Not even 24 hours after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, multiple media outlets were telling us that on the question of who they prefer to replace Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court, voters prefer Joe Biden to President Trump.
The Fox News headline Saturday afternoon declared that “52%
trust Biden over Trump on Supreme Court picks.” The Fox News question on the
Supreme Court was included in its regular Trump-Pence
vs. Biden-Harris poll and was conducted days prior to Ginsburg’s
death. The Fox poll gave Biden a 52%-45% edge on who people trust “to do a
better job on…SCOTUS nominations.”
On early Saturday afternoon, a New York Times headline
read, “Polls Have Shown Voters Prefer Biden to Pick Next Justice.” The Times article reported on the Fox
poll and also reported on its own New York Times/Siena College three-state
poll. The Times article states, “In
Times/Siena polls of
Maine, North Carolina and Arizona released Friday, voters preferred Mr. Biden
to select the next Supreme Court justice by 12 percentage points, 53 percent to
41 percent.”
A Saturday headline at The Hill read,
“Majority of voters say Trump should not nominate a Supreme Court justice.”
This article reports on “a
snap poll released Saturday by YouGov.” According to The Hill,
The poll found that 51 percent of voters believe Trump should not nominate another justice this year, while 42 percent said he should move forward with a nominee. A slight majority, 48 percent, believe the Senate should not confirm a nominee this year. Forty-five percent said the upper chamber should.
Of course, all of this is meant to discourage President
Trump, Senate Republicans, and their supporters from moving forward with a
nomination to replace Ginsburg prior to the November elections. In other words,
these polls are like most
every other election-related poll in this modern drive-by media era.
They are meant to shape opinions instead of merely reporting on them. Events in
2016 again provide an informative lesson here.
After the death of Antonin Scalia in February of 2016, the
media put tremendous pressure on the Republican-led U.S. Senate to give Obama
nominee Merrick Garland a Senate hearing and a vote. Part of this pressure
included numerous polls that supposedly showed Americans were overwhelmingly in
favor of Garland receiving a Senate hearing and a vote. Polling Report reveals
this to be the case.
Just days after Scalia’s death, Pew Research Center asked, “In
thinking about how the Senate should deal with the Supreme Court vacancy, which
of the following statements comes closer to your view? Do you think the Senate
should hold hearings and vote on whomever President Obama nominates, or not
hold hearings until the next president selects a nominee?” Pew reported that “Hold
hearings on Obama’s nominee” got 56% support while “Wait for the next
president” got only 38% support.
In late February of 2016, a CNN/ORC poll asked, “President
Obama has said that he will nominate someone to fill the vacancy. Do you think
the Republican leadership in the Senate should or should not hold hearings on
the nominee?” According to this poll, “should” hold hearings was at 66% while
“should not” was at 32%.
Likewise, in early March of 2016, an ABC News/Washington
Post poll asked, “The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has opened
a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. After Obama nominates someone to replace
Scalia, do you think the Senate should hold hearings and vote on whether to
accept the nomination, or should the Senate NOT hold hearings, which would
block the nomination and leave it to the next president?” Again, support for
holding hearings was supposedly at 63% while those against holding hearings
came in at only 32%.
Similarly, in the middle of March in 2016, Gallup asked, “Now
turning to the U.S. Supreme Court, as you may know, Merrick Garland is a
federal judge who has been nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Would you
like to see the Senate vote in favor of Garland serving on the Supreme Court,
or not?” According to Gallup, those wanting the Senate to vote “in favor” was
52%, while those wanting the Senate to “not vote in favor” was at 29%.
And so on it went for the weeks and months leading up to the
2016 elections. What’s more, liberal pundits across the U.S. ran hundreds
of editorials calling for Mitch McConnell to allow hearings and a
vote on Garland. Even individual
GOP Senators—including Susan Collins—called for the Senate to grant
Garland Judiciary Committee hearings.
Of course, refusing to acquiesce on Garland hearings was
supposed to cost republicans in the 2016 elections. No less than a former
executive editor of The New York Times
thought so. Writing
in The Guardian, Jill
Abramson called Garland’s nomination a “political gift” for Hillary Clinton and
added that “Garland’s temperate record and demeanor also magnify the extremism
of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the leaders for the GOP presidential nomination
who could make their own court nominees if Garland is not confirmed by the
election. That could further scare off moderate Republicans.”
Of course, after holding up Garland’s nomination in 2016,
Donald Trump became the U.S. President, the republicans held on to the U.S.
Senate, and even gained two seats in the 2018 midterms. There’s nothing in
politics—or, more importantly, in the U.S. Constitution—that says republicans
can’t or shouldn’t replace Ginsburg prior to this November. Don’t let the
drive-by media lead you into thinking otherwise.
Additionally, any threats of violence, mayhem, and
destruction, or any acts of violence, mayhem, and destruction that result from
Trump and Senate Republicans acting to replace Ginsburg will not be the fault of the President and
the GOP. Like the rest of the violence and mayhem currently plaguing the U.S.,
the blame will lie squarely on Democrats and their voters. And remember, it was
Democrats who turned the courts into “super
legislatures” in order to achieve what they otherwise
could not get through actually winning elections and passing
legislation. If the courts were what our Founders intended, these battles to
replace Supreme Court Justices would not be so contentious.
(See this column at American Thinker.)
Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of
Politics, Science, Faith and Reason.
www.TrevorGrantThomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@TrevorGrantThomas.com
