GOP’s Supreme Court push is hypocritical, but Democrats would’ve done the same thing

Democrats would’ve done the same

Joe Biden claims that the Republican push to move forward with a Supreme Court justice nominee on the eve of an election is an exercise of raw political power and hypocritical considering their opposition to President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland during an election year. Indeed both are true.

But the real question is this: Wouldn’t the Democrats have done the same thing if they controlled the Senate? The answer is self-evident and therein lies the problem.

Jason Huber, Charlotte

Tillis was a partisan rubber stamp

Sen. Thom Tillis shows partisanship over constitutional duty.

At President Trump’s Fayetteville rally, Tillis said “The president has the responsibility and the authority to nominate a justice.” True.

But Tillis commits that “I’m going to vote for their confirmation” — with no recognition of the constitutional role of the Senate to “advise and consent” on appointments after hearings and assessment.

Instead, Tillis abdicates his responsibility and chooses to be a partisan rubber stamp

Matt Gromet, Charlotte

Take these 2 in GOP to the woodshed

In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used the nuclear option (51 votes instead of the normal 60) to appoint a boatload of judges all over the country. Democrats thought this would be very helpful in implementing their agenda in the future.

Republicans now need only 51 votes to take up the nomination that would put a conservative judge in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski need to be taken to the woodshed if they cave on selecting a conservative Supreme Court judge.

Jim Cherry, Charlotte

It’s about democracy, not power grabs

Regarding “Democrats shouldn’t be hypocrites about the Supreme Court, either,” (Sept. 21 Opinion):

NC Opinion Editor Peter St. Onge suggests that Democrats who oppose President Trump’s nomination of a new Supreme Court justice should go win an election instead.

In case he has forgotten, the Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections. Furthermore, grotesque partisan gerrymandering has produced majorities for the Republicans in Congress and in many states far out of line with the popular vote.

This isn’t just about a Supreme Court nomination. It’s also about democracy, and the ruthless exercise of raw power by a party that cannot command a majority of support from the American people. I’m surprised St. Onge was so unsympathetic to this unjust political reality.

Pat McCoy, Charlotte

Minimize chaos, fill the Ginsburg seat

Do we honor RBG’s legacy by filling her seat immediately or do we honor her by delaying? I say fill the seat.

Life goes on, and we will face an enormous constitutional crisis on Nov. 4 if the U.S. Supreme Court has only eight justices. Sinister forces are doing all they can to throw doubt on the fairness and legitimacy of our voting system. We need to be prepared for that chaos.

Fill the seat. Bring the number of justices to nine to minimize the chaos.

Tom Daoust, Concord

Under Forest, NC would be like SC

Regarding “NC GOP governor candidate Forest wants to end masks rule,” (Sept. 17):

Lt. Gov. Dan Forest has missed the great science experiment being conducted across our country. The results are in and obvious to all but the willfully ignorant.

In South Carolina, Gov. Henry McMaster did what Forest proposes. McMaster never imposed a statewide mask mandate and opened up the economy before meeting CDC benchmarks. South Carolina has almost as many deaths as North Carolina, despite having half the population. South Carolina also has a much higher infection rate.

Science is one size fits all, while self-correcting as evidence accumulates and understanding expands. As science has reveals, natural processes affect everyone equally — no matter your skeptical opinions.

Bob Wallace, Concord

We can still be civil, show respect

Thank you for the article about the friendship between Joe Biden and Jesse Helms. (Sept. 21) It showed us how being far apart in political beliefs and actions does not have to mean behaving in an ugly fashion to one another. While friendship across the aisle seems impossible in today’s government, surely we can be civil and respect, maybe even try to understand, another’s beliefs.

Melva Hanna, Charlotte