The Battle To Replace Ruth Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died over the weekend after a brave fight against cancer. The media hadn't completed her obituary, and already the battle was on to see who would replace the liberal icon. The world has changed a few times since her nomination by then-President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s.
Although most Republicans disagreed with her philosophically, she won a unanimous confirmation in the United States Senate. Those days, like the days of three channels on your television, are over. Democrats have gone to their friendly wingmen in the media crying about a replacement nomination's unfairness so soon to this November's election.
They remind the public that former President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, got the Heisman from the Senate four years ago when he failed to get a hearing. As the former president famously stated, elections have consequences. In the case, unlike during Obama's time, one party controls both the White House and the Senate. Nothing prevents the Republicans from doing the right thing to nominate and confirm a new justice before the November elections.
To our liberal friends, was it fair that President Obama admitted that DACA was unconstitutional and did it anyway? How about passing the Affordable Care Act? The Democrats had the votes, and no one said a word about begin fair. Politics is not acceptable, and thankfully, the president, along with the Republican Majority, should do the right thing and replace the Ginsburg seat.