Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies At 87

Last night, many of us were discussing the terrible loss of one of the greatest icons in American law: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the coming days, there will be much debated about the timing and the merits of any replacement on the Court. However, the trauma of this moment for millions is the fact that we know that there really is no replacement for this inspirational and brilliant jurist.  My column on Ginsburg was posted this morning in The Hill newspaper.

For my students (liberal and conservative alike), there are few better models in life than Ginsburg whose strength and quiet resolve helped shape the law and the country for decades.  On a Court where many justices evolved and found a voice, Ginsburg came to the Court with a powerful and clear voice. While selected as a presumed moderate, she was unabashedly liberal in her interpretation of the Constitution and remarkably consistent in her votes.  She was the rock on the left of the Court to which countless opinions were tethered.

Ginsburg was one of the smartest justices to ever sit on the Court.  From the minute she walked into law school, her intellectual skills were overwhelming.  She tied for first in her class at Columbia and had the distinction of serving on both the Harvard Law Review and Columbia Law Review. She was the gold standard for a nominee to the Supreme Court.

I had the honor of speaking with Ginsburg on many occasions over the years from conferences to private dinners.  She always displayed that same wry and penetrating humor.  She could deliver a haymaker in a whisper.  Some disagreed with her jurisprudence but we should all be able to celebrate her brilliance and her life. She faced open discrimination as a woman in our profession despite her stellar credentials.  She refused to be deterred or discouraged by such ignorance.  She stood her ground and, when she did, this diminutive figure with her signature lace gloves became a giant in the law.  She was a force to be reckoned with and she left a country changed as a result of that unbending resolve.

Rest in peace, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

480 thoughts on “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies At 87”

  1. I’m going to let the old broad Rest In Peace. As far as abortion goes to this day I can’t give you a straight answer. Do I want to tell someone what to do with their body, No, ice yourself if you want. Do I want protection for the helpless Yes. I’ve seen the video of a little “human creature” (for lack of a better description) alive being torn apart and I cringe. So I don’t have an answer for the problem except don’t get pregnant in the first place??

    What I do feel is President Trump and the Republicans better nominate and install a replacement now. The Dems are going to cause a great deal of problems when they lose the election, the GOP will need all the help they can muster. I can just imagine what Norm Eisen is setting up. Does anyone think Chuckie would hesitate to take advantage of the situation if he was in charge?

    If this ignites violence so be it, crush it. Appeasement is just a sign of weakness with these people. Everything that has happened in the past months has never been about someone breaking the law and the police.

  2. Predictably, many of the comments here from Trumpsters reflect more on their character – low – than RBG. Given their hero, predictable and doubly in character.

    It will take 4 GOP Senators standing on their supposed Merrick Garland “principle” to kill McConnell’s “Profile in Sleaze”, but maybe only 3. If Mark Kelly wins Arizona – as right now is most likely – he takes MCSally’s seat immediately, or during the lame duck session which most think is the most likely calendar.

    If he somehow gets it through, the next step will be Pres Biden packing the court, an entirely constitutional option, and even a necessity at that point. Consider: A majority of 5 of the SC justices (4 now) would have been appointed by presidents chosen not by the people but by the winner take all EC. One of the seats was stolen from a President elected twice by a clear majority of voters. The Constitution calls for SC nominees to be by the President, presumably chosen vy the people. It doesn’t call for a winner take all EC, nor is it likely the founders expected vote losers to win very often, and certainly not with this frequency. (We had 2 in out entire history up to W, and now 2 since). The result is a court totally out of sync with the popular will the Presidency is intended to represent The conservative majority has been illegitimate for a while now, but would be thoroughly so with 5 seats chosen that way.

    1. “One of the seats was stolen from a President elected twice by a clear majority of voters.”

      Hogwash. If you don’t like the Electoral College, that is your right. But you don’t get to conflate an Electoral College win with a “crime.”

      You are nothing but a partisan shill.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

          1. I doubt most 5th graders know what a partisan shill is, but if they do, then Miss Fromm posted a 5th grader taunt, and she doesn’t deserve anything better than a 5th grader comeback.

