RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[fransalley]

My husband is predicting “war” over RBG’s replacement.  

On a lighter note, my son’s comment on her passing was, “Special report got me again!”
(For those not aware, he’s 21 and has autism.). He was watching Jeopardy when the news broke that she had died.  He’s had several times when a “special report” interrupted a show he was watching and it’s rather annoying to him.

I told him that RBG was the second woman appointed to the SCOTUS and that he’d be hearing a lot about her in the next few days.  

As for me, I will pray and realize that there are some things I can’t control.  But I’ll be honest, I do get terribly scared at times and I would love to head for another country.  My husband, however, doesn’t see the need; and since we have a son with special needs, I don’t think another country would take us.  Also, yanking him away from his support system would not be good for him.

[nausicaa]

13 hours ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

HA a woman, Don is too much of a misogynist to do that. What ever man they have that will suck don's dick is in. 

Amy Coney Barrett is the front runner pick and has been for years. For someone who makes so many grand pronouncements about politics, you don't seem to actually bother to learn much about it. 

Also scratching my head at how the GOP is now pro-Communist, but okay... 

7 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

I just hope that should Mitch try to ram through an objectionable nominee this will unite more leftists and radicals in backing Biden-Harris along with centrists and moderates.

I think this is very, very good for Biden's campaign. It will ignite the base and bring over independents who don't like the thought of a too conservative court. 

ActBlue broke fundraising records last night. At one point they were bringing in $100,000 per minute. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/elections/democrats-shatter-the-actblue-sites-donation-records-in-the-hours-after-ginsburgs-death.html

I've also been reading up on Barrett and she stated in 2013 that Roe v. Wade has pretty much been decided in terms of legality, and now it's just a question of public funding. I know people are scared about abortion access, and I am too, but it will be very difficult to overturn Roe with nearly fifty years of precedent. 

Barrett is also against the death penalty. Which I've already seen some hard right conservatives up in arms about. 

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by nausicaa

[Casserole]

I'm devastated by her loss.. but I am SO FUCKING ANGRY that this phenomenal, force to be reckoned with, 87 year old woman fighting pancreatic cancer was on her death bed worrying about the democracy of this nation, literally carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. She deserved peace and retirement and restful time with her family in her final days. She did everything she could for us and we couldn't even give her that. She deserved so much more. 

Jewish tradition says that a person who dies on Rosh Hashanah is a tzaddik, which is a person of great righteousness. Couldn't be more true. 

My heart hurts. 

[PsyD2013]

12 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

Sadly, I think Donald and Mitch will push through the biggest dick they can find, figuratively and possibly literally, too. (I'm not sure that they would nominate a woman.)

I think Bitch and Fuckopotumus will push Amy Coney Barrett through.  She aligns with the far right philosophy of the US as a theocracy.  She is only in her 40's and thus could sit on the bench for 30-40 years.   If the orange ass wins another term we are truly fucked as there is the potential for him to appoint more Supreme Court justices.  I fear for the direction our country is headed.  

[Four is Enough]

8 minutes ago, Casserole said:

Jewish tradition says that a person who dies on Rosh Hashanah is a tzaddik, which is a person of great righteousness. Couldn't be more true. 

My heart hurts. 

She certainly was.. and, like yours,  my heart has been battered once more. I do not know how much more I can take from this administration or this year. it's not even October.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Four is Enough

[Casserole]

11 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

She certainly was.. and, like yours,  my heart has been battered once more. I do not know how much more I can take from this administration or this year. it's not even October.

My feelings after learning of her passing last night were like deja vu of that long ago November night in 2016. Gut wrenching dread and fear with the need to vomit and cry simultaneously. 

[SPHASH]

Doug Collins is a cunt:

 

[thoughtful]

1 hour ago, Casserole said:

I'm devastated by her loss.. but I am SO FUCKING ANGRY that this phenomenal, force to be reckoned with, 87 year old woman fighting pancreatic cancer was on her death bed worrying about the democracy of this nation, literally carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. She deserved peace and retirement and restful time with her family in her final days. She did everything she could for us and we couldn't even give her that. She deserved so much more. 

I am feeling much the same. I am so sad for her family, and for the loss to the world of such an amazing person.

And the sadness is coupled with fear, and because of that fear, a mix of rage and disbelief at the bizarre fact that so much of our freedom and the future of the world rested on one pair of shoulders. That Mitch and his band of assholes brought us to the point that we were all so terrified of one brave, brilliant person retiring or dying, and are now dreading the aftermath, is insane.

