Mediaboss Marketing

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined President Barack Obama for lunch in his private dining room in July 2013, the White House sought to keep the event quiet the meeting called for discretion.

Mr. Obama had asked his White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to set up the lunch so he could build a closer rapport with the justice, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Treading cautiously, he did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Justice Ginsburg, at 80 the Supreme Courts oldest member and a two-time cancer patient.

He did, however, raise the looming 2014 midterm elections and how Democrats might lose control of the Senate. Implicit in that conversation was the concern motivating his lunch invitation the possibility that if the Senate flipped, he would lose a chance to appoint a younger, liberal judge who could hold on to the seat for decades.

But the effort did not work, just as an earlier attempt by Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was then Judiciary Committee chairman, had failed. Justice Ginsburg left Mr. Obama with the clear impression that she was committed to continuing her work on the court, according to those briefed.

In an interview a year later, Justice Ginsburg deflected questions about the purpose of the lunch. Pressed on what Mr. Obama might think about her potential retirement, she said only, I think he would agree with me that its a question for my own good judgment.

With Justice Ginsburgs death last week, Democrats are in a major political battle, as Republicans race to fill her seat and cement the courts conservative tilt.

Mr. Obama clearly felt compelled to try to avoid just such a scenario, but the art of maneuvering justices off the court is politically delicate and psychologically complicated. They have lifetime appointments and enjoy tremendous power and status, which can be difficult to give up.

Still, presidents throughout American history have strategized to influence the timing of justices exits to suit various White House priorities.

President Trumps first White House counsel, Donald McGahn II, the primary architect of the administrations success in reshaping the judiciary, helped ease the way for Justice Anthony Kennedys retirement in 2018, which allowed Mr. Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate to lock down his seat for another generation.

Mr. McGahn sought to make the justice comfortable with the process by which a successor would be chosen, according to people briefed on their conversations, by seeking his advice on potential picks for lower-court vacancies and recommending that Mr. Trump nominate one of his former clerks, Neil Gorsuch, to fill an earlier vacancy. (Brett Kavanaugh, whom Mr. McGahn recommended to fill Justice Kennedys seat, was also one of his clerks.)

Justices, however, often bristle at any impingement of politics or other pressures in their realm. Robert Bauer, who served as Mr. Obamas White House counsel for part of his first term, said he recalled no discussions then of having Mr. Obama try to nudge Justice Ginsburg to step aside. Mr. Bauer said asking a judge any judge to retire was hypersensitive, recalling how in 2005 he wrote an opinion column calling for Congress to impose judicial term limits and require cameras in the courtroom, only to have Justice Sandra Day OConnor blast his column in a speech on threats to judicial independence.

The OConnor episode reflects the sensitivity that justices can exhibit toward pressure from the outside about how the Court runs, Mr. Bauer said, including showing resistance to any questions about how long they serve. He added, White Houses are typically mindful of all this.

Resistance aside, Democrats outside the White House also strategized about how to raise the topic of retirement with Justice Ginsburg. Several senior White House staff members say they heard word that Senator Leahy had gingerly approached the subject with her several years before the Obama lunch.

He was then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees Supreme Court nominations; he also had a warm relationship with Justice Ginsburg, a bond forged over their shared enjoyment of opera and visits to the Kennedy Center. Asked through a spokesman for comment, Mr. Leahy did not respond.

One of the former Obama administration staff members who heard discussion of the roundabout outreach by Mr. Leahy was Rob Nabors, who served in a series of White House policy and legislative affairs positions under Mr. Obama from 2009 to 2014. But Mr. Nabors said he recalled hearing that it wasnt clear that the message was entirely transmitted effectively, or that it was received in the manner it was delivered.

While Mr. Obamas own talk with the justice was tactful, changing conditions should have made his implicit agenda clear, according to the two people briefed about the meeting, who spoke only on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the topic. Democrats were worried about the prospect of losing the Senate. And the president had invited no other justices to lunch.

But the failure of that conversation convinced the Obama team that it was pointless to try to talk to her of departure. The next summer, when another Supreme Court term closed without a retirement announcement from her, the administration did not try again.

Neil Eggleston, who became White House counsel in April 2014, said that he did not remember anyone proposing that another attempt to ease Justice Ginsburg toward resignation would do any good.