    2. Here’s the “Merrick Garland Principle” which you clearly don’t understand — like most of your topics:

      “Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.”
      https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020

      1. Mespo, Garland was nominated in 2016 and your quoting something written this morning. That’s not what we call a principle. It’s know as an “apologia”, or more simply, an excuse..

        1. Mespo, Garland was nominated in 2016 and your quoting something written this morning
          *********************************
          Like the history was written this morning. BTW, the article was written in AUGUST. We’re in September there Rip Van Winkle.

          Yes you’ve confirmed it to anyone who’ll read — you are truly dumb.

          1. Doofus! It was not written or stated in 2016. Supposed high principles were, which if abandoned now make those who signed onto them weasels before God and the voters.

        2. BTB what you are making up are excuses. What does the Constitution say?

          The President has the absolute right to nominate someone to fill the Supreme Court seat. Then according to the Constitution the Senate provides advice and consent. The Constitution doesn’t seem to support character assassination through trickery and lies as was done by democrats when Kavanaugh was nominated, but that is the type of actions one can expect from the left. Therefore I am not surprised at your lame excuses and I expect to see a vigerous attempt to stop the nomination and any vote in the Senate with rioting from the left that is not Constitutionaly supported along with a lot of stupid remarks by you.

          1. Completely ignoring what McConnell did with Garland in ’16. You too come in with a strong F- on your integrity test around RBG’s death (and much of everything else) Al buddy.

            1. Completely ignoring what McConnell did with Garland in ’16.

              What he did was ignore the nomination. Garland wasn’t treated discourteously. You win some, you lose some. Democrats cannot get their minds around that.

              1. And the stunning lack of integrity of republicans gives them trouble as well. Not sure why, there really aren’t many examples of republican integrity to behold.

                1. Reid lied about Romney’s taxes on the Senate floor and admitted to it later, boasting that ‘it worked’. What a ball of maggot infested slime. But then he is a Democrat.

                2. NB, Democrats not getting what they want is defined as ‘And the stunning lack of integrity of republicans’ in the ‘mind’ of the street-level Democrats who show up here.

            2. Don’t get more stupid than you already are. Harry Reid threw the dice. He had a legal right to do what he did but did he forget that winning one throw of the dice doesn’t mean others won’t follow suit and use the same results.

    3. BtB, it will be hard to get enough states to amend the Constitution to eliminate the EC. A more feasible solution in the meantime is to enlarge the size of the House (say, 1 Rep. for every 500K people — for one discussion: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/democracy-rigged-debate-over-senate-representation-ignores-more-plausible-reform-ncna920286). It would increase the # of electors and dilute the impact on the EC vote of each state having 2 Senators regardless of size / would reduce the difference in the vote power of voters in different states.

      1. CTHD, we don’t need to eliminate the EC. We only need change rules – decided by states now – to outlaw winner take all selections of delegates, and requiring they represent all voters in the state. That probably takes the GOP losing an election the same way Gore and Hillary did, and that might be unlikely given they have only won the popular vote once in the last 7 elections, and that one was with an incumbent who shouldn’t have been there. There is also that pledge by states to award delegates to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. I don’t think I favor that,

        1. BTB. eliminating the EC can be accomplished by amending constitution. No other way. States are open to allocating electors based on state laws. However, electors must follow those laws, they may not vote differently. This would seem to be the easier path to allocating based on popular vote than a consitutional amendment.

      2. It should be one Representative per 50,000 population in the state. There were 12 original amendments proposed, two did not get passed. One was for the popular election of Senators and the other was for one Rep per 50k.

  3. Her family will miss her, and her friends. Her friendship with Scalia (as opposed to professional-cordial dealings) is something of a puzzle.

    She exemplifies the legal academy. Use your considerable intellect and forensic talent to manufacture specious justifications for defining the issue of your own will as an imperative under the Constitution. What Stanley Brubaker said of a less talented practitioner of this game: it leaves no room for constitutional democracy. We would be better off as a working political society if the whole body of 14th Amendment jurisprudence hit the dumpster. Ditto the body of case law which contends the distinction between inter-state and intra-state commerce is factitious.

