Jo Jorgensen

Jo Jorgensen Is 'Fine' With Filling SCOTUS Vacancy Before Election

"If it were me, I would certainly put my nominee forth," Jorgensen says. Partisan bickering over the confirmation process is just "politics as usual."

|

Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen says there's nothing wrong with Republicans confirming a replacement for late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election.

In fact, if she was president, she would do the same thing.

"I'm fine with having a vote now," Jorgensen told Reason on Tuesday night in Virginia. "I'm running for president because I can best lead the country, and if it were me, I would certainly put my nominee forth."

Jorgensen has been darkly amused by the partisan bickering over whether President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) are doing the right thing by trying to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Ginsburg's would-be replacement, before the election. In 2016, of course, Senate Republicans refused to consider then-President Barack Obama's nominee to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, while Democrats pushed for the seat to be filled. This time around, everyone is playing the opposite role.

"It's just politics as usual," says Jorgensen.

As a third-party candidate, Jorgensen is running against politics as usual. If she had the chance to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, Jorgensen says she would look for candidates who recognize limits on the federal government's authority, and who defend both individual liberty and property rights.

A list of prospective Supreme Court nominees released by Jorgensen's campaign includes many preeminent libertarian legal scholars—some of whom will be familiar to Reason readers—and judges. One of her picks, Judge Don Willett of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, also appears on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court shortlist.

The list originally included Alan Dershowitz, the retired Harvard law professor who was a member of the president's impeachment defense team earlier this year. The campaign removed his name after it caused "a controversy," Jorgensen acknowledged Tuesday.

Barrett's name is not on Jorgensen's list, and the Libertarian candidate says she would have picked someone "with a longer track record who more clearly come down on the side of liberty over government authority."

Still, when it comes to Trump's nominee, Jorgensen praises Barrett's textualist approach and says she trusts the judge to uphold "the Second Amendment, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and enumerated powers" if she ends up on the nation's highest court. Jorgensen sees Barrett as improvement over Trump's last pick, Justice Brett Kavanuagh—who has been criticized by libertarians for his expansive views of government surveillance powers and his opinion of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.

But as a matter of procedure, Jorgensen has no qualms about filling the seat.

"The Constitution allows it," she says.

Advertisement

NEXT: Conspiracy Theories Abound After Trump Tests Positive for Coronavirus

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, she’s being truthful about that.

    If the Democrats were honest, they would agree with her, too.

    1. I wouldn’t mind seeing Judge Barrett confirmed, if only because I believe it would precipitate the installation of four new, better justices during the first half of 2021.

      Do your damnedest, clingers . . . so far and so long as your betters permit, that is.

      1. My hope is that Joe Biden does pack the Supreme court with progressive liberals / libertarians. I would be ecstatic if Joe nominated a Black woman, a homosexual, a transgender, and a Muslim to become Supreme court justices!

        1. Progressive liberals (idiot commies) are the only thing that JB would nominate. Zero percent chance of a libertarian.

          1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

            Heres what I do……Money90

        2. How did you lump libertarians together with progressive left liberals?

      2. Funny how our betters can’t seem to win a political argument or get their policies through without subversion.

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…HGf after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do…>> Click here

    2. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare ?Visit Here

    3. ¦A¦M¦A¦Z¦I¦N¦G¦ ¦J¦O¦B¦S¦
      Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85$/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551$.pop over here this site…….COPY HERE====Go For More Details

    4. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and Abe make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

    5. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..Visit Here

    6. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me Abo happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    7. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me jom happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

  2. It’s good that we need a whole lot of discussion to agree on the fact that the president can decide to nominate a justice and the senate can decide whether to confirm that person.

    Win some elections dems and then you get to decide too.

  3. “The Constitution allows it,”

    Mic drop.

    1. The progressive provocateurs here say the Constitution means whatever they want it to. Something something living according to the popular conventions du jour.