I think it is largely not done, he said. Suggesting that to a Supreme Court justice she is as smart as anyone; she doesnt need the president to tell her how old she is and what her timelines are.

Given his previous tenure as chief counsel to the Judiciary Committee, Justice Stephen Breyer might have been a more pragmatic target of overtures. Walter Dellinger, a former solicitor general, mentioned to the White House counsels office during the Obama administration a plan he conceived to motivate Justice Breyer, a known Francophile, to start a next chapter.

My suggestion was that the president have Breyer to lunch and say to him, I believe historians will someday say the three greatest American ambassadors to France were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Stephen G. Breyer, recalled Mr. Dellinger, who recently joined Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.s campaign team.

Although it is not clear how, word of Mr. Dellingers idea made its way to Justice Breyer.

Mr. Dellinger said that when he ran into Justice Breyer at a holiday party not long after Mr. Trump was elected, the justice pulled him aside. So Walter, he asked, do you still want to ship me off to France? Mr. Dellinger, who sensed the justice was ribbing him, responded, Mr. Justice, I hear Paris isnt what it used to be.

Mr. Dellinger added that he now thought Justice Breyer was correct to resist the idea, saying he has made a tremendous contribution in the ensuing years. Justice Breyers office declined to comment.

In making that suggestion to lure Justice Breyer with an ambassador position, Mr. Dellinger was harking back to similar ideas from Lyndon B. Johnson, a master strategist. Mr. Johnson lured Justice Arthur Goldberg, whom he wanted to replace with his friend Abe Fortas, off the court by offering him the role of ambassador to the United Nations, saying that he would have tremendous power in negotiating the end of the Vietnam War.

Justice Goldberg never did have that authority and regretted his decision. I asked Goldberg, why did you leave the bench? said Laura Kalman, professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He answered her in one word: Vanity.

President Johnson also played on the paternal pride of the Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark, by appointing his son, Ramsey Clark, attorney general in March 1967. Johnson, who wanted to replace Justice Clark with Thurgood Marshall, played up the notion that his continued presence on the court while his son ran the Justice Department created a conflict of interest, and Justice Clark stepped down that June.

But presidents cannot force justices to leave the court. Franklin Roosevelt floated a plan to pack the court by expanding the number of justices in frustration because aging conservatives kept striking down his New Deal programs. President William Taft could not push out Justice Melville Fuller, whom he deemed senile after the justice bungled Tafts swearing-in, the biographer David Atkinson wrote; Taft had to wait until Fuller died of a heart attack a year later. (In a book about Taft, Henry Pringle wrote, The old men of the court seldom died and never retired.)

Democratic leaders had precious few cards they could have played as they contemplated their options with Justice Ginsburg. She made it clear in several interviews that she had no intention to retire; widowed in 2010, she was devoted to her work, determined to have a voice and appreciated the platform her celebrity offered her as an icon liberals liked to call the Notorious R.B.G.

She was clearly annoyed at any public suggestions that she step down. In 2014, Erwin Chemerinsky, now dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, wrote articles, appearing in The Los Angeles Times and Politico, declaring that for the long-term good of progressive values, Justice Ginsburg should step aside to make way for a younger Obama appointee.

It was certainly conveyed to me that she was not pleased with those who were suggesting that she retire, Mr. Chemerinsky said.

Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School, had also written a column in 2011 in The New Republic calling for Justices Ginsburg and Breyer to step down immediately, suggesting that they should not stay on the court so long that they risked conservatives inheriting their seats.

I didnt feel at all apologetic about saying something which frankly seemed to me quite clear, Mr. Kennedy said. Ive been praying praying that Id be able to look back and say I was wrong. It didnt turn out that way.

Go here to read the rest:
Ginsburg, Obama and the Lunch That Could Have Altered Supreme Court History - The New York Times

As governments fight the COVID-19 pandemic, Snopes is fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation, and you can help. Read our coronavirus fact checks. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.

At the onset of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that he inherited a bare Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) that lacked an adequate supply of ventilators from the administration of former President Barack Obama, hindering Trumps ability to adequately respond to the growing number of coronavirus cases across the nation. We revisited the timeline of the pandemic and the various (and contradictory) statements issued by Trump and his administration to check the accuracy of this claim.