I don't want to feel selfish because I am frightened of what will come next - I want to be free to just mourn a great person the world has lost. I want to know that there are enough decent, fair judges and legislators out there to counter the evil, so that we can just talk about RBG and what a fine person she was.

They've taken even that from us.

But we have to discuss what may come next, and our fears, as we honor her.

[Black Aliss]

14 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

Sadly, I think Donald and Mitch will push through the biggest dick they can find, figuratively and possibly literally, too. (I'm not sure that they would nominate a woman.)

Oh, he certainly will! He had to have known about RBG's passing before he took the stage at the rally last night, but by not mentioning it, he could trot out his favorite "joke"--that he'd nominate Ted Cruz because he'd get unanimous senate approval because everyone wants him out of the senate. 

There really is no bottom to this administration.

13 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

I hate to be negative, but we've hoped Collins would do things before. She might hint that she'll consider it, but she has the spine of a jellyfish.

Right. At most she will purse her lips disapprovingly and say she is very concerned. And then do McConnell's bidding. 

[haroldtheyrefundies]

I'm sad that when I heard about RBG's passing all I can think about my future if Trump wins again and we don't have her. I called my sister last night and her and her friends were drunk and were coming up with our plan to move to Canada if Trump wins again. I'm going to have to get my passport and I am just so sad that our rights was all on this woman's shoulders. I wish I could be spending this time focusing on her legacy and all of the great things that she accomplished during her time here on Earth, but sadly I can't. I'm more scared and terrified now that we could have 4 more years of Trump and not have her to protect us. May her memory be a blessing. 

[WiseGirl]

As far as I'm concerned 2020 can rot in Hell.

RBG,  if there's an afterlife can you reach down and smite MoscowMitch, 45, Lindsey, Cruz, and Barr as well?

My heart goes out to her family who are not allowed to grieve.

This is crushing and anxiety producing.

FJers that live in another country how much extra room do you have? (Back to making contingency plans). But then I saw this...so I'm mad as hell and will fight in order to honor the notorious #RBG and help my country unless I really do have to flee to ?? (closest country to me).

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by WiseGirl
Spelling

[ignorantobserver]

Can I ask a rather naive question ? What could realistically be the impact of this event ? If we imagine that her replacement turns out to be a rapidly pro-life, anti-gay person with ties to dominionist cercles : what kind of damage could be done ? Is there a realistic possiblity that abortion might be outlawed again ? Or homosexuality ? That marital rape gets legalised again ? I have trouble imagining that a single judge could have that kind of impact. What would be, in concrete terms, the worst case scenario ?

[EmmieJ]

17 hours ago, PennySycamore said:

And to my fellow/sister American citizens:  GET OUT AND VOTE!   WEAR A MASK AND VOTE IN PERSON AND EARLY IF YOU CAN (unless you're in a state already set up for vote by mail.)  Do NOT trust that mail-in absentee voting is going to work as it should.  If you need to register, do it!

I have voted by mail-in ballot for close to 20 years.  This year, I'll be personally delivering my ballot to our local election division office on Oct. 31st.  In my county, there are many options other than mailing or voting in person.  I don't want a blue wave, I want a blue tsunami.

RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[AuntK]

Was it just me or did anyone else hope something had happened to the orange baboon when the networks broke into regular programming last night with, "SPECIAL BREAKING NEWS?"

[ignorantobserver]

6 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

FJers that live in another country how much extra room do you have? (Back to making contingency plans). But then I saw this...so I'm mad as hell and will fight in order to honor the notorious RBG.

We have a spare room ! (And we live right next to a vineyard, so there will always be enough drinks to forget your troubles.)

Seriously, I think it's a very honourable thing to see this tragic event as an opportunity to continue RBGs legacy, and to fight for the political culture in your country. I think the US have the advantage of possessing a great number of active, politically engaged citizens who feel responsible for their community and do their best to shape public life for the common good. This culture of local political actions, the possibility for individuals to have an impact in their hometown and in their region is something I admire a lot.

[GreyhoundFan]

44 minutes ago, ignorantobserver said:

Can I ask a rather naive question ? What could realistically be the impact of this event ? If we imagine that her replacement turns out to be a rapidly pro-life, anti-gay person with ties to dominionist cercles : what kind of damage could be done ? Is there a realistic possiblity that abortion might be outlawed again ? Or homosexuality ? That marital rape gets legalised again ? I have trouble imagining that a single judge could have that kind of impact. What would be, in concrete terms, the worst case scenario ?