      1. They have access to the secret, unabridged version.

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do…>> Click here

        2. The one in Arameic?

  4. In sharp contrast to Schumer, Pelosi and the left wing media, it’s encouraging that Jorgensen agrees with Trump, other Republicans and everyone else who has read and understands the Constitution.

    1. Trump might have the Constitutional right to nominate a Supreme court justice but that doesn’t mean that he has actually read the Constitution. SparkNotes don’t count!

      1. To be fair, several sitting SCOTUS judges haven’t read it either.

        1. It’s not a requirement.

        2. It’s a dry read.

        3. It would get in the way of their interpretations.

      2. No he most likely has not. According to Trump that is what rich [albeit speciously so] guys hire lawyers to do for them.

        But in that vein Leonard Leo vis a vis FEDSOC is doing a pretty decent job.

      3. He probably hasn’t read the constitution. He doesn’t need to. He has legal advisers who have finished law schools on Harvard and Yale. POTUS doesn’t need to be a scholar or a scientist. He only needs to have a good common sense. So far, he has mostly proven that he has common sense.

  5. Well there you have it… Jo Jo’s revealed preference for putting women in chains/preventing baby murder.

    1. You know our society is crazy when those two positions are seen as hyperbolic, when abortion is, of course, the taking of human life. The only reason it’s not technically “murder” is because it’s legal.

  6. “The campaign removed his name after it caused “a controversy,” Jorgensen acknowledged Tuesday.”

    Most disaffected malcontents are spineless — full of bluster, but brittle rather than strong.

    1. And most progtards are self-loathing narcissists who, despite impressive resumes, are completely miserable with their empty lives, so they seek to control others.

    2. You should retreat to your safe space to avoid them.

  7. What?! She doesn’t believe in the DYING WISH PRINCIPLE?

    RBG left clear instructions — her seat must be filled by the next (Democratic) President.

    #LibertariansForRBG

    1. I heard a rumor on Reddit that RBG (RIP) also wished for a 35% corporate tax rate before her untimely death. The American people should honor her last few wishes.

    2. If we are going to recognize “dying wishes” for a Supreme (who doesn’t actually own “her seat”) then how about recognizing my dying wish that whatever assets I have left go to my kids free of federal and state inheritance taxes? I imagine, that if we libertarians are to be given dying wishes for things we don’t actually own or control, then we could come up with quite a list. “It is my dying wish that the Clintons and Obamas be put in prison for trying to throw the 2016 election.”

    3. None of this matters, since RBG isn’t legally dead.

      – And USA Today actually fact-checked this.

      1. “This is a terrible ruling because we’re racist and we hate women,” said a bunch of Republicans, according to anonymous sources.

        Ok that made me laugh out loud.

      2. First Line:

        The headline of an article published by satire website The Babylon Bee is a nod to the contentious history between the Trump administration and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

        A whole lot o lines including excerpts from the article, a profile of a judge quoted in the article, and examples of things the 9th has blocked.

        Our rating: Satire
        We rate this claim SATIRE, based on our research. A satirical article about the 9th Circuit “overturning” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has no basis in fact. It is true that the 9th Circuit has ruled against many Trump-era policies.

        Followed by a bunch of “fact check” sources”.

        It probably got Chelsey Cox some time away from real work for the day.

  8. OT: The Mask Slips:

    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-01/coronavirus-reopening-health-equity-metric

    CA Gov Newsance has decreed that counties may not open unless they focus on “Equity”. The CA Health site hasn’t been updated, so we don’t get details. But evidently, counties will have to spend more money on “underserved” or “Minority” areas to ensure that they are also healthy.

    So they have thrown off all pretenses. If a county is getting healthy, they don’t get to re-open until they spend money on liberal causes. Nice business you got there. It’d be a pity if you couldn’t open it.

