If we were to wait until after the election, the new president would be able to smoothly go through the confirmation process, and the matter would be settled without any haste.

    This is my truthful opinion on the matter of electing a new Supreme Court Justice. Thank you for reading.

    [read less]

    My personal opinion on this situation is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s position should not be replaced until after the election is over. In this post, …

    [read more]
    0
  • Raine Allen from California

    I believe that President Trump should not elect the appointment of a new supreme court justice. With the ongoing chaos, the country is in right now this action can be a catalyst that will harm and divide the nation even more. With many factors, the citizens of the United States face right now such as Corona Virus and the Black Lives Matter hearing the people’s voice is the number one decision. By disregarding our voice President Trump is literally restricting and hurting the democracy of the United States. He should appoint this spot since it is for life and makes a huge impact on the balance of the Federal Government. Yes, many would say that in the constitution the President is able to appoint a new justice if a seat is open however, the Constitution is under the fundamental ideas of democratic ideals such as representation and hearing the voices of the populace. By appointing a new seat he disregards the base of the Constitution. Additionally, a similar situation happened in President Obama’s term and he was not able to appoint one due to the death of Antonin Scalia. So it will be logical if President Trump does not do the same! Additionally, the ideological construction of the Court of Scalia’s death, and the notion that President Obama would succeed Scalia with a much more liberal successor, many concluded that the appointee would swing the Court in a liberal direction. This is the same thing right now, so if Pres. Obama could not do it then Pres. Trump will not as well because of the potential monopoly over the seats in the Court leading to the direction of Right-Wing values causing no balance and representation of the people’s opinions.

    [read less]

    I believe that President Trump should not elect the appointment of a new supreme court justice. With the ongoing chaos, the country is in right now th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Layla from Missouri

    No, they shouldn’t vote because election week is only a few weeks away. A third of the Senate gets elected so, by the time that it got to the Senate, there could be a new president and new senate members. If the new president doesn’t like the nominee and they are halfway through the process, then they might be able to restart the process and, it would be a waste of time. The other party could also be angry about the fact that the nominee didn’t go through.

    [read less]

    No, they shouldn’t vote because election week is only a few weeks away. A third of the Senate gets elected so, by the time that it got to the Senate, …

    [read more]
    0
  • Rachel from California

    Last election season, President Obama’s pick was blocked for over a year, and now the Republicans who agreed with that course of action are advocating for a new pick before the election. This is an issue of fairness between parties. Either both parties must agree that a new justice can be picked immediately, or both agree to wait to the end of election season. If there is a precedent to wait for the end of an election cycle, then both parties should, in the name of democracy, adhere to this precedent. If this precedent is to be dismantled, then Trump should be allowed to pick a new justice. However, there has been no talk of all future presidents getting privilege to immediately appoint, so as it stands, it would be inequitable to appoint a new justice before the election.

    [read less]

    Last election season, President Obama’s pick was blocked for over a year, and now the Republicans who agreed with that course of action are advocating…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mariah from California

    No, I think we should wait til after the election. President Donald Trump, should not get to appoint the new supreme court when the election only 1 month away. After the election, who ever the president might be at the time, should get to decide who the new supreme court is. It is very possible that Trump could not win the election, so why should he be able to make last minute choices before the election, when there is a chance he could be out of office by next month.

    [read less]

    No, I think we should wait til after the election. President Donald Trump, should not get to appoint the new supreme court when the election only 1 mo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Zachary from Kansas

    I really think it wouldn’t be a good idea for Ruth to be replaced right now, my reasoning for this is because the election is literally a month from now. I don’t see a point in the current president getting to choose when there is a chance that he might be out of office soon. If he were to get voted out and had already placed a new member it wouldn’t be Biden’s choice whatsoever and that defeats his point of power. However, if it were an emergency for another person to replace Ruth I can see why it would be necessary for her to be replaced by President Trump’s choice. Other than that I don’t see an urgent need to replace Ruth’s spot. I personally think that Biden should be able to have a chance in choosing his idea for a replacement of Ruth. I think this because he has just as much chance of being president as Trump getting re-elected it’s unfair that Trump gets to choose a new member when the “President” role may change in the next month. It seems unnecessary for her to be replaced so soon as there isn’t a need for a new member at the moment. There aren’t many more reasons I can think to go against her being replaced so soon. Thanks for reading and taking the time to consider my vote as an option for the reward.