The SNS is overseen by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and is allocated as a resource to supplement state and local authorities in their response to public health emergencies. In addition to many state stockpiles, the federal stockpile includes medicines, supplies, and devices needed for life-saving care that are strategically located at secret warehouse locations around the country.

According to a timeline published by the Department of Health and Human Services, the stockpile has been used at least 13 times since its 1999 creation, including during responses to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, and 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

A mechanical ventilator is a breathing machine used to assist a patient suffering from respiratory distress, or a condition that makes it difficult for them to breathe on their own. SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the 2020 pandemic, causes COVID-19, one such respiratory condition that can make it difficult for an infected person to breathe on their own.

Concern over whether the U.S. had enough ventilators took center stage in early 2020 shortly after the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11. When New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo asked the federal government for additional ventilators, Trump responded by criticizing Cuomos handling of the pandemic, saying that the state should have stockpiled ventilators.

During a March 26 press briefing, Trump tried to buck the blame for a shortage of ventilators, saying that he had taken over an empty shelf. The president reiterated the claim just over a week later, adding that the depleted stockpile he supposedly inherited impacted his administrations ability to respond to the pandemic.

Hey, I inherited we, this administration we inherited a broken system, both militarily, but weve rebuilt our military where we now have so much ammunition, whereas you remember a very important general said, Sir, we have no ammunition. They wanted to save money on ammunition.

They didnt want to save money because they spent money like nobody ever spent money. But you know what? We now have a great military rebuilt. And we have so much ammunition, we dont know what to do with it. Okay? And thats a nice feeling to have.

But they also gave us empty cupboards. The cupboard was bare. Youve heard the expression: The cupboard was bare. So we took over a stockpile where the cupboard was bare and where the testing system was broken and old. And we redid it.

Though Trump repeatedly blamed the Obama administration for leaving behind an empty stockpile and falsely took credit for restocking the ventilator supplies, he said on more than one occasion that the U.S. had enough ventilators in the weeks following the pandemic declaration. In the April 7 press briefing, Admiral Brett Giroir, assistant secretary of HHS, said that the number of ventilators is not a number that we give out but said that there were thousands remaining in the stockpile. Trump quickly added that there were 9,000 breathing machines.

In an April 8 Tweet, the White House said that it had shipped out 8,000 ventilators and had an additional 10,000 ready to go. An op-ed written by Vice President Mike Pence added that the SNS hadnt been refilled since the H1N1 influenza outbreak in 2009, and it had only 10,000 ventilators on hand in March an inadequate number given the extent of the pandemic but that by the June 16 publication of his piece, there were more than 30,000 ventilators in the SNS and that the administration was well on [its] way to building 100,000 ventilators in 100 days. It appeared that the Trump administration initially recognized that the ventilator supply was inadequate to respond to the pandemic, but failed to supplement the limited inventory despite promises to do so.

The discrepancy continued well into 2020. Some references:

While it is true that the Trump administration had inherited a depleted supply of some personal protective equipment (PPE) like N95 respirator masks, it is not accurate to say that the stockpile was left bare or depleted of ventilators. The SNS had 16,600 ventilators immediately available for use at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a spokesperson with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) who spoke with FactCheck.org in June 2020:

[T]here were 16,660 ventilators in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) inventory immediately available for use when the SNS began deploying ventilators in March 2020 in support of the COVID-19 response. All of these ventilators were serviced, recertified and operable. An additional 2,425 ventilators were in maintenance at that time as part of the normal and routine maintenance process. Every ventilator and resupply kit in the SNS is serviced regularly by a contracted commercial vendor to meet or exceed the manufacturers recommended maintenance schedule. In general, prior to March of this year, the SNS stored approximately 19,000 ventilators in its inventory for many years, and this number fluctuated on any given day depending on the number of ventilators in scheduled maintenance. [I]n January 2017 the total number of ventilators in the SNS inventory immediately available for use would not have been much different than what the SNS had immediately available for use in March 2020.

The spokesperson added that the stockpile would likely have held the same number of ventilators in January 2016 when Trump was inaugurated, suggesting that ventilator stock left by the Obama administration was considered adequate by HHS when Trump took office. Snopes contacted the HHS to confirm the above figures, but had not received a response at the time of publication.

However, given the nature of the 2020 pandemic, health experts argued that ventilator inventory at the onset of the outbreak was inadequate, and the Trump administration should have immediately taken measures to increase the inventory of ventilators and other emergency medical supplies.

