最高法院法官的去世鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格引发了一场关于她的继任者的激烈辩论。民主党人和共和党人相互指责对方虚伪，因为他们在参议院确认听证会上推翻了先前的声明。
参议院多数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔。，坚定的坚持他的决定，将会有一个总统的投票唐纳德·特朗普这促使纽约州参议院少数党领袖查克·舒默(Chuck Schumer)抨击麦康奈尔的决定是“懦弱的”权力攫取。
2020年9月21日，参议院少数党领袖查克·舒默在华盛顿参议院发言。
“那一边的一些人，一些人，至少会有尊严地低下头，埋头苦干，因为他们知道没有理由——没有理由，没有争论，没有逻辑——来证明把你的立场翻转180度，并把它称为某种原则是合理的。不是的。舒默周一在参议院发表讲话时说:“这完全是怯懦，是对原始政治权力的行使，仅此而已。”。
自金斯伯格周五去世以来，麦康奈尔和他的许多共和党参议院同事一直在争取迅速举行确认听证会，以确定特朗普选择谁来填补最高法院最资深的自由派法官留下的空缺，并巩固该小组的保守派。
一些共和党参议员保持沉默，等待看看特朗普提名谁，提名人的记录出现了什么，听证会透露了什么，然后他们同意迅速投票。
2020年9月21日，共和党参议员米奇·麦康奈尔在华盛顿参议院发言。
民主党人假设乔·拜登将赢得11月3日的选举，他们反驳说，新的最高法院法官确认听证会应该推迟到总统就职典礼之后，以便让选民在这个过程中有发言权。如果特朗普在投票中获胜，那么何时举行确认听证会的问题就没有意义了。
由于共和党在参议院保持53比47的多数席位，民主党人仍抱着一线希望，希望他们仍能说服四名共和党人阻止最高法院提名，并阻止副总统迈克·彭斯投决定性的一票。但周二，犹他州参议员米特·罗姆尼(Mitt Romney)表示，他支持为总统的最高法院选择举行听证会，这似乎是一个既成事实。
双方都诉诸于公开羞辱对方，指责对方长期采用双重标准，麦康奈尔在2016年发表声明，拒绝让上诉法官梅里克·加兰(Merrick Garland)参加参议院听证会，巴拉克·奥巴马总统提名他填补保守派法官安东宁·斯卡利亚(Antonin Scalia)的最高法院席位，后者在总统选举前近9个月去世。
2016年3月16日，在白宫玫瑰园，巴拉克·奥巴马总统与梅里克·加兰法官握手，梅里克·加兰法官是总统提名的接替已故最高法院法官安东宁·斯卡利亚的人。
然而，斯卡利亚在2016年总统大选前269天去世。金斯伯格的死亡发生在即将到来的选举前46天。
当时，两党的角色发生了逆转，大多数参议院民主党人呼吁举行听证会，而大多数共和党人像现在一样占据了众议院的多数席位，成功地挫败了加兰在该国最高法院任职的企图。
以下是当时和现在参议院中来自两党的一些关键人物所说的话:
-参议员米奇·麦康奈尔。,当时的参议院司法委员会主席、爱荷华州参议员查克·格拉斯利在《华盛顿邮报》上写了一篇2016年的专栏文章，反对在选举年举行最高法院提名听证会，称美国选民应该“决定他们信任谁来领导这个国家，并提名下一任最高法院法官。”周一，麦康奈尔表示，距离大选还有“足够的时间”举行提名听证会，还有六周时间。他还表示，已故大法官约翰·保罗·史蒂文斯仅在19天内得到确认，前大法官桑德拉·戴·奥康纳在33天内得到确认，金斯伯格在42天内得到确认。“美国人在2016年重新选举了我们的多数派，并在2018年扩大了多数派，因为我们承诺与特朗普总统合作，支持他的议程，特别是他对联邦司法机构的杰出任命，”麦康奈尔在金斯伯格去世当天发表的一份声明中说。“我们将再次信守承诺。特朗普总统的提名人将获得
米奇·麦康奈尔:“参议院有足够的时间来处理提名。历史和先例清楚地表明了这一点。”https://t.co/xZL9CpTuVhpic.twitter.com/BmN17u5tCq
—本周(@ThisWeekABC)2020年9月21日
-爱荷华州参议员查克·格拉斯利，2016年，他呼吁就加兰的提名举行听证会，“这样参议员和公众就可以更深入地了解加兰法官的观点和经验。”但在周一参议院的一次演讲中，他说，“我们参议院的共和党同事应该遵循他们在2016年制定的规则:在选举年不考虑最高法院法官。”
-纽约州参议员查克·舒默，2016年呼吁就加兰的提名举行听证会，“以便参议员和公众能够更深入地了解加兰法官的观点和经验。”但在周一参议院的一次演讲中，他说，“我们参议院的共和党同事应该遵循他们在2016年制定的规则:在选举年不考虑最高法院法官。”
-参议员林赛·格拉汉姆，R-S特区。参议院司法委员会现任主席支持阻止加兰在2016年的确认听证会，当时他说，“我希望你用我的话来反对我。如果2016年有一位共和党总统，而第一个任期的最后一年出现空缺，你可以说林赛·格雷厄姆说，“让下一任总统提名吧，不管他是谁。”
2020年9月16日，参议员林赛·格雷厄姆在国会山的听证会上发言。
现在格雷厄姆说，他支持特朗普“尽一切努力推进金斯伯格法官去世造成的最近的空缺”。他解释说，他改变观点有两个原因:前参议院多数党领袖哈里·里德(Harry Reid)2013年决定用简单多数票取代参议院确认中的60票规则，以及“舒默和他在自由媒体领域的朋友合谋摧毁布雷特·卡瓦诺(Brett Kavanaugh)的生活，并让最高法院的席位保持开放。”
卡瓦诺在经历了一场艰苦的确认听证会后，于2018年以50票对48票被最高法院确认，在听证会上，他被指控在1982年性侵一名高中同学。
-加利福尼亚州黛安娜·范斯坦参议员，参议院司法委员会的高级成员也在2016年争取为加兰举行听证会，当时他说:“奥巴马总统提名梅里克·加兰法官进入最高法院，履行了他的宪法职责。现在是参议院做好自己的工作，充分、公平地考虑这位提名人的时候了。”