The damage could be huge. If the supremes have a significant reich-wing majority, they can and will select cases from the lower courts that are in relation to the topics you mention. Once they hear those cases, they can (and likely will) rule in a way to hurt the rights of so many people. This is why all those bright red states have been pushing the insane heartbeat bills, knowing they would face legal challenges, hoping that they work their way to the supreme court after RBG's passing, assuming that 45 would nominate a far right person, who would encourage the other RW supremes to uphold the heartbeat laws, which would effectively nullify Roe v. Wade. So RvW wouldn't be overturned directly, but it would be impossible to get an abortion in those states after a ridiculously early period, like six weeks.

There would also likely be other outrageous laws passed in ruby red states to limit the actions of others, like the stupid bathroom bills, or "religious freedom" bills (I don't have to serve you if you're gay because Jesus) in the hope that they work their way to the new uber rightwing supreme court.

One person can definitely have that impact because it tilts the balance of power in a dangerous fashion.

[ignorantobserver]

12 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

If the supremes have a significant reich-wing majority, they can and will select cases from the lower courts that are in relation to the topics you mention. Once they hear those cases, they can (and likely will) rule in a way to hurt the rights of so many people.

Thank you for your explanations ! So the Supreme Court can choose cases ? They can independently decide what cases are important enough for them ? That's indeed a frightening idea.

[GreyhoundFan]

6 minutes ago, ignorantobserver said:

Thank you for your explanations ! So the Supreme Court can choose cases ? They can independently decide what cases are important enough for them ? That's indeed a frightening idea.

Yes, every year there are many cases sent to SCOTUS, far more than they can hear. So they select cases, usually ones that have a broad impact. They can also send cases back to a lower court.

The WaPo did a superb analysis. It is lengthy, but a worthwhile read: "The Daily 202: Nine implications of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death – for 2020 and beyond"

Spoiler

The Supreme Court announced at 7:28 p.m. on Friday that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died from complications of pancreatic cancer. NPR reported that the 87-year-old liberal lioness dictated this statement to her granddaughter as she lost strength in her final days: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced at 8:51 p.m. that “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor.” That was almost the exact amount of time it took McConnell to announce after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016 that whomever President Barack Obama nominated would not receive a vote.

Trump called McConnell on his flight back to Washington from a rally in Minnesota to say he likes Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and Barbara Lagoa of the 11th Circuit, two people briefed on the discussion tell Seung Min Kim.

More than a thousand people spontaneously gathered outside the Supreme Court by 9:30 p.m. Many brought lilies and tulips to place on the steps. The flag was lowered to half-staff, and the crowd began to sing “This Land is our Land.” 

Adrienne Jacobs, 30, raced over on an electric scooter as soon as she heard the news. She clutched a friend, who sobbed into her shoulder so hard that her glasses fogged up. “I live alone,” she told one of my colleagues, “and I didn’t want to be alone.” 

Just like this week’s crisp autumn air in Washington, the October Surprise of the 2020 election came two weeks before October. Politics is always about power, but the bare-knuckled brawl we are about to witness will be American politics at its rawest. As the nation mourns and partisans gear up for combat, here are nine implications of this seismic news:

1) Trump will probably nominate a woman in the next few days.

Facing historically-large gender gaps in public and private polls, it seems unfathomable that Trump would put up a man to replace a feminist pioneer like Ginsburg, especially so close to the election and after his previous pick for the high court, Brett Kavanaugh, was accused of sexual assault during the confirmation process.

Barrett, only 48, was confirmed to her post in late 2017 on an almost party-line vote. The only two Democrats who defected were Sens. Joe Manchin (W.V.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.), who was defeated the next year. As a devout and outspoken Roman Catholic (she has seven children), she has left little doubt in her public comments and jurisprudence about her deeply-held hostility to reproductive rights. “Your legal career is but a means to an end, and … that end is building the kingdom of God,” Barrett said in a 2006 speech to graduates of Notre Dame, where she attended law school.

Politico reports that Barrett is “considered the leading contender,” citing four people familiar with the matter: “She has strong support inside the White House Counsel’s office, which had already vetted her paperwork when she was nominated for the appellate court.”

Bloomberg News also said “Barrett swiftly emerged as an early front-runner.”

Axios reported in March 2019 that Trump told several confidants in multiple conversations that he would nominate Barrett for Ginsburg’s seat if he got the chance. “I'm saving her for Ginsburg,” Trump purportedly said.