    [read less]

    I really think it wouldn’t be a good idea for Ruth to be replaced right now, my reasoning for this is because the election is literally a month from n…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Kansas

    I think that the choosing of a new Supreme Court Justice should be put on hold until after the election. Replacing a Justice is usually a long process and there is little reason to rush. We have much larger problems at the moment and I feel as if it would be best to hold off. On another note, there is already an imbalance of democratic and republican members of the court. Even though Trump could serve another term, I think we should give a fair chance to the other party as well and wait until the election is over. Justices serve for life and would not be released without serious reason. Therefore, if Biden is elected that would give the opportunity to appoint a democratic Justice and give the Court a more even balance of the parties.

    [read less]

    I think that the choosing of a new Supreme Court Justice should be put on hold until after the election. Replacing a Justice is usually a long process…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kylee from Kansas

    I personally think that finding someone new for the Supreme Court Justice should wait until after the election because whoever is elected president will make that option to pick whomever they would like to be in that position. It would be unfair because let’s say, Donald Trump, picks someone well, what if Joe Biden wins the election and would have rather chose someone else. It just kinda gives the person who won the election a chance to be able to pick someone new for the spot for the Supreme Court.

    [read less]

    I personally think that finding someone new for the Supreme Court Justice should wait until after the election because whoever is elected president wi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brooke from Kansas

    I say no because I think we should wait till after the election. I think this because in 2016 we had a similar situation and Obama did not get to choose a new supreme court. And in that situation we were father out from the actual election. This year we are closer to the election. So I don’t think Trump should get to choose unless he gets elected again. The election is only a month away and if we wait the people might get more say in it.

    [read less]

    I say no because I think we should wait till after the election. I think this because in 2016 we had a similar situation and Obama did not get to choo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ayden from Kansas

    I think that we should wait till after the election season. I think its a smart idea to wait till after because if our current president chooses someone but then doesn’t get reelected or his term ends and a new president begins his term but disagrees with who is chosen previously there may not be a big brawl but there may be even just a bit of tension if they don’t get along real well.

    [read less]

    I think that we should wait till after the election season. I think its a smart idea to wait till after because if our current president chooses someo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Figo from Kansas

    I think that an appointment shouldn’t be made because the election is not that long from now, it would be the less risky option to wait.

    0
  • Marisa from Kansas

    I think that President Trump shouldn’t be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. I think that he shouldn’t be allowed to because it’s so close to the election, it is in a little over a month. We should just wait because one person will appoint someone who is in their party and the other would appoint someone who is in their party. It would just be fairer to wait until the new president is elected so that the person appointed will be in favor of the president. I know there are others who think that our president should appoint someone now but I still think waiting would be better for our country and our government.

    [read less]

    I think that President Trump shouldn’t be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. I think that he shouldn’t be allowed to because it’s so close to…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ellie from Kansas

    I don’t think that President Trump should nominate a new Supreme Court Justice a month before the election. If a new president should be elected, I don’t think it would be fair for him to have to work with someone against his political party. I can understand how important it is, and why some “yes” votes may argue that, but because it is so important, I believe it would be smarter and better long term to wait a month for the new president to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. If President Trump were to be re-elected, then he would already have a knowledge of who he wanted to nominate. And, if Obama had the same dilemma when he was president, and could not nominate a Supreme Court Justice months before the election, then I don’t think Trump should be able to.

    [read less]

    I don’t think that President Trump should nominate a new Supreme Court Justice a month before the election. If a new president should be elected, I do…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kaylee from Kansas

    I think that Donald Trump should not chose a new supreme court justice. The election is one moth away, therefore it being too close. I feel like if they were to try and chose a new supreme court justice it would just put more stress on everyone apart of the government and Trump who is chosing. It would be better if they just waited to fill Ruth’s spot until after the election so that it is less stressful.