2020年8月5日，参议院司法委员会高级成员黛安娜·范斯坦在国会听证会上发言。
范斯坦现在说，当她在加兰发表声明时，距离选举下一任总统还有237天。费恩斯坦在金斯堡周五去世后不久发表的一份声明中说:“终生被任命为国家最高法院法官——特别是取代金斯堡法官这样的偶像——将是极度的虚伪。”
-得克萨斯州共和党参议员特德·克鲁兹，作为参议院司法委员会的成员，他是第一批呼吁为特朗普总统即将提名的人举行听证会的参议员之一。在接受美国广播公司《本周》采访时，克鲁兹对美国广播公司首席新闻主播乔治·斯特凡诺普洛斯说，在距离总统大选只有几周时间的情况下，美国不能有一个人手不足的高等法院。
2020年8月4日，参议院司法委员会主席特德·克鲁兹在国会山的听证会上发言。
当克鲁兹还是2016年共和党总统提名的候选人时，他发表了一份声明，说:“我自豪地和我的共和党同事站在一起，我们有一个共同的信念——我们的建议和同意——在下一任总统宣誓就职之前，我们不应该投票给任何提名人。”
“我必须在那里阻止你。众所周知，特朗普总统一直在谈论操纵选举，“两次竞选都雇佣了法律团队，@ gstephanopoulos特德·克鲁兹浮动后表示，如果拜登挑战2020年的结果，可能会出现“宪法危机”。https://t.co/ynej4Xa8O5pic.twitter.com/fgAABK6OHK
—本周(@ThisWeekABC)2020年9月20日
-明尼苏达州参议员艾米·克洛布查尔，参议院司法委员会的一名成员也支持在2016年为加兰举行确认听证会，当时他说，“宪法很清楚:参议院必须考虑总统的提名人，然后选择是投票‘是’还是‘否’。我们必须做好我们的工作，举行听证会，然后投票。”
在周日美国广播公司“早安美国”的采访中，克洛布查尔挑战她的共和党同事“审视他们的灵魂，看看他们当时说了什么，正义必须获胜。”
“正如乔·拜登所说，美国人民应该决定这一点，谁是他们的总统，总统应该选择提名人，”她说。
-森·托姆·提利斯，参议院司法委员会的一名成员在2016年的一份声明中表示，尽管奥巴马有权提名加兰进入最高法院，“参议院已经明确表示，它将行使宪法权力，拒绝同意提名。”
蒂莉斯当时说:“我希望奥巴马总统将利用他任职的最后几个月，与国会一起制定有意义的解决方案，为努力工作的美国人创造新的机会，而不是将国家拖入一场关于永远不会实现的确认过程的激烈的党派斗争。”
现在，他说他支持特朗普提名一名“合格的保守派法学家”，并补充说，如果拜登当选，他将提名一名“从法官席立法激进左翼政策的人”。
Hypocrisy accusations fly over confirmation debate after death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The death of Supreme Court JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburghas ignited a bare-knuckle debate over her replacement. Democrats and Republicans are exchanging accusations of hypocrisy as they sling prior statements made on Senate confirmation hearings across the aisle.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is standing firm on his decision that there will be a vote on PresidentDonald Trump's pending nominee to fill Ginsburg's seat, possibly by Election Day, prompting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to slam McConnell's decision as a "craven" power grab.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks on the floor of the Senate in Washington, Sept. 21, 2020.
"Some -- some -- few on that side will at least have the dignity of putting their head down and plowing through it because they know there is no reason -- no reason, no argument, no logic -- to justify flipping your position 180 degrees and calling it some kind of principle. It is not. It is utterly craven, an exercise in raw political power and nothing -- nothing more," Schumer said in his remarks on the Senate floor on Monday.
undefinedMORE: Breaking down the Supreme Court nomination, confirmation process
