Posted on 09/19/2020 7:37:37 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death didn’t just leave a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. It left a court evenly divided Supreme Court between four leftist justices and four strict constructionist justices. With his usual acumen and clarity, Ted Cruz explains why an evenly divided court is a recipe for a civil breakdown.
We can all understand the reasonableness of having an uneven number of Supreme Court justices: It substantially diminishes the likelihood of a stalemate. However, Ginsburg’s death means that, as we head into the most contentious election process in American history, the Court has eight justices. Worse, the justices are split evenly along ideological lines.
On the one side are the so conservative justices. In this context, conservative means that they believe that the Constitution as written, and as its authors intended it to be understood, must be the single-most-important document in any judicial analysis. Next in order of importance for analysis are acts of Congress, again to be interpreted as Congress intended when it passed the documents.
Regarding that last analytical metric, Justice Gorsuch failed horribly when he imputed transgenderism to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, despite his monumental slip-up, Gorsuch has mostly been a reliably “strict constructionist.” The other strict constructionists on the Court are Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh.
On the other side are the justices who, like Ginsburg herself, believe that their responsibility is to achieve certain political ends that align with “justice” and “equality,” as those terms are defined in the leftist rubric. They’re the judges who, when the Constitution proves unhelpful, will look to Europe or Africa for “norms” upon which they can rely. There’s always a lot of navel-gazing going on. Their decisions are often fraudulent and almost invariably turgidly written. The leftist justices are Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Roberts.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Since we’re so close to the election, doesn’t it seem fair for Trump wait until afterward the election to replace her?
No, Trump should not wait.
Trump has nothing to lose and everything to gain by replacing RGB before the election
Some Democrats have brought up Merrick Garland, who was nominated by Obama but failed to become a SCOTUS judge. The GOP objection was that Obama was in the last six months of his second term, so the upcoming election should decide. Democrats will be quick to point out this occurrence, labeling it hypocrisy for conservatives to replace RGB when they rejected Garland.
Other leftists urged Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell to lead the way by not filling a SCOTUS seat this close to an election. He concluded with: “You’d agree with this, especially in light of the Garland precedent, right?”
Except, that’s not what happened. The Merrick Garland circumstance was different because Obama was in his second term, and there would be a new president in six months, no matter the outcome. In this instance, we might have the same president in six months. What makes it worse is Democrats did not set any “precedent” by deciding it wouldn’t be fair to fill an open SCOTUS seat only months away from a new presidency — they tried to ram judge Garland down our throats anyways!
The only reason Garland is not sitting on SCOTUS is because Mitch McConnell and the Senate refused a hearing on Garland. The rationale was the constitution does not require a timeframe to hear the president’s SCOTUS nomination, so they waited. It was not out of the nobility of Democrats that prevented Merrick Garland from a SCOTUS seat — it was Republicans like McConnell who stopped it. Some precedent.
p
Yeah, Roberts is a leftist. He voted in Obammy’s criminal health care TAX that they claimed wasn’t a tax. Roberts, a RINO president’s nomination. Great. Another great one from the bums.
In the immortal words of Barack Obama, “elections have consequences”!!!!
And I say this while shooting you liberals my middle finger while holding it against my head!
IF Trump and the Senate can get this done I don't see the ideological makeup of the court changing that much. Many on our side are saying it would be 6-3 conservative.
However, Roberts has already shown a willingness to deviate from the Constitution. If anything the balance on the court will remain at 5-4.
Roberts simply cannot be trusted on the key issues.
First, how did they know she was dead? Secondly, she just barely kept a seat warm for a few years. Sleeping at the bench no one bothered to wake her up. That’s how crucial she was to adjudicating cases.
Once we replace RBG with a true conservative I believe Roberts will start voting regularly with the majority conservative court.
It’s one thing to be the magical “swing” vote, it’s another to be forever in the minority :)
Tout suite.
Imagine a democrat challenge to a state’s electoral votes that throws the entire country into turmoil like November of 2000 with the Gore Florida some counties recount?
How would the SCOTUS fix this constitution crisis if the outcome comes to a 4-4 tie?
We NEED a tie breaker BEFORE November!
Well, you may believe that friend, but I don’t. Daddy Bush gave us the leftist Souter and GW gave us the commie Roberts who screwed us with obammy’s crap. So, two REPUBLICAN presidents, put up two of the LEFT’s commie justices!! HAD they put in two solid conservatives, the left would only have TWO commie justices and our side would be going for SEVEN. But, thanks to the idiot Bush family, it is 4 to 4.
Roberts always votes in his personal best interests, he has no interest in the Constitution or the Left’s agenda. He asks what it the best outcome for him, and acts accordingly.
Trump needs to fulfill his promise one again regarding SCOTUS appointments.
After the crap the GOP pulled when Obama was on the way out. Not gonna happen. Way too much hypocrisy. Guys will lose elections. And they don’t want to lose elections.
Here's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and note the innuendo in her tone:
“If Mitch McConnell isn’t going to honor RBG’s final wish, we will. We will. And we have to.” Thank you, @AOC. For your voice. For your fight. Tonight. And always. pic.twitter.com/2P5ttuvJsx— Eliza Orlins (@elizaorlins) September 19, 2020
Doesn't sound like a democratic response she has in mind. No smiles, no sexy red lipstick, no pricey designer clothes, she's got a dirty tshirt with something written on it, a blazer thrown over it, and her hair in a rarin' for revolution mess. Among socialists, this is what is meant by meaning business.
Others are much more explicit -- such as this blue-check:
If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down.— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) September 19, 2020
He's talking about dead bodies.
If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down.— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) September 19, 2020
There’s no hypocrisy. The only person responsible for this is RBG herself — a decrepit old hag who should have retired years ago.
Put the nomination on warp speed so the 5th conservative is ready to rule on the coming mail in ballot stealth fiasco that will throw the election before the court. Ruth Ginsberg’s big mistake after her undistinguished career on the SC was not in planning her death better until after the next inauguration. Thanks, Ruthie, for giving us a conservative judge on the bench for the next 30 years to correct all the bad decisions you made while you sat on the bench
I am understanding there is no precedent for the party that controls the senate to refrain from confirming a SC justice in an election year. It has been done many times.
It’s absolutely hypocrisy to block one SCOTUS vote for almost a year cause “election” and try to hurry another one before another election. I mean they’re politicians so I expect no less. But that won’t play with the mushy middle. GOP senators that try to hurry this and are facing election in November will get their butts kicked.
Put the nomination on warp speed so the 5th conservative is ready to rule on the coming mail in ballot stealth fiasco that will throw the election before the court. Ruth Ginsberg’s big mistake after her undistinguished career on the SC was not in planning her death better until after the next inauguration. Thanks, Ruthie, for giving us a conservative judge on the bench for the next 30 years to correct all the bad decisions you made while you sat on the bench
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.