The Fix’s Aaron Blake looks at four other women Trump already put on the federal bench who he has identified as potential SCOTUS picks: Britt Grant, 42, who clerked for Kavanaugh; Lagoa, 52, was the first Hispanic woman to serve on the Florida Supreme Court; Joan Larsen, 51, a former Michigan state Supreme Court justice; and Allison Eid, 55, an Egyptian American who replaced Neil Gorsuch on the 10th Circuit and once clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

The president tweeted Saturday that he will move “without delay” to fill the vacancy:

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has promised to nominate the first African American woman to the Supreme Court if he is elected, but he has backed away from comments earlier this year that he would release a list of potential justices. “The voters should pick the president, and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider,” Biden told reporters on Friday night.

2) A Senate vote on Trump’s nominee seems most likely to occur during the lame-duck session after the election. 

McConnell gave no timeline in his public statement for when Trump’s nominee would get a vote, just that there will be a vote. Republicans control the Senate by 53 to 47 votes. Vice President Pence can break ties. In a private email last night, McConnell urged his members to “keep your powder dry.”

“Over the coming days, we are all going to come under tremendous pressure from the press to announce how we will handle the coming nomination,” he wrote. “For those of you who are unsure how to answer, or for those inclined to oppose giving a nominee a vote, I urge you all to keep your powder dry. This is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret.”

“At least two GOP senators indicated in interviews before Ginsburg’s death that they would not support filling a Supreme Court vacancy so close to Election Day,” Kim reports. “Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a perennial swing vote on contentious confirmation fights, told the New York Times earlier this month that she would not support voting to confirm a new justice in October, saying, ‘I think that’s too close, I really do.’ … And in an interview with Alaska Public Media that occurred Friday ahead of the news of Ginsburg’s death, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — another consistent swing vote — said she would not vote to confirm a justice before the election, either. … Aides to both women declined to confirm those remarks after the news of Ginsburg’s death.”

A spokeswoman for Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), the 2012 GOP presidential nominee who voted to find Trump guilty of abusing his power after the impeachment trial, flatly denied as “fake news” a Twitter rumor on Friday night that her boss had committed to not fill a vacancy before the inauguration. “This is grossly false,” said Liz Johnson, the spokeswoman. Romney made no mention of what to do about the vacancy in his own statement offering condolences.

A wildcard: In Arizona, where Democrat Mark Kelly has consistently been favored over appointed GOP Sen. Martha McSally to finish the rest of the late John McCain’s term, the winner could be sworn in as early as Nov. 30, according to Republican and Democratic elections lawyers who spoke to the Arizona Republic.

A report from the Congressional Research Service in 2018 found that it has taken an average of about 70 days for the Senate to confirm a president’s nominee. The election is 45 days away. It usually takes a while for documents to be submitted and reviewed, FBI background checks to be completed, hearings to be held, etc.

3) This vacancy gives Trump the opportunity to reframe the presidential race away from the coronavirus.

Polls show Trump losing to Biden nationally, as well as in the battlegrounds most likely to decide the election. Majorities of Americans disapprove of his handling of the pandemic. Even though nearly 200,000 Americans have died from the contagion, it seems probable that the court vacancy will become a, if not the, central focus of the homestretch. It will certainly be a major issue in the first presidential debate in 10 days.

A Marquette Law School national survey to gauge public opinion about the Supreme Court, completed three days before Ginsburg’s death and released Saturday, found that she was the best known of the nine justices. She was seen favorably by 44 percent and unfavorably by 19 percent. The survey found that 48 percent described the choice of the next justice as “very important” to them and 34 percent said it is “somewhat important,” while 17 percent say it is not too or not at all important to them. 

Notably, the Marquette poll found that 67 percent of the country thought there should be hearings if a vacancy were to occur during the 2020 election year and 32 percent said there should not. Among likely voters who support Biden, 59 percent said the next court appointment is very important. Among likely voters who support Trump, 51 percent said so. That latter number will probably spike now that there actually is a vacancy. 

4) This vacancy will drive up turnout and energy on both sides, but it could wind up motivating the right more than the left.

When Trump announced last week that he might nominate Republican Sens. Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton or Josh Hawley for the next Supreme Court vacancy, I wrote about how judicial appointments might wind up motivating the left in 2020 more than the right. That would be a major reversal from 2016.

There were early indications of just how much RBG’s death will galvanize the left. Democratic donors gave more money online in the 9 p.m. hour than in any other single hour since ActBlue launched 16 years ago: $6.2 million. But that record was broken in the 10 p.m. hour, when donors gave Democratic candidates $6.3 million – which the Times notes is more than $100,000 per minute.