As part of the COVID-19 response, the SNS deployed more than 14,500 tons of cargo to states, according to data published on Sept. 16, 2020. An HHS document submitted to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform criticized the low number of ventilators that had been distributed from the stockpile in April 2020, suggesting that the outsourced 7,920 ventilators wereinadequate compared with the estimated need of 139,000 machines.

Now that the national stockpile has been depleted of critical equipment, it appears that the Administration is leaving states to fend for themselves, to scour the open market for these scarce supplies, and to compete with each other and federal agencies in a chaotic, free-for-all bidding war, said committee chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney in a statement.

In late September 2020, the SNS noted that under the joint direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and HHS, it had deployed all remaining PPE in its inventory but for a reserve of 10% for the critical needs of frontline healthcare workers serving in federal response efforts. However, the specific number of ventilators distributed as of this writing is not known. In the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts warned that the SNS had too few ventilators to adequately respond to a large-scale outbreak.

Although the ventilators werent depleted when Trump came into office, there had already been warnings that there was an inadequate supply during the Obama administration. A 2016 report found that during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, 19.6 million pieces of PPE were deployed across the country, including the disbursement of 85.1 million N95 respirators considered depleted in 2020.

The National Institutes of Health study also published a study in January 2011 concluding that the current ventilator supply in the United States is nowhere near sufficient to meet the projected needs of a pandemic. An April 2015 study published in the journal, Clinical Infectious Diseases, added that the next pandemic would likely produce a surge in patients that would require mechanical ventilation caused by a severe flu pandemic, which would suggest that the U.S. would likely need up to 60,000 additional ventilators for an extreme outbreak.

It is not known how many ventilators are in inventory in late September 2020, but the HHS said that it maintains at least $8 billion in antibiotics, vaccines, antitoxins, and antivirals, among other medications.

Continue reading here:
Did Trump Inherit a 'Depleted' Stockpile of Ventilators From Obama? - Snopes.com

Candy Woodall| USA TODAY Network Pennsylvania Capitol Bureau

Sarah Eagan was 11 years old when then-Sen. Barack Obama defeated Sen. John McCain to become the first Black president of the United States.

She was still seven years away from being old enough to vote during that historic election.

"I'm Generation Z," said Eagan, a 23-year-old Montgomery County resident. "I don't really remember the Obama presidency."

And she certainly doesn't remember Joe Biden's vice presidency.

Eagan was 19 when Obama and Biden were finishing their second term in office, and she was more focused on the two presidential candidates on the ballot in 2016: Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Now, as the Pennsylvania press secretary for NextGen America, she is working to organize young voters who will help Biden win.

"But we are still getting to know him," Eagan said.

That's why the presidential debates are so important, she said.

The first of three presidential debates will be held at 9 p.m. Tuesday in Cleveland, and young voters will be watching, Eagan said.

"The Democratic debates were popular among young viewers, and I think the presidential debates will be, too," she said. "With the latest news about Trump's taxes, I believe there is renewed interest in the debates."

What these young voters want to hear in the presidential debate

Kaila Cantens, Emily Carter and Zachary Michener spend most of their days helping young voters get registered to vote and then following up to make sure they have a plan to vote.

That work can go on until 7 p.m. most days.

On Tuesday night, they'll make sure they are done in time to watch the first presidential debate, and they are all waiting to hear something specific.

Cantens, a 25-year-old from the Lehigh Valley, said she wants to Biden's "climate change plan, including green energy, and that he's signing onto the Paris climate agreement on day one."

Michener, a 28-year-old from Hummelstown, said he wants to hear Biden "talk about raising the minimum wage."

Carter, a 24-year-old from Allentown, "would love to see Biden address the Supreme Court nomination and how he thinks Senate Democratic leadership should proceed, and if he's willing to add more members if the GOP pushes the nomination through."

What do Pa. voters want?: Some say Biden, some say Trump, some want a better choice

More: Ginsburg's death is raising the stakes in the Pa. presidential election: 'It's enormous'

More: Biden said he will win Scranton. Trump said he will only lose if it's rigged. Who's right?

Why the young vote matters in Pa.

The young vote matters in Pennsylvania because every vote matters in Pennsylvania.

Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016 by 44,000 votes, or less than 1 percentage point. Some analysts have suggested he won in part because some voters, particularly young voters, chose a third-party candidate instead of voting for Clinton.

Eagan said she expects most young voters in Pennsylvania will back the Democrat this year.

Recent polls show Biden leading Trump in Pennsylvania, but the lead is within the margin of error.

Eagan believes young people could help him win the state and presidency.

While Biden wasn't as progressive as Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, his policies are more in line with young people than Trump's, she said.

"The more we learn about Biden, the more we like and we think he's at least willing to listen to the things that are important to us," Eagan said. "Trump doesn't seem willing to listen."

Issues that are most important to young voters are affordable health care, affordable college, and racial equity and justice. That's according to NextGen's polling of young voters.

That polling last month showed 77 percent of young, registered voters are "extremely motivated and had a voting plan," Eagan said.

That enthusiasm has climbed from 70 percent in July, and it's 8 points higher than the same time period in 2016.

"Traditional campaigns don't really talk to young people or don't target our issues, but we have power in numbers," Eagan said. "Young people make up 40 percent of the electorate nationwide."

Most of those voters are leaning toward voting for a Democrat or likely voting for a Democrat, she said.

And consider this: 15 million people turned 18 since 2016.

"Having four years of Trump during very formative points in our identity and politics really shapes the way we vote," Eagan said.

The question is not whether they will vote for Biden but whether they will vote at all.

While there's a lot of enthusiasm in polls, it won't be clear until Election Day if young people show up and vote.

"Voting can be perceived as complicated to some young people," Eagan said. "This year we're trying to make sure they know if they need to bring ballots to drop boxes or polling places."

There's also a "very real dissatisfaction of the system itself," she said.

NextGen has been working to reach young voters early and often, passing out masks that say "vote" and helping voters make sure they're registered.

Eagan is hoping the debate Tuesday night further energizes young voters.

"There's still some room here for us to learn more about Biden," she said. "Maybe the debate will fill in the gaps."

How to watch the presidential debate

President Donald J. Trump, the Republican incumbent, will face off against former Vice President Joe Biden at 9 p.m. Tuesday at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. It is the first of three debates and will be moderated by "Fox News Sunday" hostChris Wallace.

The 90-minute debate will air on every major network and news network. It will also be livestreamed. You can find it onABC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, PBS, Telemundo and Univision. The debate can also be found through Amazon Fire TV, Android TV, Apple TV,Roku, Xbox One, YouTube and many more apps.

Wallace will cover multiple topics during the debate: the Trump and Biden Records, the Supreme Court, COVID-19, the economy, race and violence in U.S. cities and the integrity of the election, according tothe Commission on Presidential Debates. Each of those segments is slated to last 15 minutes until the debate ends at 10:30 p.m.

Pence in Pa. while Trump and Biden debate

Vice President Mike Pence during the debatewill lead a campaign stop and debate watch partyin southcentral Pennsylvania.

Pence will be watching with a group of supporters at Meadow Spring Farm in Lititz. Doors open at 5 p.m., and the "Make America Great Again!" event starts at 7 p.m.Go to Trump's campaign website to register for tickets.

The Trump and Biden campaigns have been making multiple stops in Pennsylvania, a battleground state that some analysts say could decide the 2020 presidential race.

Candy Woodall is a reporter for the USA Today Network. She can be reached at 717-480-1783 or on Twitter at @candynotcandace.

This coverage is only possible with support from our readers. Sign up today for a digital subscription.

This article originally appeared on York Daily Record: 'I don't really remember the Obama presidency': Why Trump and Biden debate matters in Pa.

Link:
'I don't really remember the Obama presidency': Why Trump and Biden debate matters in Pa. - Pocono Record

The Michelle Obama Podcast is perhaps the most high-profile show thats exclusive to Spotify. Well, it was until today.

Spotify hasannouncedthat the show, co-produced with the Obamas production company Higher Ground, will now be available on a number of additional platforms.

It didnt say which platforms, but theresalready a listing for the show on Apple Podcasts, seemingly ready for the first season to debut there, so even Spotifys fiercest rival appears to be getting the show.

While were on podcast industry news, one of the larger independent production companies, Wondery, isreportedly exploring a potential salethat could be worth as much as $400m.