    1. Sure that’s one way to look at it.

      Another way to look at it, is that counties don’t get to reopen by virtue of county officials rigging the stats, trying to balance high infection rates in poor areas with low infection rates in rich areas, to make it seem like the county is doing better than it really is.

      1. So you’re saying that the Democrats who run the larger counties in California are cooking the COVID books to get their economies going again, despite Newsom’s efforts to save them from the virus?

        1. I’m saying that there are strong incentives for the officials of any county, Democrat or Republican, to rig the numbers to make themselves look better than they really are, so as to get the economy going again and to get that sweet sweet tax revenue flowing again.

          1. Two observations

            An average of the infection rate being called “better than they really are” is stealing a base. It is simply how they are, better or worse. You gave no other examples of cooking that you are afraid of.

            Second, this,

            ” so as to get the economy going again”

            Why us this a problem, even if the actual reason is “to get that sweet sweet tax revenue flowing again.”

            I want to be completely clear.

            Closing the economy is tyranny. Keeping it closed is tyranny. I give zero f**s why it gets reopened. And I care about mealy mouthed partisan bickering even less.

            1. Closing the economy is tyranny. Keeping it closed is tyranny. I give zero f**s why it gets reopened. And I care about mealy mouthed partisan bickering even less.

              This is where I am now, particularly in the ‘keeping it closed’ circumstance we find ourselves in. A case in point. We are having huge problems in the People’s Republic of NJ. While the national UI rate declines, the People’s Republic UI rate rises. Some estimates are we have lost 20% of our small businesses, permanently. We cannot attend religious services (extreme capacity limits). We cannot peaceably assemble [the notable exception are BLM inspired assemblies, those are Ok according to the progressive politicians here]. Phailing Phil Murphy, the governor of the People’s Republic keeps a lot shut down by executive orders. Incredibly, the People’s Court (NJ Supreme Court) is good with this. And for good measure, the People’s Duma just passed a millionaires tax, and recently increased the gas tax. To top it off, the regulatory framework we have in NJ is a business compliance nightmare.

              The economy has to be opened up immediately.

          2. So, for the sake of argument, why should my suburban business stay closed, just because your rural (or urban) neighborhood 30 miles away is infected? You don’t shop here.

            1. I’m not arguing in favor of the lockdown order in the first place. I’m arguing against the strawmanning of the order. If one assumes the premise – that the state should lockdown counties in order to limit the spread of the disease – then in order to remove the lockdown, the county ought to show that the spread really is limited, and not just trying to use a “good” neighborhood to offset a “bad” neighborhood. But it’s also totally fine to reject the premise in its entirety.

      2. Another way to look at it, is that counties don’t get to reopen by virtue of county officials rigging the stats,

        Wait a minute… the entire Jacobin philosophy around “equity” is based on stat-rigging.

        1. Logically, it is the only way to actually achieve “equity”.

      3. When people call you a prog, this is why.

      4. “county officials rigging the stats, trying to balance high infection rates in poor areas with low infection rates in rich areas”

        This is incoherent. Are….you….Gov Newsom?

        The purpose of shutting down counties is to limit the spread of the disease. The very nature of this virus is that it will have outbreaks- that is hot spots of viral activity. That might be in poor areas, or rich areas. The virus doesn’t know your property’s net worth.

        Counties cannot “rig” the stats at all. Either the virus is running rampant (i.e. lots of clusters), or it is getting contained (fewer clusters). Again, this doesn’t have anything to do with the relative wealth of the infected. Either the county is doing well, or it is doing poorly.

        Consider two counties- one where the poor areas are relatively infection free, vs one where the richer areas were healthier. Only the latter one would be shut down, because even though the viral counts were the same, the rich people don’t matter or something.

        Los Angeles county is a shit show. Right next to that is Orange County where people are opening up again. As you get closer to LA, the infection rate gets higher in OC, even though the county as a whole is fine. Gov Newsom cannot stand that. So he has cherry picked this stupid new requirement to shut OC back down, even though it has passed EVERY TEST that he has placed in front of them.