Demand Justice, a liberal advocacy group created to get Democratic voters to care more about judicial appointments, put out word that it will launch a $10 million ad campaign aimed at keeping the seat open. 

But, but, but: Conservatives who are uncomfortable with Trump but care deeply about abortion also now have a reason to get engaged in the race. Privately, even many Democratic strategists acknowledged privately that this will bring some wayward evangelicals back into Trump’s camp.

Quote of the day

“This is an animating issue for the entire right,” said a former White House official. “It unifies everybody from Mitt Romney to the most hardcore MAGA Trump person out there at a time when Trump needed that. It will give something to fight for over the next 45 days or so that could potentially remind people, ‘Okay, this is why I voted for Trump, and this is why even if he makes me crazy sometimes, I’ve got to stick with him.’” (Phil Rucker, Matt Viser, Sean Sullivan and Bob Costa)

5) This vacancy makes ticket splitting less likely in November, increasing the odds that Republicans hold the Senate.

The 2016 election was the first time since the direct election of senators started more than a century earlier that the same party won the presidential and Senate race in every single state. Fewer people split their tickets. 

This is how, even though the 2018 midterms brought a blue wave in the House, Republicans expanded their majority in the Senate. Four Democratic senators lost reelection in states Trump had carried in 2016, including Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, Donnelly in Indiana, Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Bill Nelson in Florida. A major reason that conservatives voted for GOP challengers in those states was because of the Kavanaugh fight. That said, exit polls made clear that anger about Kavanaugh, and the treatment of professor Christine Blasey Ford, motivated many suburban women to vote for Democratic candidates in House races. 

If this dynamic reapplies to the 2020 Senate map, it seems like Ginsburg’s death is going to be bad news for Collins in Maine, who has already been under fire in her blue state for voting to confirm Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. A New York Times-Siena College poll published Friday, before the news, found that 55 percent of likely voters in Maine opposed Collins’s vote for Kavanaugh, while 38 percent approved. Democrat Sarah Gideon led Collins by 5 points, 49 percent to 44 percent, in the poll, which also found that Mainers trust Biden over Trump to make a Supreme Court pick by a 22 point margin, 59 percent to 37 percent.

But the unexpected vacancy is very likely to work to the advantage of incumbents like McConnell, who is running for reelection in a red state where Trump remains more popular than him, as well as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who averted a primary challenge in 2020 because of his vigorous defense of Kavanaugh. Polls show Graham is in a tight race, but even a very vicious court fight will probably play right into his hands and could make the difference.

A Supreme Court opening, and the culture wars that will come with it, will also make it harder for Democratic challengers to score upsets in red states like Montana, Kansas and Texas. But it will hurt someone like Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) since Trump is widely expected to lose that state in the general election. 

In a purple state like North Carolina, the vacancy will make the Senate race more of a base election than it would have been otherwise. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was trailing Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham by 5 points, 42 percent to 37 percent, in a Times-Siena poll released this week. But voters were more evenly divided on the Supreme Court, with 47 percent trusting Biden most to pick a new justice and 44 percent preferring Trump. Tillis responded to Ginsburg’s death by reframing his race as a referendum on “the future of the Supreme Court” and the contrast between the conservatives he and Trump would support and “the liberal activist” Biden would nominate and Cunningham would vote to confirm. 

For a host of reasons, it seems unlikely that Trump would nominate any of the three senators on his shortlist for the Ginsburg seat. Cruz (R-Tex.) said on Fox Business last weekend that, while he was honored to be included, he does not want to get nominated. “It’s not the desire of my heart,” he said. “I want to be in the political fight.” Cruz, who plans to run for president in 2024, has written a 256-page book about the Supreme Court that will be published on Oct. 6, called: “One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History.”

6) Few Republican senators will care about being charged with rank hypocrisy.

Obama said in a statement at 11:51 p.m. on Friday that the Senate should adhere to the standard McConnell created in 2016. “A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment,” the former president said. “The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard.”

McConnell justified his flip-flop by arguing that Republicans control the Senate and White House in 2020 while two different parties controlled those institutions in 2016. “Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary,” he said. 

There are countless videos of GOP senators saying it would be terrible to confirm as justice in an election year, but there is little reason to think that most of them will feel any compunction about completely reversing themselves. Consider some of these examples:

In February 2016, nine months before the election, Gardner told the Denver Post: “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

Graham, now chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, even promised in March 2016 that he would oppose anyone Trump tried to put on the Supreme Court in 2020: “I want you to use my words against me: If there’s a Republican president … and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.’ And you could use my words against me, and you’d be absolutely right. We are setting a precedent here today, Republicans are,” he said. “That’s going to be the new rule."