While thoughts may turn immediately to Spotify as a potential acquirer, Apple, Amazon and SiriusXM might also be interested. What about a major record label though?Wondery signed a deal with Universal Music Groupto develop original podcasts together in 2019, after all

And talking of music companies making podcasts, Australian firm Mushroom has launched the first season of 180 Grams, its documentary show exploring individual albums, kicking off with blues-rock band The Teskey Brothers 2019 album Run Home Slow.

Stuart Dredge

Processing...

You might have left one of the fields blank, or be posting too quickly

Thanks for your comment. We appreciate your response.

Please wait a while before posting your next comment

Continue reading here:
Michelle Obama Spotify podcast spreads to other platforms - Music Ally

"The next election is too soon, and the stakes too high," Gardner, a Republican from Colorado, said in March of that year.

Asked on Wednesday about his 2016 comments, amid President Donald Trump's effort to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat less than two months before an election, Gardner didn't answer when approached by CNN.

"If you didn't see my statement, I'll send it to you," Gardner, battling to keep his seat for a second term, said as he got on a senators-only elevator.

That statement, however, said nothing about his past position, instead noting that if a qualified nominee he supports comes forward now: "I will vote to confirm."

As Senate Republicans and the White House race to fill a Supreme Court seat following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, many have struggled to reconcile their support for confirming Trump's nomination on the eve of an election with their steadfast opposition to even considering the nomination made by a Democratic President eight months prior to Election Day. Party leaders are pointing to the different partisan makeup in Washington, arguing it's normal to confirm a nominee when the same party controls both the Senate and the White House and not the norm in an election year with divided government like in 2016.

But four years ago, that was not the message pushed by much of the Republican Party as they stressed repeatedly -- for months -- that it should be the voters who get a say in effectively choosing the next Supreme Court nominee, defending Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to move on the vacancy, which was later filled by Trump's pick of Neil Gorsuch in 2017.

"In the midst of a critical election, the American people deserve to have a say in this important decision that will impact the course of our country for years to come," Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst said in March 2016. "This is not about any particular nominee; rather this is about giving the American people a voice."

On Wednesday, Ernst refused to answer a question about whether voters should have a voice now over the Ginsburg seat, walking in silence as a reporter asked her three times about her 2016 statement as she was departing the Capitol.

Others like Ernst who are also in difficult reelection races are reluctant to engage when asked to reconcile their past position with their support for Trump's move now.

"I got people waiting for me," said Georgia Sen. David Perdue, not responding to questions for the third time this week about his 2016 statement that not holding hearings on Obama nominee Merrick Garland "is a wise course of action in the midst of a presidential election."

Montana Sen. Steve Daines, a Republican from a state that Trump won by more than 20 points in 2016, is locked in a tight race with Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock -- and is making clear he's fully behind Trump's nominee, who is scheduled to be named Saturday evening.

But in 2016, Daines said: "The American people have already begun voting on who the next President will be and their voice should continue to be reflected in a process that will have lasting implications on our nation."

Asked about that past statement on Wednesday, Daines said that the President has "a responsibility under the Constitution to nominate a justice -- the Senate can either confirm or reject the nominee." Daines said in 2016 Republicans rejected a "liberal justice" and now when Trump makes his pick, "I will stand in support of that conservative."

"There's a very clear difference right now in terms of what kind of justice should be on the Supreme Court," Daines said. "I support conservatives, my opponent supports liberals."

When asked why the voters shouldn't have a say, Daines responded: "They had a choice: They elected President Trump and a Republican Senate."

Sen. Thom Tillis, in a neck-and-neck race with Democrat Cal Cunningham in North Carolina, said Trump is "not a lame-duck" president like Obama was.

But in 2016 comment, Tillis said: "This is about the principle, not the person," and that the American people should have a "voice" to determine the direction of the court. Asked about statement, Tillis said Wednesday: "We knew that President Obama was on his way out the door. We were months away from an election. But at the end of the day, we support moving forward with the process" now.

Democrats argued for confirmation vote in election year four years ago

It's not just Republicans forced to reconcile their past positions. Democrats, too, spent months in 2016 demanding the seat be filled, warning about the dangers of having just eight seats on the Supreme Court.

"Every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the American people's business is not getting done," Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said four years ago.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who four years ago made urgent appeals for an up-or-down vote on Obama's nominee, said the two circumstances are totally different.