    [read less]

    I think that Donald Trump should not chose a new supreme court justice. The election is one moth away, therefore it being too close. I feel like if th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jack from New Hampshire

    The decision should not be made until after the election. The impact that a new Supreme Court justice will have on the country is too great. The president’s appointment will most likely be a member of the Court for multiple decades, so why should a president get to appoint someone so close to an election? This decision is likely going to have an impact on people’s rights for many years, but is being thrown through the approval process incredibly quickly and erratically. It is also a very political decision despite the fact that the Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial and nonpartisan. Trump’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, leans to the right and will likely vote against on issues like abortion rights and the ACA, both of which will have massive impacts on the American people’s lives. We need to let the people of the U.S. have at least some say in the members of the Supreme Court, and by waiting until after the election, we can do that.

    [read less]

    The decision should not be made until after the election. The impact that a new Supreme Court justice will have on the country is too great. The presi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Leiah from Alaska

    It is such a controversial topic that shouldn’t be forced in the middle of an election

    0
  • Hiram from Kansas

    I think that the president should wait until after the election to choose a new supreme court representative. I think this because this decision should be thoughtfully planned out and deliberated to insure that this person would be the right fit for the position also including the fact that the new Representative would be in this seat for he rest of his or her life they would want to insure the person is up for that task . Not that the current president is not fit to make that decision i just think that if a new president is elected that president should have right to that important decision . Although if Trump does elect a new supreme court representative then it would still have to be passed by the senate and other people to insure the person is a good fit for the role, either way i believe a good person will be chosen .

    [read less]

    I think that the president should wait until after the election to choose a new supreme court representative. I think this because this decision shoul…

    [read more]
    0
  • Michael from Kansas

    I think they should wait for after the election because they made Obama wait so if Biden wins they should let he chose who it should be. If trump wins he can chose but he should wait. If Biden wins and trump pick the person Biden might not work well with the person trump selected.

    [read less]

    I think they should wait for after the election because they made Obama wait so if Biden wins they should let he chose who it should be. If trump wins…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ethan from Alabama

    I think that it would be polite, like we should be, to wait to replace RPG so we have more time to decide who we want representing all of us.

    0
  • Jacob from Kansas

    The President should wait until after the Election, but I dont want him to wait too long because if he does then Biden will have to pick.

    0
  • Joshua from Kansas

    I think we should wait till after the election so everything can get settled.

    0
  • ike from Kansas

    I say no cause Barack Obama had to wait so i think Donald trump should wait to so it can be fair.

    0
  • Jack from Kansas

    I think we should wait because its not very long until the next election, We should let RBG have her spot until the next election and then the next president can pick and see what he or she wants to do.

    [read less]

    I think we should wait because its not very long until the next election, We should let RBG have her spot until the next election and then the next pr…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brandon from Kansas

    I would agree that they have to wait because they did the same thing to Obama which is waiting

    0
  • Peter from Kansas

    The option to have the president-elect, someone, now is a difficult decision, however, I think that we should wait until after the president is elected, I do understand the need to elect someone now for example if something were to happen then we may need a supreme court justice now and it sticks to the constitutional path as people argue. I still think we should wait so that the people have more of a say in this and the election is really soon not to mention that a different supreme justice may be available for choice and the supreme justice will vary depending on who wins the election.

    [read less]

    The option to have the president-elect, someone, now is a difficult decision, however, I think that we should wait until after the president is electe…

    [read more]
    0
  • Audrey from Kansas

    I don’t think RBG should be replaced until after the election ends. If President Trump puts a new justice on the Supreme Court and then is no longer president, that would be slightly ridiculous. The election is in one month. That’s not a very long time to be without a justice. In one month, whoever is currently the president can pick a replacement for RBG.

    [read less]

    I don’t think RBG should be replaced until after the election ends. If President Trump puts a new justice on the Supreme Court and then is no longer p…

    [read more]
    0
  • Layla from Kansas

    Trump shouldn’t have to be worrying about that right now. He is sick and the election he has to much on his mind right now.

    0
  • Hellen from Kansas

    i dont think they should replace her yet. the election is coming up in a couple of weeks. trump doesn’t always make the best decision for the country. he might get elected again but it would be best for the country if he waited a couple weeks but either way he’ll do what he wants

    [read less]

    i dont think they should replace her yet. the election is coming up in a couple of weeks. trump doesn’t always make the best decision for the country….