Since Ginsburg's death on Friday, McConnell and many of his Republican Senate colleagues have beaten the drum for a swift confirmation hearing for whoever Trump picks to occupy the vacancy left by the Supreme Court's most veteran liberal justice and fortify the panel's conservative wing.
Some GOP senators are remaining mum, waiting to see who Trump names, what the nominee's record turns up and what the hearings reveal before they agree to a speedy vote.
Republican Senator Mitch McConnell speaks on the floor of the Senate in Washington, Sept. 21, 2020.
Democrats, assuming that Joe Biden will win the Nov. 3 election, counter that a new Supreme Court justice confirmation hearing should be postponed until after the presidential inauguration to give voters a say in the process. If Trump prevails at the polls, then the subject of when a confirmation hearing is held becomes moot.
With the Republicans maintaining a 53-47 majority in the Senate, Democrats cling to fraying threads of hope they can still sway four Republicans to block the Supreme Court nomination and prevent Vice President Mike Pence from casting the deciding vote. But they were dealt with what appears to be a fait accompli on Tuesday when Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah -- who voted earlier this year to convict Trump during his impeachment trial -- said he supports holding a hearing for the president's Supreme Court pick.
The two sides have resorted to publicly shaming the other, trading accusations of perpetuating a double standard, with statements made in 2016 when McConnell refused to allow a Senate hearing for appellate Judge Merrick Garland, who President Barack Obama nominated to fill the Supreme Court seat of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died nearly nine months before the presidential election.
President Barack Obama shakes hands with Judge Merrick Garland, the president's nominee to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in the Rose Garden at the White House, March 16, 2016.
However, Scalia died 269 days before the 2016 presidential election. Ginsburg's death came only 46 days before the upcoming election.
At the time, the roles of the parties were reversed with most Senate Democrats calling for a hearing and with the bulk of Republicans, who occupied the majority of the chamber then as they do now, successfully thwarting Garland's bid to serve on the highest court in the land.
