US President Trump nominated Judge Amy Connie Barrett, a staunch Catholic and a supporter of conservative views, for the post of life member of the Supreme Court, vacated in connection with the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If the Senate approves her candidacy, then the Conservatives will constitute a majority in this highest court of the United States. What is this вЂ” an attempt to shamelessly manipulate political institutions? As observers point out, the situation is much more confusing.
Quite in the spirit of democracy
According to the newspaper Die Presse, Republicans have every right to take advantage of their majority in the Senate вЂ” and approve the candidacy they like:
вЂњIt has happened more than once in history that seats in the Supreme Court were vacated just in an election year вЂ” and the president always nominated a candidate for judge. Since 1888, the Senate has consistently confirmed the presidential nomination вЂ” if both the White House and the Senate were in the hands of the same party. Demanding Democrats that this time should be different is simply absurd. Yes, indeed, in 2016, Republicans refused to approve Obama-nominated Merrick Garland. However, this is how everything happens in a democracy: whoever has the majority of votes sets the tone.вЂњ
Hastily and shortsightedly
As the newspaper Aargauer Zeitung believes, the desire to appoint a judge right now, when there is absolutely nothing left before the elections, will do nothing for the Republicans:
вЂњAt one time, there was a protocol regarding such appointments; both Democrats and Republicans adhered to it. Part of this protocol was intense discussion and negotiation. The fact that Republicans no longer adhere to these rules is not at all surprising вЂ” after all, the unofficial motto in Trump's Washington has long been: norms are for losers. It is surprising, however, how short-sighted such a policy is. All polls as one show that the ideas of the Republicans are shared by only a small part of the population. ... It's hard to imagine that on November 3, most American voters would choose to support the Republicans in their power games.вЂќ
Then Trump may not even dream of re-election
With this nomination, Trump is depriving himself of the support of American liberals, The Independent notes:
вЂњA vigorously anti-abortion candidate is nominated for the Supreme Court office, it is unlikely to help Trump bridge the popularity gap among American suburbanites that will separate him from Joe Biden. The appointment could have the same effect as the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Brent Kavanaugh shortly before the 2018 mid-term congressional elections, with the only difference that this time it could affect the outcome of the presidential election. ... Before her death, Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed a desire that her successor should not be appointed in a hurry before the elections. By refusing to comply with her request, Republicans risk losing their majority in the Senate вЂ” and canceling out Trump's already diminishing chances of re-election.вЂќ
Wouldn't hurt more trust!
Hubert Wetzel, a reporter for the Suddeutsche Zeitung in Washington, believes that the prophecies of the supposedly irreversible collapse of liberal America are unfounded:
вЂњBoth of the oldest conservative justices [of the Supreme Court] are gentlemen in their 70s, which means that under some circumstances, a Trump majority of 6: 3 could quickly turn into a left majority of 5: 4. ... If Barrett is approved, then, of course, she will make more conservative decisions than Judge Ginsburg. ... But with all due respect to Ruth Bader Ginsburg вЂ” following the example of many Democrats and pretending that it was only thanks to this fragile woman that the Inquisition did not come to the United States that would enslave all women вЂ” this is still an exaggeration. It would be worthwhile to believe more in American liberalism вЂ” and its ability to resist external pressure.вЂќ