“No Supreme Court nominee should be considered by the Senate before the next president is sworn into office,” Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) said on the Senate floor in 2016.

“This is about the fact that we have a president who is moving out of his residency and we have a very, very significant election coming up where we want the people to speak out. We want to hear their opinion on this. They will do that by electing a new president,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).

“I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in 2016. “I would say that if it was a Republican president!”

Don’t hold your breath that Rubio will say that now that it’s a Republican president.

When Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 1992, he had said: “Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. Otherwise, it seems to me, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.” McConnell repeatedly cited that quote four years ago to justify blocking Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, and to attack Biden as a hypocrite. 

Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris now sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will consider any nomination. “Tonight, we mourn,” California’s junior senator said in a statement late Friday night. “Tomorrow, we fight for her legacy.” 

7) There will be immense pressure from the left for Democrats to pack the Supreme Court if they win the Senate majority.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) tweeted at 9 p.m. on Friday: “Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.” This has 41,000 retweets and nearly 180,000 likes.

Markey laying this marker quickly caused private grumbling among top Democrats who will be combatants in the looming confirmation battle. They fear that this will be the far left’s new “defund the police” mantra, which may sound good to some hardcore lefties in the streets but repels moderate voters who actually decide elections. 

Liberal calls for court packing seem more likely to motivate Republicans than Democratic voters. The Marquette poll released Saturday shows 61 percent of Democrats favor increasing the number of justices on the court, while 39 percent oppose doing so. Only 34 percent of Republicans favored expanding the court, and 65 percent oppose it.

Biden spoke out against adding more justices to the court during the Democratic primary contest last year when some of his rivals were pushing the idea.

Nevertheless, expect some liberal leaders to persist in calling any Trump nominee illegitimate and pushing senators and Democratic candidates to endorse packing the court. In fact, a flood of commentary to that effect published overnight. 

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, makes the case for court packing in the Los Angeles Times: “The number of justices on the court is set by federal law, not the Constitution. Since its beginnings, it has ranged from having between five and 10 members. Since the 1860s, it has remained at nine. When President Franklin Roosevelt suggested expanding the Supreme Court in the 1930s to overcome court hostility to the New Deal, he was repudiated for trying to pack the court. But the current situation is different. This would be a response to chicanery by Republicans.”

“Democrats are in the minority in the Senate (although the Democratic ‘minority’ represents 15 million more people than the Republican ‘majority’),” writes Vox’s Ian Millhiser. “Trump’s two previous Supreme Court appointees … also share a dubious distinction. They are the only members of the Supreme Court in history to be nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country. If Trump fills the Ginsburg seat, fully one-third of the Court will be controlled by judges with no democratic legitimacy. … But Democrats still have one tool left in their chest. And if they don’t use it, well, Trumpism is likely to dominate the Supreme Court for decades or more.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will be at risk of a primary challenge from the left in 2022, perhaps from a marquee name like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if he is perceived as not pulling out all the stops to block Trump’s pick. He reacted to Ginsburg’s death by repeating, verbatim, McConnell’s own words from right after Scalia’s death:

? The coming fight will further erode public confidence in the neutrality and independence of the courts.

It is unimaginable now, but Ginsburg was confirmed by the Senate in 1993 on a 96 to 3 vote. There will probably never again be such a lopsided vote for someone to go on the highest court in the land. An angry and fragile country is about to become much more so. 

“Political leaders are plotting scored-earth tactics on ground that is already scorched,” Politico founding editor John Harris writes in a column. “The violent summer of 2020 made clear how combustible this country is when significant numbers of Americans conclude that the system is not on the level, that official power is untethered to principle, that familiar pieties about neutral law and blind justice are fraudulent. The fall of 2020 has now arrived with what promises to be an all-consuming debate in which important people are not even pausing to mouth those pieties.”

9) Chief Justice John Roberts will no longer be the swing vote on the Supreme Court.

Confirming a Trump pick would create a 6-to-3 majority for GOP-appointed justices. A conservative replacing Ginsburg will have vastly greater consequences on the law than Gorsuch replacing Scalia and would dilute Roberts’s power as the median justice. That could reverberate for generations.