        1. The purpose of shutting down counties is to limit the spread of the disease. The very nature of this virus is that it will have outbreaks- that is hot spots of viral activity. That might be in poor areas, or rich areas. The virus doesn’t know your property’s net worth.

          Come on. Rich people tend to have more resources and more opportunity to limit the spread of the disease if they get infected. They are more likely to be able to work from home. They are more likely to be able to take a furlough from their own jobs, or live off savings or debt, if that is what is required, in order to limit the spread. By contrast, poorer people tend not to have as much of an opportunity to work from home, they tend to be in less of a position to quarantine themselves for 2 weeks so they go to work anyway and likely contribute to the spread if they are infected. So if the idea is to “limit the spread” then the spread really ought to be limited in totality, and not just in some neighborhoods vs. others.

          Now there are plenty of arguments against these lockdown orders. They are an affront to liberty. They are poorly designed. They exaggerate the problems associated with coronavirus. They treat all areas the same, both those at high risk and those at low risk. So if you want to argue against lockdown orders, I say, argue against them on the merits. Don’t assume a strawman position about Newsom’s rationale and argue against that – that is just a cheap shot. Take the steelman approach and argue against that.

          1. “So if the idea is to “limit the spread” then the spread really ought to be limited in totality, and not just in some neighborhoods vs. others.”

            Jeff, it is so tiresome how reflexively you will defend such a ridiculous claim. But even you understand…

            “They are poorly designed.”

            Please consider that you have explained in the second paragraph why the Equity requirement is horseshit. It is poorly designed. Every justification you said in the first section *may* possibly true, since it is bald faced conjecture on your part. It is also wrong, BTW. For example, in Los Angeles, half the fucking city is out of work. So all your clap trap about the poor people having to go to work doesn’t apply. Those poor people- all those people who work in film, construction, teaching, and other services are sitting at home.

            Further, just look at the national level to see how your “rich” areas, like say Manhattan, did vs poorer areas like manhattan. This plays on the county level too, in areas like Imperial where the dense areas are afluent, and the more rural areas are poor.

            But why are you trying to make up some pseudo-scientific reason of why they are doing this? *NEWSOM SAYS WHY HE IS DOING THIS*. And it isn’t to contain the spread. It is to ensure that there is equity. Even if a county is able to keep things under control and limit the spread, if the people who do end up getting the virus are poor, he wants that entire county to lock down. Because this is no longer about limiting the spread, it is about ensuring that hispanics are infected at the same rate as whites.

            1. * Poorer areas like Montanna

            2. And BTW: if in fact your conjecture were true that the poor just naturally have risks that will cause them to get the disease more, then what the fuck do we do about that? Essentially Newsom might as well say “Counties will stay perpetually locked down.”

              Because none of the interventions will change that. Closing restaurants, masks, etc. If you are right that the poor will always have more infections, then the only thing counties can do is pump money into those communities to appease Newsom….i.e. forced redistribution, or IOW liberal policies in order to open up again.

    2. Seems everything they promote, be it the Green New Deal, “systemic” racism, or lockdowns, are a screen for “equity.”

      If they didn’t keep this ball rolling they’d lose to much of their constituency.

      1. It also seems “equity” is a screen for “we get to be in charge and make all the decisions for everyone because we know better.”

    3. The benefits to the underserved/minorities of keeping businesses closed is well documented.

  9. Wait, what’s wrong with Dershowitz? He’s a great legal scholar. Is his legal defense of Trump based on his reading of the constitution really so controversial?

    Also, did Jo weigh in on court-packing or court expansion?

    1. The constitution does not forbid court packing, so I imagine Jo would be totes ok with that too.

      1. Well, if JoJo really was elected and she somehow convinced the court to let her pack the court, who here would really object? Maybe Tony, but who else?

