Ruth Bader Ginsburg passes away aged 87

[hexagon789]

Sad news just in that long-term US Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died aged 87. She had apparently been ill with pancreatic cancer for some time.

More information about her can be found in the article on the BBC's website:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54214729

US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an iconic champion of women's rights, has died of cancer at the age of 87, the court has said.

Ginsburg died on Friday of metastatic pancreatic cancer at her home in Washington, DC, surrounded by her family, the statement said.

Earlier this year, Ginsburg said she was undergoing chemotherapy for a recurrence of cancer.

She was a prominent feminist who became a figurehead for liberals in the US.

It remains to be seen who will appoint her successor, but US justice has lost a strong liberal voice and life-long proponent of women's rights

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This is major and I mean major. We already have the absolute toxicity of a US election year. We have a Republican senate who refused to let Obama nominee Merick Garland even have a senate hearing. We had the nastiness of Democrat’s over Trumps appointees especially Brett Kavanaugh. Will the Republicans try and rush a replacement through before the election. This could get really nasty really quickly.

 

[Busaholic]

This is major and I mean major. We already have the absolute toxicity of a US election year. We have a Republican senate who refused to let Obama nominee Merick Garland even have a senate hearing. We had the nastiness of Democrat’s over Trumps appointees especially Brett Kavanaugh. Will the Republicans try and rush a replacement through before the election. This could get really nasty really quickly.

The Trump has announced he's going for it: can only hope he's thwarted along the way.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I personally would wait until the election is over. That is only fair.

 

[birchesgreen]

Unfortunately fair doesn't seem to be a word in political vocabulary these days.

 

[edwin_m]

I may be biased here but it seems the Democrats are playing fair and the Republicans are making up the rules as they go along. All the reasons they gave at the time for not considering Garland's appointment for nearly a year are valid for not making an appointment a month or so before an election. So they invent a new rule that says it's OK if the President and the Senate are of the same party.

However there is speculation that a few Republicans under severe challenge from Democrats may not support it, and it hands a new weapon to Democrats in the campaign. But I doubt that will sway the considerable number who still plan to vote for Trump despite the thousands of disgraceful things he's done already.

Anyone who concluded from our own judicial shenanigans last autumn that the judiciary should be politically appointed should be thinking again.

 

[brad465]

Anyone who concluded from our own judicial shenanigans last autumn that the judiciary should be politically appointed should be thinking again.

Totally agree, while I haven't heard many talk about it in the news since her death, I like to think there are many in the back of their heads thinking having a political supreme court is completely wrong, regardless of which side it favours more, one of 1000s of things wrong with US Politics, even without Trump being President.

 

[edwin_m]

The other complication is that the result of the 2020 election may be decided by the Supreme Court as it was in 2000 - various scenarios being put forward mostly relate to Trump disputing the validity of late-counted mail-in votes (even though he votes this way himself). With an even number of judges this could be a tie.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Roberts is supposed to be conservative so it is usually 5:4 but RBG was ultra liberal so with her dying in theory it is 5:3 so it benefits republicans but yes of course 4:4 is a possibility.

 

[najaB]

Will the Republicans try and rush a replacement through before the election. This could get really nasty really quickly.

Mitch McConnell has said that Trump's pick will get a hearing on the senate floor (though he's not said when). I think trying to do it before the election would completely backfire given the GOP's stance that 11 months before an election is too close to appoint a Justice with Merit Garland. Getting an appointee confirmed before the election with 46 days to go wouldn't just be unusually quick (the average is apparently 70 days) but it would be the fastest ever by one day. Even if they do get it through, it won't help Republican senators in tight races since the hypocrisy of "11 months is too soon for them, but 46 days is fine for us" just gives Democrats ammunition: "You can't believe anything your Senator says [roll tape]".

Susan Collins has already come out on record and said that they shouldn't try to do it, hopefully two other GOP senators in tight races will see sense.

Politically, the best thing for them to do would be to announce a pick before the election and then run on the platform of "A vote for me is a vote for [insert name]".

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Mitch McConnell has said that Trump's pick will get a hearing on the senate floor (though he's not said when).

