Hypocrisy and Ginsburg: Part 2

John Bowling
1 min readSep 19, 2020

According to John Fund, from National Review, “Senator Ted Cruz told Fox News that it’s ‘critical’ a justice be confirmed before Nov. 3, in part because of the possibility of a ‘constitutional crisis’ if there were a 4–4 split over a disputed election outcome.”

The responses to this line of thought has mostly been outrage. A lot of liberals have pointed out how cynical and dumb this is.

Meanwhile, according to Politifact, back in 2016:

In the case of Obama’s nomination of Garland, Democrats have argued that the Supreme Court seat should be filled immediately because the court needs a deciding vote.

The coming days will provide a veritable cornucopia of bad faith arguments and expose the edifice of bad faith arguments upon which we’ve staked out our political positions over the last few decades.

Fund also points out some hypocrisy that may hit a little too close to home for some Democrats:

2016: Asked if Senate had obligation to vote on Judge Garland, Ginsburg’s answer: “That’s their job. There’s nothing in Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year”

2020: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president”



John Bowling

Throwing half-baked ideas against the wall and seeing what sticks.