“Commit that if a Supreme Court vacancy occurred in the last year of a Republican president's term, he would let the next president make the nomination, explicitly inviting the public to hold him to it.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
HOSTILE upheld after source verification. (1) The promise and its self-accountability invitation are verified: PolitiFact documents Graham's March 2016 statement — "you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination" — plus his explicit invitation, "you could use my words against me, and you'd be absolutely right." (2) The exact triggering scenario arose: Justice Ginsburg died in the final year of Trump's (a Republican president's) term, Sept 2020. (3) Graham did the direct opposite AND championed it: PolitiFact and NPR confirm he publicly reversed, tweeting he would "support President Trump in any effort to move forward," and NPR describes him acting "as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee" who moved the nomination forward — i.e., he led the process, not merely voted. (4) The PRIMARY Senate roll call (Vote 116-2-224) confirms Barrett was confirmed 52-48 with "Graham (R-SC), Yea." Because Graham not only broke a promise he had invited the public to hold him to, but personally led and publicly championed the opposing effort as Judiciary Committee chairman, HOSTILE (not merely MISALIGNED) is the correct rating and does not overstate the cited evidence.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.