“Roberts emerged as the pivotal member of the court in its most recent term, sometimes siding with his fellow conservatives to form a majority and sometimes with the court’s liberals. But his power depends on his being at the center of the court, with four justices more conservative and four more liberal,” writes Robert Barnes, our longtime Supreme Court beat reporter. “Thomas, 72, and Samuel A. Alito Jr., 70, consistently take positions more conservative than those of Roberts, who has shown he is more interested in preserving the court’s reputation as being above the partisan fray than in reaching the conservative outcomes he might personally favor. For instance, in the term just completed, Roberts joined liberals in striking down a restrictive abortion law in Louisiana. It was the first time he had voted against abortion restrictions, but he said the outcome of the case was dictated by the court’s decision just a few years ago on a similar law in Texas. But the rest of the court’s conservatives went the other way.”

And then there is the Affordable Care Act. A week after the upcoming elections, the court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case brought by Republicans to invalidate the 2010 health care law. Roberts has twice saved the ACA in 5-4 rulings by joining Ginsburg. The Trump administration is supporting the case to get rid of the law in its entirety, and a new Trump justice could deliver the decisive fifth vote to make that happen.

As if I needed another thing to worry about, I had forgotten about the Repug efforts to blow away the Affordable Care Act, which is coming to SCOTUS in November. I can't afford to be without insurance.

[ignorantobserver]

Thank you so much @GreyhoundFan, what an interesting read ! I hope however that none of the frightening scenarios you imagine will come true.

Edited September 19, 2020 by ignorantobserver

[GoddessOfVictory]

2 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

As if I needed another thing to worry about, I had forgotten about the Repug efforts to blow away the Affordable Care Act, which is coming to SCOTUS in November. I can't afford to be without insurance.

This is the most immediate fear for me. I can't afford insurance without the ACA.

[GreyhoundFan]

Yes, but with a much bigger glass...

 

[ADoyle90815]

I know I can never leave California, since we at least have a form of the ACA which would still be in effect. Also, even though I'm furloughed, the health insurance I have through my job is still going to be paid. I'm just glad I have the copper IUD which I intend to keep until I'm finally through menopause as I got it back in 2017. My concern is for my niece as who knows what will happen to her bodily autonomy if a reigh wing Supreme Court is established. My fight is for her and her generation.

The ironic thing is that I finished The Testaments the day before RGB died. I guess I could become a Mayday spy or something.

Edited September 19, 2020 by ADoyle90815

[GreyhoundFan]

It's sad that the people of MO chose that weenie Josh Hawley over Claire.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"What happens to Roe v. Wade without Ruth Bader Ginsburg?"

Spoiler

This piece was first published on Sept. 10. It has been updated to reflect the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sept. 18.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday, after a years-long battle with cancer. A pioneer for women’s equality, Ginsburg was known as a fierce protector of abortion rights, defending the precedent set in Roe v. Wade in many cases since she became the second woman to join the high court in 1993. As soon as the news broke, advocates on both sides of the abortion debate began asking the question: Without Ginsburg on the court, what happens to Roe v. Wade?

President Trump could now have an opportunity to appoint a third conservative Supreme Court justice. Ginsburg’s death comes less than two weeks after Trump released his latest shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees. Three names in particular attracted attention: GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.). The senators are conservative firebrands with national name recognition, standing out in a selection process that has traditionally considered only career jurists.

All are fervently antiabortion.

Twenty-four hours after he appeared on Trump’s shortlist, Cotton tweeted about Roe v. Wade.

With a Supreme Court that already leans to the right, another conservative appointment could be the death blow for Roe v. Wade, allowing states across the country to ban abortion, said Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University College of Law who specializes in the legal history of reproduction and author of “After Roe: The Lost History of the Abortion Debate.” Even if Roe v. Wade itself is not overturned, she says, the court would likely allow regulations that would effectively make the procedure illegal in many states.

While many expected the court to rule against abortion rights after the appointments of Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch, both conservatives, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sided with the court’s liberal contingent, including Ginsburg, in the latest abortion case to reach the highest court, June Medical Services v. Gee, securing a major victory for abortion rights when the ruling was announced in June. The case overturned a Louisiana law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. The court’s rulings have not shifted farther left, Ziegler says, likely because Roberts wants to protect its nonpartisan reputation.

He may not be able to hold that line without Ginsburg on the court.

After Trump first released his shortlist, I spoke to Ziegler about how the Supreme Court could change in the coming months.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Caroline Kitchener: What does it mean to lose Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in particular, on reproductive issues?

Mary Ziegler: RBG [was] one of the clearest liberal voices on the court, in terms of why abortion rights matter. There are justices on the court who are about adhering to your principles. ... They don’t necessarily try to get a majority. I would not put RBG in that category. She [was] a savvy strategist, not just throwing down the gauntlet for principle. Primarily she [was] the person on the court who [had] been clearest about what she sees as being the point of abortion rights. That would be significant, because if you’re going to have a more concerted attack on abortion rights within the court, having a counterpoint would be much easier with RBG on the court than without.

