Yes. That's precisely why I've accused you of it. Where's the mystery there? Ginsburg couldn't be more subject to pressure. Not all pressure is related to campaign money. To be loved or hated by the media and all the institutions of the left, is very powerful to those that desire nothing more in life.
You want a simple majority of Congress and the president's signature to be enough. If a simply majority of Congress passes a law that says black people can't vote, and the president signs it, what then?
Not any more likely to happen than a simple majority of the Court, and much easier to fix. If such a law were to pass, it would certainly be a failure of everyone to serve their function in the public arena. An arena that is much more open than the decision making process of the Supreme Court.
However, I don't live in a fantasy world. The SC has taken over this role and the Legislative and Executive are happy to be treated as less equal branches. So this is the reality that must be worked in for at least the next 50 years, but with the genie out of the bottle probably to the end of the Republic.
With no SC consistancy in its decisions, we are likely headed down the path of having hundreds of amendments, like most states do, turning the Constitution into a penal/regulatory code. We might get lucky and get a majority of Justices like minded to Thomas in our lifetimes (let's hope), but the intrument of the SC has taken Constitutional responsibility primarily out of the hands of the People. Like I said before though, we've survived slavery (just) and corrected Jim Crow, so perhaps on a timeline longer than we'd like, the correct decisions will be made.
Why do you want to eliminate the system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, and leave the Legislative and Executive branches unchecked when they are largely responsible for the Court being the in shape it is today?
A Judicial - Legislative alliance or a Judicial - Executive alliance, would be just as bad would it not. Indeed this has happened. I'm less than satisfied that there are checks on a Supreme Court that is the only arbiter of the Constitution.
And politicains aren't subject to the same foibles, along with the money? Nice set of blinders you've got there.
Not any more likely to happen than a simple majority of the Court, and much easier to fix. If such a law were to pass, it would certainly be a failure of everyone to serve their function in the public arena. An arena that is much more open than the decision making process of the Supreme Court.
Easier to fix how? Elect new represntatives taht will change the law? Who's going to elect them, the black people who now can't vote? Have you really considered all the consequences of what you're saying?
You submit that the people and a simple majority of their elected represntatives would never allow such a law to stand in defense of your own arguments, while imagining that a supermajority of the those same people and representatives would pass and amendment to the same effect in order to attack mine.
A Judicial - Legislative alliance or a Judicial - Executive alliance, would be just as bad would it not. Indeed this has happened. I'm less than satisfied that there are checks on a Supreme Court that is the only arbiter of the Constitution.
An Executive - Legislative alliance would be no better, and in the case of FDR and the New Deal Congress were able to bend the Court to their will. You can't seem to grasp that what you're asking for is an unlimited amount of what got us into this mess in the first place.