    [read more]
    0
  • Kiera from New Hampshire

    I believe that the Senate should wait until after the election to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. It is a joke to believe that our current President will wait, whether you support him or not. America should wait because it is the most sensible for our country.
    We are clearly reliving history when this topic is being debated. Only four years ago America was having the same conversation. In that time the Republican senators fought hard to keep the appointment away from an election year. The Sentate majority leader, Mitch Mcconnell stated in 2016, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” At this time Obama had about 8 months until he would be replaced by our current President, Donald Trump. Now, in 2020, it’s a different time line, at this moment there are 26 days until the election. Hypothetically, if President Trump had about 8 months to appoint someone, I would respect his and the Sentate’s decision. But, he doesn’t have the months, like President Obama did, and I agree with Senator Mcconnell, that the American people have a right to choose the next Supreme Court Justice.
    Of course the Republicans have changed their minds on the stance. As Trump said American’s now have the “consequences” of voting for him. I believe that America has indured those “consequences” and it is time to vote again and see if Trump earns to be President again. The only way he can earn that, is with the people’s vote.
    To say that appointing a new Supreme Court Justice is illegal is a lie, and I will repect Amy Coney Barrett if she is nominated. I strongly believe that with the election right around the corner, the people have the right to choose who joins the Supreme Court.

    [read less]

    I believe that the Senate should wait until after the election to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. It is a joke to believe that our current President …

    [read more]
    0
  • Chloe from Kansas

    I think they should wait because if trump chooses now and someone else wins the election, it wont matter to trump because hes no longer in power of the country. but if they choose after, then the president for the next 4 years would be in power, and get to choose who they think is best to replace her. So basically them because they are in power, they get to choose what they think is right for the country.

    [read less]

    I think they should wait because if trump chooses now and someone else wins the election, it wont matter to trump because hes no longer in power of th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Caitlin from Kansas

    I think that appointing a new supreme court justice should be done after the election. I think that way because what would be the point in Donald Trump choosing a new supreme court justice when his term is almost over and he may not win the election. Also, if it is someone who many people may not like they are there until either one, they retire or two, they pass away. I may see how some people lean the other way with Mr.Trump’s term not being over quite yet I just think it’s more logical to have the upcoming president choose who they’d like to serve in the supreme court justice for our country.

    [read less]

    I think that appointing a new supreme court justice should be done after the election. I think that way because what would be the point in Donald Trum…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kallie from Kansas

    I believe that they should wait. The reason why i think this is because if Biden were to win the election than that wouldn’t be very fair to him being the new president and all. I don´t believe that it would give Biden a fair chance, because if he wins then that´s one opportunity that was taken away from him. Now I can see why people would say yes because hes the president and everything so technically its him choice but I dont think thats fair.

    [read less]

    I believe that they should wait. The reason why i think this is because if Biden were to win the election than that wouldn’t be very fair to him bein…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gabriel from Kansas

    Trump should wait till after election because it will be more organized then doing it in the middle of the election.

    0
  • Isaiah from Kansas

    donald trump should not be able to just appoint a new supreme court justice because it’s election year and nobody knows if he is still gonna president so if he does appoint another supreme court justice it’s most likely everybody will be angry because he shouldn’t have because as I said nobody knows if he is still gonna be president so he shouldn’t because he doesn’t deserve to if we don’t know if he even is gonna win the election and we don’t know if he still is gonna be in the campaign

    [read less]

    donald trump should not be able to just appoint a new supreme court justice because it’s election year and nobody knows if he is still gonna president…

    [read more]
    0
  • Maliyah from Kansas

    No, I think we should make the decision after the debate. If Trump picks someone who Joe does not like then that does not really fare for Joe Biden.

    0
  • miguel from Kansas

    we should wait until next year because if trump isn’t the president we would have better lives without his choices.

    0
  • Jersey from Kansas

    No, I think that RBG shouldn’t be replaced yet because if a new president is elected and they do not like who the former president chose than that would be a problem. So I think that we should wait until after the presidential election because it is coming up in a few weeks from now. I could see why people are saying yes elect a new one because we need one instead of waiting a couple of weeks without one. But I personally think we should wait to elect a new one until after the 2020 election.

    [read less]

    No, I think that RBG shouldn’t be replaced yet because if a new president is elected and they do not like who the former president chose than that wou…

    [read more]
    0
  • A´nya from Kansas

    I think that they should what because when this happen lats election they waited to see what happened. I do see why people would say yes but still I think no.That is why I think no.