Politically, the best thing for them to do would be to announce a pick before the election and then run on the platform of "A vote for me is a vote for [insert name]".

I totally agree. It has the added benefit in that it puts pressure on Biden to announce his pick too.

 

[edwin_m]

Roberts is supposed to be conservative so it is usually 5:4 but RBG was ultra liberal so with her dying in theory it is 5:3 so it benefits republicans but yes of course 4:4 is a possibility.

I was referring to the theoretical possibility. Although Roberts is considered conservative he appears to have been trying to avoid using his casting vote on the grounds that he doesn't want the court to be seen just as a political entity.

If the Democrats got control of both houses and the Presidency then they could simply expand the Court to 11 judges and nominate two more to create a liberal majority again. Apparently this isn't set by the Constitution so can be changed by a simple act of Congress. This is however controversial - FDR tried to increase it to 15 in the 1930s so that judges whose opinion he disliked could be outvoted. There's also the risk in these partisan times that every time power changed hands the incoming party would add another two to give them control. With Democrats tending to play more by the rules it may be that enough would object to make it impossible.

 

[hexagon789]

Roberts is supposed to be conservative so it is usually 5:4 but RBG was ultra liberal so with her dying in theory it is 5:3 so it benefits republicans but yes of course 4:4 is a possibility.

Roberts was appointed because he was expected to support a conservative agenda, in practice he has often voted with the liberal bloc in the court. He is generally seen as the 'median' judge with 4 more conservative and 4 more liberal judges that he.

He is generally fairly liberal on social matters but more conservative on various 'rights of the individual' type cases. As chief justice he has the casting vote in the event of a tie so I wouldn't expect the court's rulings to become significantly more conservative yet.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

ACB will be a good replacement

 

[hexagon789]

ACB will be a good replacement

Who is ACB?

 

[TheBigD]

Who is ACB?

Amy Coney Barret

 

[edwin_m]

Roberts was appointed because he was expected to support a conservative agenda, in practice he has often voted with the liberal bloc in the court. He is generally seen as the 'median' judge with 4 more conservative and 4 more liberal judges that he.

He is generally fairly liberal on social matters but more conservative on various 'rights of the individual' type cases. As chief justice he has the casting vote in the event of a tie so I wouldn't expect the court's rulings to become significantly more conservative yet.

Excluding Roberts, it's gone from 4-4 to 4-3 so the conservatives can win without his vote. The appointment of a conservative would make it 5-3 without Roberts.

ACB will be a good replacement

What are your reasons for believing that?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

What are your reasons for believing that?

I admire women of her ilk. Outstanding brain, family of 7 and standing strong despite all the rancour of recent appointments. Her categoric statement that she will uphold the law as written not as we would like it. Basically she is a female version of Antonin Scalia a justice I greatly admired.

 

[158756]

I admire women of her ilk. Outstanding brain, family of 7 and standing strong despite all the rancour of recent appointments. Her categoric statement that she will uphold the law as written not as we would like it. Basically she is a female version of Antonin Scalia a justice I greatly admired.

I don't know that much about Amy Coney Barrett, and don't doubt that only a judge of the very highest standard enters into consideration for an appointment to the Supreme Court, but I find my respect for any of them considerably diminished when it's transparent that the primary reason for their selection is that they believe the law to be written as the President of the time would like it to be.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

At the end of the day justices are also people and citizens. So citizens who VOTE. Everything, and I mean everything in life in my opinion in one way or another has a political connection even if we are not willing to admit it. Railways even ( especially possibly? ) There is no such thing as political independence- impossible in my opinion. Civil servants in the UK are likewise people and citizens who vote. It includes the media. And everyone on this forum has a political leaning even if we are not willing to admit it. Judicial appointments are absolutely the same. Of course they are political.

So OT - despite my political leanings, I immensely admire Sir Keir Starmer for example, as I do Amy Coney Barrett. If we only respected those who were 100% neutral we would respect nobody. Hope that makes my position crystal clear.