    And, note, in her preferences she exemplified the worldview of the haut bourgeois and how that’s simply incompatible with a free society, a fair society, and a decent society. If the future is to be just in a way the present is not, that class in society will have to be dethroned or stripped of its influence.

  4. Ok, so I decided to do a Memorial Irish Poem for Ruth Ginsberg. I imagine she appealed her case to a Higher Court last night and has been slapped down. I don’t think she gets to appeal, and the execution of sentence probably took place immediately. I am having difficulty getting a Transcript from inside the Pearly Gates Courtroom, but I bet it went something like this:

    What A Judge Meant Day???
    An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

    There once was a woman named Ruth,
    Who died, and discovered the Truth!
    That God wasn’t “good”
    With Planned Parenthood,
    Abortion and Sodomites, Forsooth!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  5. Justice Ginsburg, champion of women’s rights, nominated by the worst predator of women ever to occupy the oval office. In 28 years on the bench, did she ever denounce Bill Clinton or his actions?

    1. “the worst predator of women ever to occupy the oval office” is Trump, not Clinton.

      Why are so many men and women willing to elect predators like them?

  6. Indeed she was a giant among us. She brought us two steps closer to equality among human beings. May the next jurist bring us one step closer to that goal.

  7. I don’t plan on mourning the old biddy. She was a Leftist shrew and an elitist who thought she knew better than anybody else. She got colon cancer in 1999 and she did not even have the decency to resign when Obama was President. I guess it was all about her, which is pretty much the take from a lot of Democrats on Twitter.

    And as far as not being replaceable??? Hogwash! The country has gazillions of shrill feminist idiots and baby-killing advocates. Sadly, she was not one-of-a-kind.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. You (of all people) speak of “decency and patriotism”?!

      What a sad joke. If Hillary was President, you’d be the head cheerleader for her to do the exact same thing as the Republicans.

      1. Hillary did not state what McConnell stated about letting the people decide, not the President so close to an election. Like McConnell you must be a world class hypocrite. You have no authority over what decency and patriotism mean; no idea whatsoever.

  8. She was a disgrace as a Jew, a Judas to the most innocent and defenseless life, a disappointment to the female gender and less than a footnote as a Justice

    Give us another Scalia to bring back St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas to SCOTUS. Even Mespo can wrap his arms around that. Move post-haste before the fake election so that SCOTUS can decide the results

    And by all means stock up on ammo. We have and we are ready for the degenerates who fall into a fetal position when hit by a beanball

    1. Estovir:
      Just has a theological discussion about Aquinas (and Jerome and Aristotle) on the topic of the historical Catholic teaching on abortion. You must be reading my mind.

      1. Can you imagine the massive purgation of evil that this true Catholic giant would have on Federal Courts? Her legal opinions alone would be manna from Heaven

        Also, watching Diane and Kamala levitate during the Senate hearings ala Linda Blair would be worth watching.

        Hail Mary, full of Grace…

        Amy Coney Barrett

        A judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Barrett was on Trump’s shortlist for his second Supreme Court nomination, which ultimately went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.

        A graduate of Notre Dame University Law School, she clerked for the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and then spent two decades as a law professor at Notre Dame.

        Barrett, 48, is a favorite of the religious right, and her deep ties to her Catholic faith earned her a grilling from Democrats during her confirmation hearings to the federal bench. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein memorably told her: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.”

        Barrett responded: “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

        Having previously written that Supreme Court precedents are not set in stone, the question of whether Barrett would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade would loom large over her nomination.

        She and her husband, Assistant US Attorney Jesse Barrett, live in Indiana and have seven children.

        https://nypost.com/2020/09/18/who-might-succeed-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-on-supreme-court/

        by the way Mespo, thank you for your guidance on AR-15s. We bought one at Green Top recently and are quite pleased. Thanks

        1. estovir:

          I love that gun. If you got it from Scott you got a great explanation on use. I’m into my kid’s SP5 now but that AR-15 sits in the closet next to the Benelli 12 gauge. If you ever want a handgun, check out the H&K VP9.

