Ruth Bader Ginsburg's untimely death has made this year's already contentious election season even more heated. I may not have agreed with her in many cases, but RBG was a great American, and I have a lot of respect for her and what she accomplished. Our President feels the same way. May she rest in peace.
RBG, however, should not be deified. When she passed away, the worship from the Left was unending, and constitutional protocol be damned, the Democrats wanted to honor her supposed wish to keep the seat vacant until after the election. There was no chance that was going to happen, based on history, based on what happened in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, based on RBG's own previously-written opinion on the subject, and regardless of the stupid things many Republicans said when Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in 2016 and the Senate refused to even vote on him.
I'll reiterate what I said back in 2016, and you can check me on it (http://thediblas.blogspot.com/2016/03/scalias-of-justice.html): Of course, all of them [Democrats] now believe that the current Democratic
President should be the one to choose Scalia's successor. That's
because they are all Democrats. If the President was Republican, they
would believe the opposite, just like the Republicans would believe the
opposite of what they are saying now if the President was Republican. Would you look at that--The prophecy has been fulfilled! But wait, there was more...
Regardless of what Republicans may say, Barack Obama is going to nominate someone to fill that seat. Any President would and probably should. But, regardless of what Democrats say, the Senate is not obligated to confirm a nominee or even let it go to a vote. The dishonorable Elizabeth Warren has pointed out that Americans voted for Obama again in 2012, so he should choose Scalia's successor, rather than the next President. However, she failed to mention the massive mid-term losses for Democrats in 2014, where America chose Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. Thus, they have a right to not confirm any of Obama's nominees. And if the shoe were on the other foot? Well, it has been... In fact, Joe Biden led the Democrats in successfully blocking Ronald Reagan's nominee, Robert Bork, from confirmation. Barack Obama tried to filibuster to block Samuel Alito in 2006. Chuck Schumer preemptively encouraged blocking any George W. Bush nominee, when there wasn't even an opening on the Supreme Court (nor did one occur between Schumer's statements and the end of Bush's term).
Now for some more predictions...
Chief Justice John Roberts will now essentially join the three Liberal SCOTUS members (Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor), giving the Conservatives a 5-4 majority, though it wouldn't be surprising to see Kavanaugh shift toward the Center a bit as well. Roberts has gone from Conservative to Center already. Republican Presidents have a terrible record of nominating Justices who consistently side with Conservatives. This is a good thing. I wish the same was true for Democratic Presidents. But the reason it isn't is because the Left views the Supreme Court as a means for activist legislation, whereas the Right just wants to nominate Justices who will interpret and apply the Constitution as Originalists. And even that's been hit or miss with them.
Looking at recent history, David Souter ended up migrating to join the "Liberal Wing" of the court, while Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy ended up in the Center. John Roberts has taken over Anthony Kenndy's vacated spot in the Center, but it would not surprise me at all if he decided to go the way of David Souter after Trump's third nominee gets confirmed next week, which should happen easily.
Amy Coney Barrett is well-qualified to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. In fact, you might even say that she's well-qualified to represent the RBG, though not so much the LBC (sorry, Sublime). As her hearings in the Senate showed, she is a brilliant woman, and a wonderful role model for girls everywhere. She could be the Conservative equivalent of RBG. She made a lot of Senators look silly, especially those who asked silly questions, which were plentiful, and she may soon become my favorite Justice on the court. President Trump, in my opinion, made the best possible decision in nominating ACB to fill RBG's vacant seat.
One of the major worries of many Democrats is that, if ACB is confirmed, Roe v. Wade will be overturned. It certainly opens up that possibility, and one can dream, but I estimate that this is highly unlikely. Even if a case came before SCOTUS where Roe v. Wade could be challenged, there is no chance that Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, or Roberts would opt to overturn Roe v. Wade. Like zero percent. That means that all five of the remaining justices would all need to hold the opposite view. Thomas, Alito, and Barrett are probable to go in that direction, while Gorsuch would possibly go that way, and Kavanaugh is unlikely to do so. I'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned personally, because I hate the murder of unborn children and I think that it was badly decided (by a bunch of men), but I don't believe that this court will do it. Also, if it is somehow overturned, abortion laws would just be kicked back to the states.
I guess we'll have to settle for a court that simply stops our Constitutional rights from being infringed upon, such as our rights under the First and Second Amendments. And it may have to serve as a check against Socialism if the Left controls both the Presidency and Congress. If Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump on 2016, the Justices she nominated could have put some of our rights as peril. If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win in 2020 and the Democrats also win the Senate, court packing (and even adding additional states to create additional Leftist Senators) is a very real and very dangerous possibility. It would de-legitimize the court and the separations of power. And what then would the Republicans do if and when they regained power?
Hopefully the Moderates in the Senate will win the day. And hopefully we see more Moderates on the highest court in the future. I don't think the system is necessarily broken as it currently stands, but I would, by far, rather see changes that force Republicans and Democrats to agree on the confirmation of SCOTUS nominees, regardless of which party is in power in the Senate or the Presidency, than court-packing from either side.
ACB is great though. I wanted President Trump to nominate her rather than Kavanaugh last time around, and I'm not sure exactly how things would have played out if that happened, because what happened with Kavanaugh being hit with false and unsubstantiated claims, up to and including gang rape, was disgraceful. That's the reason Senator Lindsey Graham (among others) said he changed his mind on voting for a SCOTUS nominee in an election year, and it's a valid reason, but that's not a position that him or any other Republican Senator should have held in the first place. In all honesty, it's as it's been the majority of the time historically: If the Presidency and Senate are controlled by the same party, an election year SCOTUS nominee is likely to be voted on, and if voted on, overwhelmingly likely to be confirmed (confirmed 9 out of the 10 times when the nominee was voted on, which happened 10 out of 19 times), and if they are controlled by different parties, an election year SCOTUS nominee will not be confirmed (that only happened 1 out of 10 times). All that's left to do now is sing a song.
A-C-B, Trump nominees: 1-2-3
Dems lied and said Brett raped me
R-B-G, A-C-B, Amy, Brett, and Neil, girl!
Yes, Amy, so qualified, can't you see?
So good, we'll save the country!
A-C-B, 1-2-3, Clarence, Sam, and you, girl!