    [read less]

    I think that they should what because when this happen lats election they waited to see what happened. I do see why people would say yes but still I t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrea from Kansas

    I think that it would be good to wait until after the election because if we come out of the election with a new president, he should be the one to make that decision. It makes sense to me because the current president may not be president for very much longer, so why should he be able to make that choice? In this situation, waiting until after the election would be the best choice.

    [read less]

    I think that it would be good to wait until after the election because if we come out of the election with a new president, he should be the one to ma…

    [read more]
    0
  • M from Minnesota

    I believe that the president should not appoint a new supreme court justice in the midst of an ongoing election. With the election under a month away, it would just be unfair to elect a new justice right now. This place is a position holding high power, and the holder of that position can potentially influence many important decisions. RBG was a strong advocate for women’s rights, and many other things that the current president does not stand for. If the current president elects a justice, hypothetically he/she/they will have similar beliefs as Donald Trump. Thousands of people will be losing the person that protected their rights. In addition, if the justice is elected and afterward, a new president is elected, that president and the justice will hypothetically have completely different views, seeing as the justice was elected by their competitor. This decision will change the balance of the Supreme Court for decades to come. The candidate to fill this position should be filled by whoever is elected in this coming November. Until then, we need to suspend judgment.

    [read less]

    I believe that the president should not appoint a new supreme court justice in the midst of an ongoing election. With the election under a month away,…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brenda from Texas

    I don’t think the President should be able to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice before the election because a) the people should appoint them b) government officials would be backing from their word.
    The Supreme Court Justices work on cases that affect the entire nation and its people therefore the people should choose the person who will decide their fate. Sovereignty lies with the people. When citizens vote for a president they are selecting a candidate that represents their values and interests, someone whom they think can lead America to a better future. As the selected representative fo the people the newly elected President should be the won to appoint the new Supreme Court Justice. The election is how our nation’s voice is heard. This government is made to serve the people it is not meant to serve one’s political agenda.
    Additionally, government officials have already agreed the best option is to wait for the new president to appoint the Supreme Court Justice. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s last wish was “I will not be replaced until a new president is installed”. However, it was not just Ms. Ginsburg with these ideals. Many government officials on the Republican side echoed this idea. In 2016 Senate Leader Mitch McConnell refused to have hearings for Obama’s choice, Merrick Garland, for the high court months before the next election. He stated, “the choice should be left to voters in an election year.” Similarly, in 2018 Chairman Lindsey Graham voiced that “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.” Senator Susan Collins and Chuck Grassley both believed the Supreme Court Justice should be appointed by the next elected president, to be fair to Americans.
    Without a doubt, people on both sides of the political parties believe America’s voices must be heard which will take form in whom they appoint president (and their choice for Supreme Court Justice). I believe when deciding on who should choose to fill the vacancy we must heed by President Abraham Lincoln’s words “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

    Daly, Matthew. “GOP Senators Confront Past Comments on Supreme Court Vote.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 19 Sept. 2020, apnews.com/article/election-2020-ruth-bader-ginsburg-elections-us-supreme-court-courts-1c42ab69fe886d1b2133129006918e7f.

    [read less]

    I don’t think the President should be able to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice before the election because a) the people should appoint them b) gov…

    [read more]
    0
  • Afton from Kansas

    No, I think they should wait in till after the election to pick a supreme court representative. I think that whoever wins might not like the decision that they have made but if trump gets reelected it is just to stay safe.

    [read less]

    No, I think they should wait in till after the election to pick a supreme court representative. I think that whoever wins might not like the decision …

    [read more]
    0
  • Blayne from Kansas

    No,because i dont think that the supreme court should be able to just end all af the voting like that

    0
  • Mason from Kansas

    No, because I don’t think the supreme court should be able to just end the voting because the votes are pretty close and the whole point of voting is to give the people what they want.

    [read less]

    No, because I don’t think the supreme court should be able to just end the voting because the votes are pretty close and the whole point of voting is …

    [read more]
    0
  • carmen from Illinois

    I think that the president should wait until after the election.

    0
  • Kyra from Kansas

    I think that they should wait until after the election to chose who replaces RBG. In my opinion Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to replace her just yet because if Biden becomes president he’s stuck with that person that Trump chose. If we just wait no matter who becomes president, they will get the choice of replacement.