    2. “She was a disgrace as a Jew,”

      Estovir, why bring religion into the mix? To call her a “disgrace as a Jew” has some undercurrents that I do not believe appropriate. You mention Scalia who so happened to have been my favorite Justice. I don’t think he would believe her to be a “disgrace as a Jew” despite his strong beliefs on the subject that I think haunt you.

  9. Agreed, Turley. A giant has passed…

    And anything other than full throated insistence on upholding the same standards that McConnell had for the Garland nomination is a) just plain weakness, and b) not living up to the standards that RBG guided us to.

    Don’t slip on this, Jon.

    1. Buggy:
      A giant? Like John Marshal. She only scarcely cobbled her views into the majority. More a clanging bell dissenter. Hero worship much?

      You obviously don’t know the McConnell “standard” or you wouldn’t call for it from JT.

      1. Big Mess: you’re a blowhard and a b hole Turley blog mutant. Of course you think this. Gonna guess you know a lot about being a giant as well.

        1. Buggy:

          Show us all the majority opinions she wrote on significant cases. Not many. It’s why “of course, [I] think this way.” And by your definition of “giant,” RBG was Billy Barty.

          1. So what? Her dissents are actually more influential. What you’re citing speaks more to the right’s laser focus on packing the court with federalist society vetted younger right wing judges than it does to RBG’s effectiveness.

            When I want to know about hack law I’ll be sure to ask for your opinion, Big Mess.

            1. Bug, without winner take all states in the EC, the court was long ago liberal and reflective of national will. The GOP is focused on the court because without a reset, the party is dying. They’ve lost 6 of the last 7 popular votes for president and will almost certainly be 7 out of 8 come Novembet. The only race they won was with an incumbent who shouldn’t have been an incumbent.

      2. What a whiny little child you are Mark. Antonin Scalia respected her, but you cannot.

        And this is the “McConnell standard” from 2016, after Scalia died: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

        Scalia died in Feb. of 2016, and his seat remained vacant until April 2017.

        1. Anonymous the Cat-lady:

          “What a whiny little child you are Mark. Antonin Scalia respected her, but you cannot.

          And this is the “McConnell standard” from 2016, after Scalia died: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

          Scalia died in Feb. of 2016, and his seat remained vacant until April 2017.“
          ********************************

          Well, your self-revelatory insults aside, I’m no respecter of persons or into hero worship. Everyone has feet of clay. . You can read below for the specific basis. On McConnell, he made that proclamation when the Presidency was occupied by the opposite political party from the Senate. unlike now.

          Thanks again for proving yourself a gushing sentimentalist with a blind eye for the rules of power.

          1. The McConnell standard is based on the majority of the Senate and the President being from different parties. Right now the McConnell standard is not in play.

            1. NO, it’s not, That’s the McConnel Standard invented after Trump won the EC, not the one stated and agreed to by GOP Senators during the Garland nomination.

              1. bookie:
                “Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.”
                https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/

                Bookie, ever heard this one:

          2. Yeah, “McConnell, he made that proclamation when the Presidency was occupied by the opposite political party from the Senate,” but he didn’t state that as part of his standard. You’re the one who is adding it. Do you have delusions of being McConnell?

            “I’m no respecter of persons”

            Ha! No one who reads your comments here would ever think otherwise.

              1. Respect is an issue not really suited to you, Big Mess. Nor to the pack of Trumpers here flagging the integrity test presented by RBG’s death.

          3. The parties holding the Presidency and Senate were not part of McConnell’s formulation then, and an obvious “footnote” imagined situationally. Mespo’s first claim about this being about “power” corect, though he’ll take up whatever BS party line he’s handed, as he does here. The fun will be watching GOP Senators who made clear cut statements then – and even recently, like Lindsay Graham – or even signed letters attempt to weasel out of it without voters deciding “This MFers a weasel.”.

            It will take 4 GOP Senators standing on their supposed Merrick Garland “principle” to kill this “Profile in Sleaze”, but maybe only 3. If Mark Kelly wins Arizona – as right now is most likely – he takes MCSally’s seat immediately, or during the lame duck session which most think is the most likely calendar.

            Enjoy.