"You cannot have one seat of rules for a Democratic President and another set of rules for Republicans," she said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, another member of the committee, also repeatedly lambasted Republicans for refusing to hold a confirmation vote in the 2016 election year.

Asked to reconcile the two positions, Blumenthal said: "We argued nine months before the election a seat should be filled rather than waiting, in effect, a full year. The (confirmation) vote will occur within days, less than a week probably of the election. Literally, people are going to the ballot. They are voting right now in seven states. The circumstances are just totally different."

Democrats argue that never in history has a Supreme Court justice been confirmed after July in an election year, a point that Schumer made on the Senate floor Wednesday.

In an exchange with the presiding officer -- GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler, herself in a tough fight to keep her Georgia seat -- Schumer asked if there was precedent for confirming a nominee between July and November in a presidential election year.

"Materials from the secretary of the Senate do not show such precedent," Loeffler said.

Republicans argue that the fine points over which parties are controlling the White House and Senate at the time of an election year vacancy are critical and validate their actions to block Garland in 2016 and move forward with a nominee now. They say that only 15 times in history has a Supreme Court vacancy occurred in an election year and the President has nominated a candidate. Of those 15, seven occurred when the Senate was controlled by the opposite party. Only two of those nominees were confirmed, the last in 1888.

And for the eight times that the White House and Senate were of the same party, nominees were confirmed seven times. The lone person who was not confirmed, Abe Fortas for chief justice in the late 1960s, faced corruption charges and his nomination was withdrawn.

"Apart from that one strange exception, no Senate has failed to confirm a nominee in the circumstances that face us now," McConnell said Monday. "The historical precedent is overwhelming and it runs in one direction. If our Democratic colleagues want to claim they are outraged, they can only be outraged at the plain facts of American history."

GOP's 2016 message

But even as McConnell has pointed out in 2016 that he raised how one-party rule is different than divided government, even the GOP leader himself was emphasizing four years ago how it was up to the voters to decide the direction of the court that November.

"The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country," McConnell said on the floor in March 2016. "So, of course, of course, the American people should have a say in the court's direction."

Sen. Marco Rubio, who ran for President in 2016, told reporters in the Capitol shortly after he dropped out that year, that he opposed Garland and added: "I don't think we should be moving forward on a nominee in the last year of this President's term. I would say that if it was a Republican president."

Asked about that past statement, Rubio told CNN this week: "Here's the bottom line: if the President nominates someone as he is allowed to do, and they put someone up that I support, I'm not going to vote against the judges I support. It's as simple as that."

"No, I am not," Rubio said when asked if he was contradicting his past position. The senator pointed to remarks he made that year on NBC's "Meet the Press" where he said a president should not nominate someone in their last year "especially in their second term," though he didn't mention the second term in his interaction with reporters in the Capitol.

Some Republicans have different reasons for reversing their stances, including Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, who vowed in 2016 and 2018 not to move ahead with a nominee in 2020. But Graham, locked in a tough reelection battle in South Carolina, said that his views changed in the aftermath of the vicious Supreme Court fight that led to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.

Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and facing reelection in Texas, said in 2016 that it was "an important principle" to give voters a say in driving the direction of the court.

"This is really about an important principle," Cornyn said in March 2016. "It's important to allow the voters, in choosing the next President of the United States, make that decision and make sure their voice is heard rather than just 100 members of the Senate."

But asked this week about that position, Cornyn said he took that view "because President Obama was term limited out."

Some more recently have voiced paused about filling a vacancy.

The chairman of the committee at the time, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, told CNN in late July of this year that he didn't think the Senate should move on any vacancy that could occur. "My position is if I were chairman of the committee, I couldn't move forward with it."

But earlier this week, days after the death of Ginsburg, Grassley sided with his party's decision to press ahead with a nominee now.

Asked what changed between now and July, Grassley told CNN on Wednesday that he's not the chairman of the committee and said he was being consistent.

"If Graham goes ahead with a hearing, he can expect me to be there, and I have a responsibility to be there."

Asked about voting no based on principle, given his past concerns about pressing ahead this year, Grassley said: "I'm going to vote on the qualifications of the nominee."

CNN's Daniella Mora and Dominic Torres contributed.

Continue reading here:
As they rally behind Trump's pick, GOP senators struggle to explain refusal to move on Obama's nominee - CNN