    [read less]

    I think that they should wait until after the election to chose who replaces RBG. In my opinion Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to replace her just …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kenadie from Kansas

    I think no because we shouldn’t make decisions before big things happen. If they choose the do it before the election and the person that they needed to get picked didn’t, a lot of things could be messed up.

    [read less]

    I think no because we shouldn’t make decisions before big things happen. If they choose the do it before the election and the person that they needed …

    [read more]
    0
  • Riley from Kansas

    no, we should not vote. why we shouldn’t is that if we vote before an election we could slow things down for the election and make things more complicated.

    0
  • Korie from Kansas

    I think no, because this is a decision that must be thoroughly thought out, before making a hasty decision, because it could have a negative affect if not chosen well, or not well thought out.

    [read less]

    I think no, because this is a decision that must be thoroughly thought out, before making a hasty decision, because it could have a negative affect if…

    [read more]
    0
  • Delaney from Kansas

    I believe that they should wait to replace RBG because it would not really have anything to do to the president at the moment. I feel like that if they choose now they might not like the choice and regret it later. So I think that they should wait.

    [read less]

    I believe that they should wait to replace RBG because it would not really have anything to do to the president at the moment. I feel like that if the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Matthew from Kansas

    I think they should wait till someone is elected, the person who will be chosen next to replace RBG will serve for life or until they pass away.

    0
    • Grady from Washington

      for starters RBG stands for red, blue, and green so im not sure how to replace those colors or how colors will serve for life. second to serve for life means until death so not sure why you said serve for life OR until they pass away because those are the same thing. not to mention the fact that you are completely wrong about how you think it should be done you should be done before the election while the person in power is still in office

      [read less]

      for starters RBG stands for red, blue, and green so im not sure how to replace those colors or how colors will serve for life. second to serve for lif…

      [read more]
      0
  • marcus from Kansas

    I think they she wait be for replacing the RGB because you never know what could happen he could regret it later and plus they were elected for a reason I think he should just wait.

    [read less]

    I think they she wait be for replacing the RGB because you never know what could happen he could regret it later and plus they were elected for a rea…

    [read more]
    0
  • sofiyah from Kansas

    i believe that the president should wait until after the election to choose a new supreme court representative. I think this because this decision should be thoughtfully planned out and deliberated to insure that this person would be the right fit for the position also including the fact that the new Representative would be in this seat for he rest of his or her life they would want to insure the person is up for that task . Not that the current president is not fit to make that decision i just think that IF a new president is elected that president should have right to that important decision . Although if Trump does elect a new supreme court representative then it would still have to be passed by the senate and other people to insure the person is a good fit for the role, either way i believe a good person will be chosen .

    [read less]

    i believe that the president should wait until after the election to choose a new supreme court representative. I think this because this decision sho…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jimmy from Kansas

    No, I don’t think the RBG should be replaced yet. Election Day is upcoming within a few weeks, it’s best to wait until who wins the election of 2020. It could be a full-on crisis for the country, the Supreme Court, and our democracy. The current President could be removed from the Oval Office after the election, so it’s preferred to wait.

    [read less]

    No, I don’t think the RBG should be replaced yet. Election Day is upcoming within a few weeks, it’s best to wait until who wins the election of 2020. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Caleb from Kansas

    I think that president Donald Trump should not get to appoint a new supreme court justice. If the election is only a month away, and the effects are non-reversible, then he should have to wait. Doing it now would be unfair to democrats to have to deal with a republican Supreme Court Justice. Also, it would be a little rude to nominate one now, waiting a month would be a gentleman’s act.

    [read less]

    I think that president Donald Trump should not get to appoint a new supreme court justice. If the election is only a month away, and the effects are n…

    [read more]
    0
  • Vanessa from Kansas

    I really think we should wait before we elect a new one because the election is about to happen and its the presidents dty and option to pick who they want and it wont be who they wont if the other cadidates win because the previous president selected one.

    [read less]

    I really think we should wait before we elect a new one because the election is about to happen and its the presidents dty and option to pick who they…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jordan from Kansas

    I don’t think Trump should replace them yet because I honestly don’t see a point in doing so. Now if trump gets reelected it’s his choice but if there’s a new president then it might be beneficial for them to keep them in case trump elects somebody that they next president may not like but in the end its whatever they think is best.