Here is what some key players in the Senate from both sides of the aisle said then and now:
-Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,and then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, penned a 2016 op-ed in the Washington Post, arguing against a Supreme Court nominee hearing in an election year, saying the American voters should "decide who they trust to both lead the country and nominate the next Supreme Court justice." On Monday, McConnell said there is "sufficient time" with six weeks to go before the election for a hearing on a nominee, and said the late Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed in just 19 days, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was confirmed in 33 days and Ginsburg was confirmed in 42 days. "Americans re-elected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary," McConnell said in a statement issued on the day Ginsburg died. "Once again, we will keep our promise. President Trump's nominee will receive
Mitch McConnell: "The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination. History and precedent make that perfectly clear."https://t.co/xZL9CpTuVhpic.twitter.com/BmN17u5tCq
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC)September 21, 2020
-Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa,in 2016 called for a hearing on Garland's nomination "so Senators and the public can get a deeper sense of Judge Garland's views and experience." But in a speech on the Senate floor Monday, he said, "Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016: Not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year."
--Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in 2016 called for a hearing on Garland's nomination "so Senators and the public can get a deeper sense of Judge Garland's views and experience." But in a speech on the Senate floor Monday, he said, "Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016: Not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year."
-Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C,.the current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported blocking Garland's confirmation hearing in 2016, saying at the time, "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
Senator Lindsey Graham speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Sept. 16, 2020.
Now Graham says he supports Trump "in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg." He explained that he changed his opinion for two reasons: former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's 2013 decision to replace the 60-vote rule in Senate confirmations with a simple majority vote, and because "Schumer and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open."
Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2018 with a 50-48 vote after enduring a grueling confirmation hearing in which he was accused of sexually assaulting a high school classmate in 1982.
-Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also fought in 2016 to have a hearing for Garland, saying at the time: "President Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty by nominating Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Now it's time for the Senate to do its own job and fully and fairly consider this nominee."
Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Aug. 5, 2020.
Feinstein now says that when she made her statement on Garland, the nation was 237 days from electing its next president. "To jam through a lifetime appointment to the country's highest court -- particularly to replace an icon like Justice Ginsburg -- would be the height of hypocrisy," Feinstein said in a statement released shortly after Ginsburg's death on Friday.
-Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas,a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was among the first senators to call for a hearing for President Trump's pending nominee. During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Cruz told ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos that the nation cannot afford to have a short-handed high court with a possible contested presidential election just weeks away.
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill Aug. 04, 2020.
While he was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, Cruz released a statement, saying, "I proudly stand with my Republican colleagues in our shared belief -- our advice and consent -- that we should not vote on any nominee until the next president is sworn into office."
"I have to stop you there. As you know, it's President Trump who's been talking about rigged elections," and both campaigns hired legal teams,@gstephanopoulossays after Ted Cruz floats possible "constitutional crisis" if Biden challenges 2020 results.https://t.co/ynej4Xa8O5pic.twitter.com/fgAABK6OHK
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC)September 20, 2020
-Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.,a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also supported holding a confirmation hearing for Garland back in 2016, saying at the time, "The Constitution is clear: the Senate must consider the president's nominee and then choose whether to vote 'yes' or 'no.' We must do our job, hold hearings, and vote."
In an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Sunday, Klobuchar challenged her Republican colleagues to "look into their souls and look at what they said back then, and justice must prevail."
"As Joe Biden said, the American People should decide this, who their president is and the president should pick the nominee," she said.
-Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.,a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a 2016 statement that while Obama was entitled to nominate Garland to the Supreme Court, "the Senate has made it clear it will be exercising its Constitutional authority to withhold consent of the nomination."
"Rather than drag the nation into a bitter, partisan fight over a confirmation process that will never come to pass, I hope President Obama will use his final months in office to work across the aisle with Congress to produce meaningful solutions that create new opportunities for hardworking Americans," Tillis said at the time.
Now, he says he supports Trump nominating a "well-qualified and conservative jurist," adding that if Biden is elected he will nominate someone "who will legislate radical, left-wing policies from the bench."
