Issues & Insights
Fred Schilling, Supreme Court

Here’s How Trump Can Get Ginsburg’s Replacement On The Court — Guaranteed

History often repeats itself. Before treating the present Supreme Court vacancy which occurred right before an election as an unprecedented circumstance, consider that actually we’ve faced a similar circumstance before. The year was 1956 and Dwight D. Eisenhower was heading into a re-election race when an unexpected opening on the court occurred.

Justice Sherman Minton – a judicial moderate-conservative – and also a former US Senator (making him the last elected federal official to make it on to the court) resigned from the court due to illness. Appointed by President Harry Truman to support the New Deal agenda, Minton would become a vocal advocate of judicial restraint on the Supreme Court. For nearly eight years on the highest court, Minton was a walking example of the ability of a judge to separate his or her personal political agenda from his judicial rulings.

Unfortunately, Justice Minton suffered from a rare Vitamin B-12 deficiency (known as Pernicious Anemia). His symptoms – fatigue, memory loss, lightheadedness and weight-loss had become so severe that he abruptly retired from the court in October of 1956 (with less than 4 weeks to go before the 1956 election.)

Eisenhower was running for re-election facing Adlai Stevenson (again). A little more than a month earlier Eisenhower had suffered a massive heart attack which initially unsettled the election dynamic. He faced a dilemma. Having already appointed two Justices to the court, he could wait until after the election and minimize the Supreme Court’s impact on his race or he could go forward with a nomination and potentially disrupt the election.

Eisenhower chose a third way. He made a recess appointment – the last one we’ve seen on the modern Supreme Court. His choice – William J. Brennan – would join the court as a recess appointment, participate in over a half dozen cases, yet still manage to receive a voice vote confirmation in 1957.

Today President Donald Trump faces a similar dilemma.

Contrary to precedent and Article III of the U.S. Constitution, progressives say that RBG’s vacancy should not be filled by Trump. Instead, they argue that the Ginsburg seat is historically “owned” by the left and consequentially shouldn’t be filled by a conservative.

However, that is exactly what Bill Clinton did when he appointed Ginsburg. Byron White – one of the two votes against Roe V. Wade – a conservative on the court was replaced by Ginsburg. Using their logic, if a conservative jurist takes the “Ginsburg seat”, it would be returning to form.

Contrary to the Constitution’s clear mandate for the president, progressives claim that they will eliminate the Senate filibuster, pack the court and maybe even add new states if the president goes forward with plans to replace Ginsburg.

Just as worrisome are the outside voices that hint that violence will ensue over Ginsburg’s replacement. Former CNN host Reza Aslan tweeted: if Republicans seek to fill the vacancy, “we burn the entire f—ing thing down.” Not to be outdone, GQ columnist promised that “there will be riots” if the president replaces Ginsburg.

In 1956 – less than a month before the election – partisans sat on the sidelines and allowed the Constitution’s outline to guide the incumbent president’s actions. It is quite telling that such an approach has been largely dismissed today.

After the recess appointment, Eisenhower’s campaign would recover and he’d go on to win a landslide re-election carrying 41 states in the process. Furthermore, his recess appointee would be confirmed without a second thought early the following year.

Today partisans claim that nominating a replacement for Ginsburg could overwhelm this year’s federal elections.

One solution that the president could take would be to follow Eisenhower’s example: recess appoint Amy Coney Barrett to the seat and then nominate her after Thanksgiving. Putting her on the court now would guarantee that the Supreme Court has a full complement when or if it faces election-related challenges and would ensure the court could issue final binding rulings while also making sure that Congress isn’t overwhelmed with the politics of a vitriolic confirmation.

Amy Coney Barrett, a devout Catholic and mother of seven from Indiana, is a Notre Dame grad and presently sits on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. For the past three years, she’s built a reputation as a serious scholar committed to judicial restraint and the US Constitution. If successfully confirmed to the Supreme Court now at 48 years of age, she could easily serve 35 years.

Importantly her addition to the court would go a long way toward making the Supreme Court an unwelcome place for litigants seeking to impose unpopular left-wing social schemes under the guise of Constitutional law on the American people.

What worked in 1956 could work again in 2020.

Horace Cooper is a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research and author of the recently published: “How Trump is Making Black America Great Again”

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.



  • Barrett may be the ideal pick from a Republican viewpoint, but Laboa is nearly as solid and has the political advantage of being a minority woman whose appointment would almost certainly secure Florida for Trump.

  • Too clever by half. Nominating and confirming Judge Barrett in 30 days or less would humiliate the leftists on the Judiciary Committee, demoralize Biden’s voters and encourage Trump’s.

    And the downside is Biden voters rioting? They are doing that anyway. Will not confirming
    Barrett stop them? No, of course not. And if confirming her somehow “triggers” their rioting, is that Trump’s fault. No, of course not.

    And the downside is the Marxist DNC packing the Court and granting statehood to Puerto Rico and DC? They promised to do that before Ginsburg’s passing.

    And the downside is that Congress will be overwhelmed by a partisan confirmation process? So what? They aren’t going to get anything done between now and the election anyway.

    Grassley was a disaster with Kavanaugh. The Republicans need to have someone with more native aggression manage the process. Graham? No. Perhaps Cruz or Marsha Blackburn or Josh Hawley.

    But do it as soon as possible. Any minimize the possibilities for Democrat clowns grandstanding.

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!