    [read less]

    I don’t think Trump should replace them yet because I honestly don’t see a point in doing so. Now if trump gets reelected it’s his choice but if there…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jamari from Kansas

    Donald trump should not appoint a new supreme court judge because this could cause political problems if he doesn’t win the election

    0
  • Addisyn from Kansas

    No, I think the president that will get chose should be the one who gets to choose who get´s the spot.

    0
  • Justin from Kansas

    No. I think we should wait until the election is over and then choose since this is very important. If Biden gets more votes than Trump, Biden should choose since more people will agree for his choice and vice versa.

    [read less]

    No. I think we should wait until the election is over and then choose since this is very important. If Biden gets more votes than Trump, Biden should …

    [read more]
    0
  • Mia from Kansas

    I feel like RGB should be replaced after the election since it isn’t as important as seeing who will be the president, although it is still important that she gets replaced and who replaces her.

    [read less]

    I feel like RGB should be replaced after the election since it isn’t as important as seeing who will be the president, although it is still important …

    [read more]
    0
  • Pallavi from Maryland

    Follow the precedent they set last election

    0
    • Ordie from Colorado

      That “precedent” you’re talking about was established by Harry Reid (a Democrat) a while ago. The Dems have always looked for chances to skew the Court in their favor. Obama did a fair job of placing judges who legislate from the bench and putting Kagan and Sotamayor on the Court helped to tilt the Court to the left. Trump merely gets to right the ship. All this bunk about the President being power hungry is just that … BUNK! You need to go back and study history and look at the actions of the people involved. You can generally tell their intent by how the proceed.

      [read less]

      That “precedent” you’re talking about was established by Harry Reid (a Democrat) a while ago. The Dems have always looked for chances to skew the Cou…

      [read more]
      0
  • Whitney from Kansas

    I don’t think he should elect someone new yet because if trumps, not the president, then he elected someone that maybe joe doesn’t like. But if Trump president for 4 more years then he should elect.

    [read less]

    I don’t think he should elect someone new yet because if trumps, not the president, then he elected someone that maybe joe doesn’t like. But if Trump…

    [read more]
    0
  • Max from Kansas

    No, I think the president that will be elected should pick who gets the spot.

    0
  • emma from Kansas

    it would kinda be unfair to just pick someone if you never gave the other person a chance.

    0
  • Sophia from Kansas

    No, because they should wait to see who wins, for the president to decide who becomes the new justice. Or the people should be allowed to vote for a new justice

    0
  • Anthony from Texas

    This should be appointed before the election year so that whoever is in power cant elect someone that will either help or be against them.

    0
    • Anthony from Texas

      I retract my previse statement. I think a Supreme Court Justice can be nominated during an election year because in the constitution it says “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court.” This is important because with that statement it has defined the right that the president has on if he can nominate a supreme court judge during his presidency. Even with our different perspectives, there is a right and wrong and that is why the constitution was created by the founding fathers of America.

      [read less]

      I retract my previse statement. I think a Supreme Court Justice can be nominated during an election year because in the constitution it says “He shall…

      [read more]
      0
  • Cadence from Kansas

    I don’t think a supreme court justice should be elected during election season because the old president could pick someone that no one likes but they are in that seat for the rest of their life or until they retire.

    [read less]

    I don’t think a supreme court justice should be elected during election season because the old president could pick someone that no one likes but they…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ayden from Kansas

    I think the president should be able to choose whom to pick.

    0
  • Caleb from Kentucky

    Appointing a Supreme Court Justice should be held off until after an election. Election season is a chaotic time in the media and in the country as a whole. Therefore, appointing a Supreme Court Justice would just add more chaos to the mix. In addition, there should be a span of time or a deadline before election season starts for appointment. We see inequality in this when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March of 2016 and was denied to due the closeness to the election. Whereas President Trump’s nominee, nominated just 38 day before the election, is being considered. Therefore, there must be an official deadline for all Presidents. A seat being left unfilled during the election season will ensure that in the months following, the chosen candidate will be the fairly and officially chosen one. Controversy around the candidate will decrease and the senate will have more time to know if the candidate is right for the role. A Supreme Court Justice is a major role that needs careful and diligent consideration.