        1. Probably the Senate… This wasn’t a hard question to answer brah.

  10. While she is way better looking than Trump or Biden, something about Jo makes her look like a bank teller from 1991, maybe it’s the bangs?

    1. Nothing wrong with 1991 bank tellers.

    2. I agree. It’s a nerdy look that isn’t hot like a Librarian or the MILF next door. She doesn’t need to get all Hollyweird and dolled up, but a makeover, especially the hair, couldn’t hurt.

      And I’m not being sexist at all. Trump could help his image with less orange and less whatever his hair is. And Biden, FFS. He looks like a skeleton wearing fake skin and plugs. He’s really deteriated physically and mentally. It’s sad the Dems are pushing him as the candidate. Really, nobody else on the bench? And his doctor wife should be ashamed of her Hippocratic oath.

      1. nobody else on the bench?

        No one else who doesn’t scare the hell out of the average voter anyway.

      2. The wife is a doctor of teaching, not medicine. As a mandated reporter because she’s a teacher, she should report herself for elder abuse of Joe.

  11. How can anyone object to Cavanaugh forcing them at gunpoint to pay insurance racketeers protection money that keeps Big Pharma gouging us blind while lying about drug legalization? The communist income capitation tax is explicitly forbidden, as is slavery, yet the Suprema Corte rubber-stamped the 16th Amendment, burned the 13th for conscription, and helped the Prohibition Amendment demolish the economy into a fascist police state. There is still time to have JO pick the next judges. All you need do is vote for your own happiness.

  12. The Republicans play hardball. The Democrats held the Senate from 1954 to 1994 and never refused to hold hearings for a Republican nominee. Confirmed 19 Republican nominations, including two during Election years. They roughed up Bork but they did give him hearings and they promptly confirmed Kennedy. Going forward, both parties will refuse to confirm nominees for the other party. The courts will be understaffed except when the POTUS and Senate are from the same party.

    1. Are you being honest? I’m not sure how things went prior to Bork, but his hearings were off the rails. Clarence Thomas’ confirmation had the engineered sexual harassment bullshit. And every black Dem coming out and calling him an Uncle Tom.

      The GOP has generally been a complete pushover for Dem candidates until Obama; and much of that was in retaliation for the bullshit the Dems played against Bush. But go look at the votes for Ginsburg, Sotomayer or Kagan. You’ll see 80-20 or 92-8. Look at the votes for Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Party line votes.

      Even in 2016, the Dems didn’t want Garland. Nobody did. Even if the GOP allowed the nomination, they could have easily rejected the candidate and likely would have gotten Dem senators to vote against him. Obama could have nominated a better candidate, but Liberals should count their blessings. Gorsuch is not only a Libertarian, mostly, but a great pick to make both parties happy.

  13. I have no idea why the party not in the White House would wait for the next POTUS to appoint their SCOTUS nominee. It seems to me that the POTUS would have to nominate someone favorable to the other party in the Senate as they would face a no vote or filibuster otherwise.

  14. The only way the Libertarians can influence anybody is to register Libertarian. That’s public. Large numbers of registered Libertarians speaks to the two major parties. And keep fighting to participate in the Debate. The main stream media won’t help Libertarians get there message out.
    But this may be a close election, especially if fraud is involved. So vote for Trump. Don’t waste your vote. You definitely don’t want the Democrats to win. They’re much too far to the left.

  15. Did anyway actually care what she thought?

  16. No, this is not politics as usual. This is hypocrisy as usual, Republican hypocrisy. It really is very simple. Republicans are trying to make it more complex by bringing in this different party same party BS but back in 2016 they said not one word about that. All they said was that if a seat opens during an election year then the seat should stay open until after the election so that the people will have a voice.

  17. LOL, 90% of these comments have little to do with Jo Jorgensen directly. With the exception of the “I no longer work at Shoprite. I work for Google now…” ads, this is all pretty much Republican (Fascists) vs Democrat (Commies)!

Please to post comments