Posted on 04/11/2017 12:30:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court represents a huge political victory for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who gambled on blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland in the hopes of a GOP electoral victory.
It may also have been an equally huge loss for the of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who ignored increasing calls for her retirement during the Obama administration to avoid the prospect of the flipping of her seat from a liberal to a conservative member. That gamble — whatever calculation — could now cost a sweeping number of key cases hanging by a 5-4 margin, including much of the precedent built around Roe v. Wade, if not an outright overturning of that decision.
Some of the smartest people can stay too long in a game on the assumption that they can gain more with time. Even Sir Isaac Newton was virtually wiped out by such a gamble. Newton invested heavily in the South Sea Company, which was granted a monopoly on trade in the South Seas. The payoff was initially huge as shares continued to rise. Newton made a lot of money and cashed out.
However, with shares still rising, he then tripled down — buying even more stock at three times the original costs. He stayed too long when some were questioning whether the rise was illusory and unsustainable. Then came the crash and Newton’s stock fell faster than his proverbial apple. He lost a fortune for the time £20,000 — virtually the entirety of his estate.
Various advocates suggested for years that Ginsburg might be staying too long on the Court. Those suggestions became more and more blunt as Obama’s second term progressed. What began as polite suggestions that it “might be time to leave” became more and more pointed, if not panicked, in the last two years of the Obama term. Recently, CNN’s Chris Cuomo put it in the most vivid terms and asked a senator, now that Trump is president, “What if Ruth Bader Ginsburg runs out of gas?”
At 84, “running out of gas” was obviously not a reference to the danger of creeping fatigue. For Ginsburg, of course, it was always a difficult decision. After all, she remains intellectually active and fully engaged on the Court. Her opinions continue to be powerful and probing treatments of the law. The precedent at risk is in no small degree precedent of her making. Yet, many justices time their retirements with an eye to who would appoint their replacements. Some have admitted that they try to engineer an appointment by one party or the other to preserve the balance of the Court.
Had Ginsburg retired early in the second Obama term, it is likely that her seat would have been filled even by a Republican-controlled Senate. Any resistance would likely have been further reduced with the second vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia. While Scalia’s seat may have stayed open, it is likely that Ginsburg’s would have been filled by an Obama nominee.
Now Ginsburg’s gamble on Hillary Clinton
being elected could have sweeping impact on precedent that she played a major role in creating. With the elimination of the filibuster, the next nominee is hardly likely to be nuanced. Without the filibuster, Republicans have no excuse to compromise on a moderate. There is nothing standing in the way to appointing someone who is openly opposed to cases like Roe v. Wade. There is no plausible deniability based on the need to get to 60. In other words, the market has changed and the stock went bust.
The future could not be more evident than one of the first cases to be heard by Gorsuch. In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, the Court could render a sweeping new protection for religious organizations. The church was denied funds to resurfacing its playground because of its religious purpose while giving the money to non-religious organizations. It is a case built for Gorsuch who has always interpreted the religious clauses broadly. While he will likely vote similar to Scalia on such issues, the replacement of Ginsburg by the Trump administration could herald in an era of greater entanglements between church and state.
Gorsuch will also hear Weaver v. Massachusetts and Davila v. Davis, which could define the outer limits of Sixth Amendment rights to counsel. He will also hear Maslenjak v. U.S., which will deal with the power of the government to strip someone of U.S. citizenship over immaterial but false statements made in her naturalization as a Serbian immigrant.
From the use of race in college admissions to abortion to police powers, the GOP could achieve objectives in this administration that have eluded Republican presidents for over six decades. It is not clear if Ginsberg was betting more heavily on herself or Hillary, but many may conclude that the bet was reckless given the stakes on the table. For a few years on the Court, Ginsburg risked Trump “running the table” and the odds now favor precisely such a result.
For Ginsburg, she may reach the same conclusion as Newton who reportedly (and perhaps apocryphally) said, “I can calculate the movement of stars, but not the madness of men.”
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Blames it on the dog, you say?
I am worried that he heart and lungs will outlast her brain. Sometimes it takes years for an old lady to die.
I think its funny that when Graham was running for president, he said he would have a rotating first lady. Since he’s not married some wondered who his first lady would be. He said he would have a rotating first lady, to include a sister or other women in his family. And the jokes flowed from him talking about a rotating first lady..........
It wasn’t a stupid bet, but it ended up being the losing bet.
Justices Breyer and Ginsburg: Thank you for your selfishness. (Vanity/Opinion)
"When Obama was elected, it was assured that with a pretty much solid Senate vote, he was going to be able to appoint as many liberal Judges as vacancies arose. This was the point at which Ginsburg and Breyer should have taken one for the team, and retired. It would have enabled Obama to appoint four solid leftists who would have been on the court for a very lengthy time.
Newton tripled down on the South Seas sure-thing. The Democrats, including Ms. Buzzi, tripled down on the I’m With Her sure-thing. Similar results.
From IMDb
[the dog runs out of the room after Mrs. Kissel farts]
Reverend: Whenever Mrs. Kissel breaks wind, we beat the dog.
This woman needs a remedial course in constitutional law almost as much as she needs an oxygen tent.
What gamble was she taking? According to the establishment media she would listen to the odds were 99-1 in her favor that the Dems would win the WH again. How could she know it was fake news?
Ruth won’t leave until Lindsay Graham returns all the outfit’s he’s borrowed.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933)
Anthony Kennedy (born 1936)
Stephen Breyer (born 1938)
Clarence Thomas (born 1948)
Samuel Alito (born 1950)
Sonia Sotomayor (born 1954)
John Roberts (born 1955)
Elena Kagan (born 1960)
Neil Gorsuch (born 1967)
With the poor health of Nino Scalia I believe he passed of his own accord. But the left can be so disgustingly malevolent that I wouldn’t bet on it as being 100%. Too bad the family didn’t want an autopsy.
The right is not like that. When Ruthie buys it you can be sure it is of natural causes.
Just a WAG but, she did not want Obama to appoint her replacement. She held out for Hillary. THAT's RACIST!
She may have to have her office turned into an ICU.
Ted Cruz born 1970.
LOL
Funny thing is, if she had retired instead of Scalia dying, and Obama had picked Merrick Garland to replace her, I bet the republicans would have confirmed him last year, because it wouldn’t have unbalanced the court further.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.