    [read less]

    Appointing a Supreme Court Justice should be held off until after an election. Election season is a chaotic time in the media and in the country as a …

    [read more]
    0
  • Emily from Kentucky

    A Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during the election year because of the short window of time for the nominee to be background checked, looked into, and be found as truthfully a good candidate for the position. The president chooses who they would like to be sworn into the position. Judicial hearings occur and when the choice is made, the president will sign a commission to swear in the Supreme Court Justice. The hearings last about an average of 60 days. However, since it would be the current president’s last term which is close to ending it is unethical to have them swear in a new Supreme Court Justice. It should be the new president after the election has been completed so there has been time and consideration put into the choice. It should not be a hasty decision, rather thoroughly thought out. The new Supreme Court Justice should be chosen carefully because once they are elected it is their position for life. This is a very important deal.

    [read less]

    A Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed during the election year because of the short window of time for the nominee to be background checked,…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jack from New York

    I think while the US people are deciding whether they like their leadership, said leadership shouldn’t be making moves that will affect our government for generations.

    0
  • Tina from New Mexico

    I do not think a supreme court justice should be elected during an election year. This is because this position lasts for as long as justice does, the presidency only lasts 4 years a term. If the president is going to be out of office soon, this selection may not be the best choice. They will pick someone with their beliefs, and those beliefs may not be popular with the people depending on if the president gets re-elected or is not in office anymore. I would not want someone who shares the same beliefs as a president who is not going to be in office anymore because of those opinions and beliefs. Previous president Obama was not allowed to choose a supreme court justice 10 months before an election, so why should a different president get to choose only 1 month away from the election. I understand that the counter-argument could say that the position needs to be filled as soon as possible, but shouldn’t the position be filled by a reliable and carefully considered candidate instead of a quick and fast choice to gain favor.

    [read less]

    I do not think a supreme court justice should be elected during an election year. This is because this position lasts for as long as justice does, the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ashley from Texas

    I think that an appointee for the Supreme Justice should not be appointed during this term because based on recent polls, the majority of voters are no longer agree with the current politicians, which means that to better represent the people, the justice should be appointed by somebody the people do choose and agree with.

    [read less]

    I think that an appointee for the Supreme Justice should not be appointed during this term because based on recent polls, the majority of voters are n…

    [read more]
    0
  • Adam from Virginia

    While I think that the president has a constitutional right to appoint a justice at any time, I do not believe that he should do so in an election year. Especially now, with the election so close, I do not believe that a month or two would be too long to go without appointing a justice. Should the incumbent win the election, he would be free to appoint who he chooses. However, if he loses, the new majority of the United States would have the say in who is appointed. I believe that within our democracy, the people should have a say, and having this occur months from an election would be the most ideal way to guarantee that the people are being heard.

    [read less]

    While I think that the president has a constitutional right to appoint a justice at any time, I do not believe that he should do so in an election yea…

    [read more]
    0
  • Adrienne from New Mexico

    It has been a time honored tradition and when this happened with Obama the Senant forced him to give up the nomination. Why is Trump different?

    0
  • Jake from New Mexico

    I say that a Supreme Court justice should be elected after the presidential election because regardless of how important either election is all eyes will only be in one and so people will not give as much thought and consideration as they should to both issues.

    [read less]

    I say that a Supreme Court justice should be elected after the presidential election because regardless of how important either election is all eyes w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Pratyush from Wisconsin

    If the current president gets reelected, then there is no harm done if he/she appoints a new justice. However, if the current president does not get reelected, he will make radical decisions of appointment in his lame duck period until the new presidents inauguration. As a result, he may try to sabotage the new president’s term by appointing a justice that is not favorable to the new president.

    [read less]

    If the current president gets reelected, then there is no harm done if he/she appoints a new justice. However, if the current president does not get r…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jessica from Texas

    Voting season brings a lot of questions and wary concerns from citizens. I think people are trying to be focused on learning who the want for president instead of worrying about the shifting of the senate. I think waiting until after the election allows clear minds and fairer voting

    [read less]

    Voting season brings a lot of questions and wary concerns from citizens. I think people are trying to be focused on learning who the want for presiden…

    [read more]
    0