Haw, Haw
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.”
Professor Turley’s speculation that Republicans could now attain goals that have eluded them for decades is, IMHO, unlikely. Their record is, at best, sporadic when it comes to exercising the power conferred upon them by the electorate. One need only look to the Obamacare repeal debacle for the most recent reminder. My guess is that if a vacancy occurs on the court in the next two years and Trump nominates a decidedly right wing candidate, as Turley predicts, the Dems will argue that not only is this candidate extreme right wing but that Roe will be repealed as result and the Republicans will back down and a moderate be nominated instead. And if no vacancy occurs until Trumps last 18 months the Republicans will wait until the conclusion of the 2020 Presidential election. For they are completely devoid of the ruthlessness necessary to exercise power, unlike the Democrats.
Gone again, skip to m’lou...gone again, skip to m’lou
“After all, she remains intellectually active and fully engaged on the Court. Her opinions continue to be powerful and probing treatments of the law.”
buwahahaaa!!
I do so enjoy a good comedy piece.
I like them odds
Good point.
Ruthie & The Dims didn’t play their cards right.
Just like I don’t get wasting their filibuster on Gorsuch.
Ah, well. All to our advantage, thankfully.
Put everything the Left has done over the last year to the ignorant conceit that Hillary would win, hands down, and it all makes sense.
Something about how pride cometh before the fall...
Somebody needs to offer her a walnetto and she will hit them with her purse
Of course, the $64 question is who will President Trump nominate to be the *next* SCOTUS jusice?
He could guarantee his reelection by appointing a hardcore conservative. But who is the most conservative candidate out there who has profound knowledge about constitutional law?
Scalia died under suspiscious circumstances before a major union vote.. make no mistake they are the party tbat detests the living breathing freedom lovers
The Wise Latina is a Type I diabetic.
As the New York Slimes reported on May 18, 2015:
The groom and groom strolled down the aisle to the mellow strains of “Mr. Sandman.”
Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York.
The gilded setting was elegant: Anderson House in the Embassy Row neighborhood, the headquarters in Washington of the Society of the Cincinnati, a club for the descendants of the French and American soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War. During the ceremony, the couple slipped black and gold Harry Winston rings onto each other’s fingers.
But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.
Justice Ginsburg. Making law on the job and off.
This is the “second” Oath taken by every Supreme Court Justice at their Swearing In.
“I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
I wonder how many of the current members of the SCOTUS actually believe it? I’m sure it’s the same number as agree with the first Oath they took.
I think it’s Two, maybe Three not including Gorsuch. We are a long way from having a Conservative SCOTUS.
Funny how the questions that came from the Senate Democrats during the Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings were in direct conflict with the Oath Gorsuch would eventually take. The Little Guy versus Big Guy crappola was ridiculous.
We can only hope and Pray that the Court will return to its intended purpose. The Republics last chance is upon us.
So there’s that.
Yep just like that! lol
“I can’t imagine what this place would be ― I can’t imagine what the country would be ― with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be ― I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Then, she added that her late husband would have joked, “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
“I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.” ~Theatre critic Pauline Kael
Oliver Wendell Holmes was on the bench at 90. Ginsburg is a spring chicken.
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.