CK: If Trump appoints someone like Tom Cotton to the Supreme Court, what are the chances that the court overturns Roe?

MZ: Well, there is already a path to overturning Roe, as the court stands right now. Certainly if you add somebody else who is very conservative, it makes that more likely. We would expect someone like Tom Cotton to move much more aggressively on abortion rights than other [conservative] justices. While the court is viewed by many as a political institution, many of the justices don’t want it to be that way.

Tom Cotton has been a very vocal supporter of President Trump, and he is very pro-life. Cotton would be approaching the court not just as a career politician but as a career politician who has been decidedly unafraid of controversy. He likely wouldn’t think about abortion as something that needs a lot of extra consideration because of the precedent in place, as other justices do.

CK: How likely is it that the court will shift significantly to the right if Trump appoints another justice?

MZ: When we [thought] about what the court [was] likely to do on abortion [before Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death], we [were] thinking primarily about what Justice John G. Roberts Jr. [was] likely to do. That’s an oversimplification, of course, but he [was] the perceived swing vote. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg is replaced by a conservative like Tom Cotton or Amy Coney Barrett, you would have a court likely to be much quicker to change the rules on abortion.

CK: A lot of people expected the court to immediately move toward overturning Roe after Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were appointed, but that doesn’t seem to have happened. Why not?

MZ: Last term would suggest that all the talk about Roberts’s concern for the court’s reputation — being seen as nonpartisan — has some truth to it. While he’s still moving the law in a conservative direction, he does seem to be constrained by his concerns about the court’s reputation and his own legacy. So it’s hard to imagine in the next year or two a big, splashy decision to overturn Roe v. Wade coming from a court with John G. Roberts Jr. at its center.

CK: If someone like Tom Cotton replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who becomes the next swing vote?

MZ: Justice Brett Kavanaugh would be the most interesting person to watch there. He is a career jurist and very educated. As part of the legal elite, he’s been educated to care about precedent. It’s likely, given his background, that he does sincerely attach some value to precedent — if you are someone who has recently taught classes at Yale Law School, you’re not going to want to come across as a hack. You want to come across as a serious intellectual jurist. So there are personal reputational constraints.

He does seem to have more concern for optics and the court’s reputation than the other three conservatives [besides Roberts]. All that said, he did side with the conservatives in June Medical, so he is a lot more sanguine about the prospect of unraveling abortion rights quickly than Roberts seems to be.

CK: It seems possible that Trump, if reelected, would have the opportunity to appoint two new Supreme Court justices, replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg and potentially Justice Stephen Breyer, who is 82. What happens to abortion rights in that scenario?

MZ: If there are two new conservative justices during Trump’s next term, then you really are getting into a territory where it’s hard to imagine the court not overtly overturning Roe relatively soon. That would probably mean allowing, but not requiring, the states to ban abortion.

With two new conservative justices, you’re talking about Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the swing justice on abortion cases. And there just doesn’t seem to be a lot of suspense in terms of how that would go. We saw this term that Gorsuch will join his liberal colleagues in really unpredictable ways, [as he did in Bostock v. Clayton County, when he held that federal law outlaws discrimination against LGBT employees]. He’s a maverick who is going to do whatever he thinks. But on abortion, it doesn’t seem like his vote will be in question. His opinion in June Medical [which came down against the abortion clinics] hit a lot of pro-life talking points.

CK: Why do you think President Trump chose to put someone like Tom Cotton on his list of potential Supreme Court nominees?

MZ: I think that’s a direct response to recent criticism from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Ark.). This summer a lot of conservatives were very angry at President Trump and at the Supreme Court, particularly after Gorsuch wrote the opinion in Bostock. There was also a lot of disappointment about the outcomes of the DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] ruling and June Medical. Social conservatives expected that the conservative legal movement would deliver results on things like abortion and gay rights. And then those things didn’t happen in the 2020 term. Sen. Hawley came out and said that if Trump really wants social conservatives to come out and vote for him, there needs to be some overhaul of the selection of Supreme Court nominees.

The prototypical nominees, the kinds of people Hawley was fed up with, are people like Kavanaugh and Roberts, who are likely to care about the court’s reputation — who see themselves as jurists and don’t want to come across as partisan. And obviously someone like Tom Cotton would probably not share those concerns.

 

[GreyhoundFan]