            1. bookless in Gainesville:

              “The parties holding the Presidency and Senate were not part of McConnell’s formulation then, and an obvious “footnote” imagined situationally.”
              *****************************

              Marc Insigna just proved you the fool in the next comment below that was written before you bleated in. You must be used to it by now.

              1. Mespo, you clearly lack the horsepower to understand the difference between “power” – which is how you 1st described the issue – and “principle” which would require GOP Senators sticking with their supposedly solemn statements in 2016. The NR article argues “power” and does not counter the fact that the “power” argument was not made then, but the “principle’ argument was not only stated but written in formal letters signed by many of them, and repeated since by the likes of Lindsey Graham, Grassley, and Murkowski. There are others who will struggle with either their conscious or their polling as obvious sleaze balls without principle, and a Mark Kelly win in Arizona (he would take office immediately) means only 3 necessary if – as seems likely – the vote can’t be organized until the lame duck session.

                I doubt you can keep up with this Mespo, but you can read about it later.

                1. Bookie:

                  A lot of unlearned gibberish to hide you’re factually wrong — again — on election year SCOTUS appointments. You have no idea about the terms you’re bleating about. “Principle” and “power” actually do mean specific things. I’m sure Aristotle and Nicomachean Ethics are as foreign to you as Nietzsche and Will to Power are. You have no background in the topic. It’s why you misquote the legal principles you cite.

        1. There are the liberal swine and the conservative swine. These swine constitute the greatest threat to America. McConnell, Trump, Graham, etc are the bulwark of the conservative swine, only surpassed by yourself. The pig pen in which you wallow should retreat to someplace other than America. I hear Belarus is taking on more swine.

      1. The “historical standard” is not the case made by McConnell or the GOP in 2016. They pretended to high principle then and must now admit they actually have none, or stick to the pretense. It’s possible – though not likely – that some really believed that then.

        1. Bookend:

          “The “historical standard” is not the case made by McConnell”
          ***********************

          Yeah, they just got lucky with the manifest history.

          Unlike you, McConnell knows the chamber’s and American history. He simply followed the rules you didn’t know — or care to know. Not everyone is as dumb as you think they are. In fact, most are smarter than you and don’t feel the need to explain their obvious rationale.

          1. Mespo, thanks for clarifying and emphasizing your complete lack of understanding of the politics of this event and how it will play out. Enough in the GOP will have to at least pretend to be guided by principle, not power, and that creates much doubt that McConeell can get the votes. If he does, those senators will have to live with a “Kick me, I’m a hypocrite” sign on their back.

  10. While I lean conservative, I cannot help but admire RBG. Didn’t like all of her rulings, but we’re not a monolithic society. I pray the President has the wisdom to appoint someone as centered on the law, but fear he’ll be tugged to the right so far the next time Democrats control both Presidency and Senate we’ll live through a repacked court – sigh.

  11. RGB was suborn & self-centered

    RGB should have retired under the Obama administration, knowing her health issues. Obama could have picked another young liberal judge. And RGB could have been enjoying time with family & friends till the end.

    RGB served Trump on silver platter. Another judge will be picked from the previous short list & probably named before RGB is buried or cremated.

  12. Such a loss for the country, may peace be upon her.
    May her memory be a blessing.
    “Jewish tradition proclaims that anyone who dies on Rosh Hashanah is known as Tzaddik – a Righteous One. Rest among the Righteous, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

  13. Her Supreme Court legacy shouldn’t be measured by her straight A report card in law school, or the fact that she was on Columbia AND Harvard’s law reviews. (How do you do that, anyway? Did she go to two law schools? Serious question. Did she get a JD at one and an LLM at the other?) But, no, her legacy should be measured by what she actually accomplished in her 28 (? not sure how many) years on the Supreme Court. Not by the fact that she managed to get along personally with Antonin Scalia (reputedly). Writing a series of whining, radically leftist (not “unabashedly liberal”–that’s way too polite, JT) dissents means what, exactly? For what major Supreme Court cases did Ginsburg author the majority opinion? What major principles of law did she establishe or help to establish? Please let us know.