 

[DerekC]

I admire women of her ilk. Outstanding brain, family of 7 and standing strong despite all the rancour of recent appointments. Her categoric statement that she will uphold the law as written not as we would like it. Basically she is a female version of Antonin Scalia a justice I greatly admired.

Interesting. Of course we have to remember that Trump's primary interest is his own re-election, and what he needs is to divert attention from the Covid crisis to something else. Putting forward a woman who is a devout Christian and a respected figure in the judicial world will tick a lot of voter boxes and put the Democrats in a difficult position in opposing her. That's probably more important to Trump than her eventual support (or not) of right-wing causes.

 

[nlogax]

Amy Coney Barrett poses a far greater threat to liberal America than Trump does. Regardless of Trump's disdain for the 22nd amendment, that won't be going anywhere and he's got at most another four years. Barrett is relatively young, firmly Christian and effectively Scalia v2.0. If there's anyone that's going to at the head of a long, slow-burning lean to the right for the country, it's her.

 

[najaB]

Outstanding brain, family of 7 and standing strong despite all the rancour of recent appointments. Her categoric statement that she will uphold the law as written not as we would like it.

If she lives up to those words then she might not be completely terrible.

Barrett is relatively young, firmly Christian and effectively Scalia v2.0. If there's anyone that's going to at the head of a long, slow-burning lean to the right for the country, it's her

That's the main concern - it's probablu going to be a few years until the next seat opens up and that's most likely going to be Stephen Breyer, who's a liberal. So expect a severely conservative Supreme Court for the next five to ten years at least.

 

[edwin_m]

If she lives up to those words then she might not be completely terrible.

That itself is open to interpretation. Take the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This can be interpreted as allowing people to bear arms only for the purpose of providing a militia, and on that interpretation arguably became irrelevant when the US started relying on regular armed forces so the militias were no longer "necessary to security" (the various armed groups that call themselves militias don't really fit the description). But it could also be interpreted as an unlimited right to bear arms.

This illustrates how some of the words of the constitution are themselves open to interpretation, and that they may also be superseded by, or not really cover, events that the writers couldn't have predicted. So "uphold the law as written" can cover a multitude of things.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Putting forward a woman who is a devout Christian and a respected figure in the judicial world will tick a lot of voter boxes and put the Democrats in a difficult position in opposing her. That's probably more important to Trump than her eventual support (or not) of right-wing causes.

And she has two adopted black children from Haiti. must tick at least one more voter box too I would have thought.

 

[najaB]

This can be interpreted as allowing people to bear arms only for the purpose of providing a militia, and on that interpretation arguably became irrelevant when the US started relying on regular armed forces so the militias were no longer "necessary to security" (the various armed groups that call themselves militias don't really fit the description). But it could also be interpreted as an unlimited right to bear arms.

Reading it strictly, it doesn't give people the right to own weapons.

And she has two adopted black children from Haiti. must tick at least one more voter box too I would have thought.

It makes it difficult to call her rascist, but I don't think that was a line of attack that anyone was likely to use.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Reading it strictly, it doesn't give people the right to own weapons.
It makes it difficult to call her rascist, but I don't think that was a line of attack that anyone was likely to use.

The Dems have said they will use any dirty trick available so I wouldn't be too sure.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Dems have said they will use any dirty trick available so I wouldn't be too sure.

No reason not to get down in the mud with the Republican's at this point I suspect as trying to be stay on the high ground appears to not work very well anymore.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

No reason not to get down in the mud with the Republican's at this point I suspect as trying to be stay on the high ground appears to not work very well anymore.

Sadly yes- Totally toxic. Will be glad when it is all over. Both sides are as bad as each other. Both sides (as Amy Coney Barrett has already done) will tout the friendship of Scalia and Ginsburg though being 180 degrees apart ideologically. Yet they then don't practice what RBG/Scalia did.

 

[hexagon789]

Excluding Roberts, it's gone from 4-4 to 4-3 so the conservatives can win without his vote. The appointment of a conservative would make it 5-3 without Roberts.

I thought Roberts had a vote full stop rather than only in the event of a tie?

Amy Coney Barret

Thanks, I'very never heard of her but I'll look her up.