Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died at 87
Thanks. I was close…sounds like…
By a second pick I refer to the Ginsberg seat, not future appointments. Even if we lose the Senate on election day, we will have until December 31 to seat a replacement Justice for Ginsberg. I expect President Trump to be re-elected, but the Senate’s a toss-up because of Arizona, Maine, North Carolina and other states at risk.
If President Trump nominates a Justice who repudiates what Kavanaugh said about respecting stare decisis privacy precedents, and has a background suggesting she might overturn Roe/Casey, then I’m certain she will be defeated in the Senate. Collins will lead the way, and possibly be re-elected because in Maine a woman’s right to choose is much more popular than President Trump.
If, however, the President nominates a woman who can honestly state that she’ll respect the Ginsberg and Supreme Court legacies on women’s rights, she will likely get through and maybe even pick up Manchin and/or another Democrat. More significantly, if she is a strong advocate for the rule of law and in support of strong legal policing, she will receive wide popular support.
I think the nominee should just lie. What re they going to do after, impeach and remove?
Dems assume all Republican nominees are lying anyway.
Projection.
What? Surrender again? Nominate another Souter? What on earth for? That’s the craziest idea ever.
Correcting the mistakes of Roe and Casey and so many other non-abortion cases, is not disrespecting a legacy.
(Who ever said they get to keep a legacy? Where is that written?)
It’s about defending the Constitution, individual rights, the rights of the unborn. These are not little things that get to be a “legacy.”
In normal times moderation would be a virtue. Today, unfortunately, there are too many bad memories of Justices thought to have been originalists only to move left once on the court. One could reasonably say if the candidate starts out with one foot on the left they will undoubtedly end up jumping over with both feet after a short time on the Court. One could also say with some credibility, “Why bother with the hassle if we end up with a squish?’ BTW, do you @jimkearney believe that Ginsburg herself would uphold stare decisis if the Supremes had previously ruled for the right to life for the fetus? I think she would drop precedence like a hot potato if the shoe were on the other foot.
You misinterpret my suggestion. Souter? Yuk! He was with the Democrat appointed bloc on most everything. None of the nominees on Trump’s (Heritage/Federalist Society) list are anything like Souter. One can be ardently pro-Trump on fiscal issues, militantly pro-cop on crime, fiercely America First on trade and immigration, and still support the status quo (or maintain a judicious silence) on abortion rights.
A majority of Supreme Court justices respect stare decisis on Roe/Casey and the privacy precedents which underlie it (Griswold on the birth control, most notably.) Read the full transcript of Senator Collins’ interchange with Kavanaugh, and her speech on why she voted for him.
Women’s rights are Justice Ginsberg’s legacy. They made films about her, she’s a sympathetic figure, and a frontal assault on her legacy isn’t smart politically. Ginsberg reaffirmed the abortion rights precedents, voted for lesbian marital rights, and built on the important cultural gains women made in the workplace over her tenure. Young voters embrace these rights enthusiastically. More conservative Trump supporters than you might think also support these freedoms: 61% of all U.S. adults support abortion rights.
The Supreme Court is about so much more than abortion, particularly right now, The very rule of law itself in our country is under assault. This nominee should be clear about maintaining the continuity of our laws as they stand.
I’m not sure what all the talk about election day is about. When do senators take their seats? That’s the real deadline if the R’s lose the senate.
Better than Epstein arguing that Roman riparian law governs.
It depends on how long the Election could be in dispute. It might be in dispute all the way up to Inauguration Day and that might also mean certain Senate races would be in dispute. Sen. Cruz says that the votes are currently there to push through the President’s nominee. If he’s correct, then Mitch should get to the vote as soon as possible. Only 1 or 2 days of hearings would be advisable. Then have the full Senate vote the next day.
Robert Conquests second law of politics applies to Supreme Court justices as well as to organizations:
“Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing”.
I wonder where he said that. I don’t know the context, but surely he said Roman law is persuasive, not controlling.
A little hyperbole on my part.
What difference does it make, when judges decide to follow ancient or foreign law – or both – rather than our own?
So true. I met him on a National Review Cruise…he was quite smart and very nice.
After New Year’s Day.
Since the Democrats will be in high dudgeon over any Trump pick, the timing of the confirmation is just a red herring, a delaying tactic to prevent a confirmation. If they are going to try to delay to prevent a pick, then we should try to expedite to confirm a pick.