    1. Awfully ineffective as a Justice, she made her bones as a lawyer championing a bunch of liberal causes. While rightly praised as an equal protection Joan of Arc, she had hair raising views as a Justice on topics like abortion and gun control. She’s a mixed bag.

  14. Not to make light of Ginsberg’s passing or to discuss her replacement before a reasonable period of morning passes, but if Trump had a sense of humor he would nominate Merrick Garland to fill the seat.

    1. If Trump had a vicious sense of humor he would nominate Nancy Pelosi. Just imagine the turmoil from both sides of the aisles as they quickly changed positions. They could “Bork” her.

            1. Anonymous the Wise:
              “Quartering her would divide her into 4 parts. That is mathematical, even under Common Core.“
              **********************
              Most of us know that but we’ll still help remediate Anonymous the Dumb here.

              1. Mark, do you believe that you’re only talking to one Anonymous here, or more than one?

                And thanks for showing that you don’t actually know the full meaning of the words you’re using.

                1. “Mark, do you believe that you’re only talking to one Anonymous here, or more than one?”
                  **************
                  No that’s why I divide them into “the Wise” and “the Dumb.” Try to keep up, will ya? Oh and which words are you referring to? Or are you just a humorless clod.

                  Hey, a new category. “Anonymous the Clod.” What say ye?

                  1. Great, we’re making headway. You recognize that more than one person posts as Anonymous with the same grey avatar. Now how many total people do you think post this way? Kids learn to count in pre-school, so you should be able to do that.

                    And the words I referred to are “draw and quarter,” which often involved beheading, disemboweling, and emasculating, as well as pulling apart into other pieces.

            2. To draw and quarter someone is a grisly form of murder and can include disemboweling and beheading as well as dismembering. It is not mathematical.

              1. Anonymous the Clod:
                “To draw and quarter someone is a grisly form of murder and can include disemboweling and beheading as well as dismembering. It is not mathematical.”
                ********************************
                Oh, no sh#t Sherlock. It was humor, oh great clod. Having traipsed around lots of European castles and auto-de-fe plazas, I could give you a course in it. You really are a clod,

              2. The correct order is hang until passed out (not dead), draw (disembowel while the person is still alive) and quartering (which may or may not include beheading). Quartering, by the term itself, conjures up math. It was not an exact science back then.

    2. Merrick Garland is actually the smartest choice. There are too many vulnerable Senators the GOP are relying upon to keep control of the Senate, and the same reason Garland was an unfavorable pick for the GOP in 2016 (moderate left of center replacing THE Lion of the Right) he is a favorable pick for the GOP of 2020 (moderate left of center replacing the Lioness of the Left). It is a net ideological shift in the rightward direction for the court, and gives Trump an arguably more valuable spot on the DC Circuit court of Appeals, which hears vastly more cases than the Supreme Court, and many of them the challenges to Federal actions. Putting a staunch conservative there is a big win, especially replacing a very senior liberal like Garland. He still gets a positive net shift on the Supreme Court bench. It also puts the Democrats in a pickle because they spilled so many tears and so much ink asserting that Garland is the best possible choice for a Supreme Court Justice, and it scuttles the Biden message that Trump is a rabid ideologue. Trump can stand to lose a little excitement on his side to quell some of the anti-Trump support for Biden, plus it helps Gardner, Collins, McSally, Graham, etc in their reelection campaigns to hold the Senate, and helps further down ballot to flip the House because it makes the GOP look reasonable and statesmanlike, helping make the case the obstructionism is from the left. The proper choice is Garland, and it should be announced within the week.

  15. “For my students (liberal and conservative alike), there are few better models in life than Ginsburg who strength and quiet resolve helped shape the law and the country for decades.”
    *********************
    She never met an abortion or gun denying law she ever disliked. Criticized a sitting President while a justice, overstayed her capabilities in a national policy job by 20 years and deplored citizens defending themselves even as she enjoyed armed protection. To quote Matthew, “by their fruits shall ye know them,” and, I might add, not by the eulogies of their friends.

  16. Last night, I think you mean?

    Respected though she was, I’m looking forward to a less partisan replacement – someone who cares more about the law than politics and activism.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: