As with the death of JPS, Justice Souter's brief comments says it as good or better than the rest: "Ruth Ginsburg was one of the members of the Court who achieved greatness before she became a great justice. I loved her to pieces." I miss that guy. Note the absence as before of Justice O'Connor, who has been in decline for a few years now. Her death will come at some point.
There has been various good obits, including by Irin Carmon (who co-wrote a book about her) and Linda Greenhouse (the long time Court reporter and now biweekly commentator). Linda Greenhouse at one point noted that RBG was considered a judicial restraint liberal on the court of appeals. She was there for over a decade, so that perhaps should get more attention.
On SCOTUS, she was more traditionally liberal, if (except for some key dissents) not likely to write in major cases except for sex equality related ones. This is partially a result of the control of the Court. OTOH, it is also partially her skill-set in procedural matters, which was a particular expertise of hers. One person cited an opinion of hers protecting a woman who couldn't pay the fees required in a parental termination case. This equal protection principle was particularly important because of the interest (parental rights) at issue. Kennedy noted the line of cases mixed due process and equal protection interests, a theme he later used in Lawrence and Obergefell, in the latter in part citing this case.
(One interesting foonote is the citation of Lindsey v. Normet, which is repeated part of a string of cases cited to show that economic and social legislation generally, especially against some claim for benefits like housing or the like, should be weighed using rational basis review. But, here, it is used because the opinion did strike down a portion of the process challenged. So, it was actually not a total loss.)
Biden has drew the line -- the winner of the 2020 elections should be the one who picks her replacement. Reports are that she on her deathbed dictated a statement that she strongly wished the next president to do the deed. I doubt anyone is really surprised except perhaps by her making it known. Biden also made the important comment that the normal process to confirm justices takes longer than the time between now and Election Day, which CNN, e.g., showed in a recent article. RBG was confirmed in fifty days, which might be a talking point. But, that was before the 21st Century and was pretty quick anyway. Plus, not so close to an election etc.
I also saw at least one law professor noting that if a confirmation occurs before Election Day or during the lame duck (assume Trump + a Republican Senate in 2021 might change the equation), that moderates will be pushed into supporting court packing. She might be basically talking about herself since the person strongly opposed it in the past. Lyle Denninson, the SCOTUS reporter vet (he's around 90 now) still opposes it. But, then again, he in reply to one comment noted we were "fine" at the moment, which was just funny even if limited to the state of the Senate.
I thought in 2016 that Scalia died early enough that it was fair, especially given the pick, to confirm a new justice. It is harder to talk about that in late September with current practices (including Gorsuch) taking two months or so to confirm especially. You can talk about "technically" the person elected is still in power, but dying in mid-February (and picking the person -- to me a bit too long -- in March) is rather different than the situation now. But, the precedent was set in 2016. It will just be damn wrong, putting aside who we are dealing with, to shift again.
McConnell, right after her death was announced, did so shift. Somehow the control of the Senate and presidency together matters, not just the right of the people to decide in an election year. It's Calvinball. Lindsey Graham too seems to have shifted. Such an asshole. The gentle ladies of Maine and Alaska might hold. That "might" very well might be too optimistic. But, you need four if the Dems hold. We saw that with Kavanaugh. I thought Amy Coney-Barrett was better than Kavanaugh, and in some role she might be okay on SCOTUS, but don't want her for RBG.
Will the Dems, if they can, expand the Court if she is confirmed in October or December? I just don't know. But, with the ERA, statehood for D.C. (and Puerto Rico?), the end of the filibuster for legislation, etc. up in the air, the 2020s will be rather interesting. If some travesty happens in November, still so. Just in a more dark way. Not that 2020 has not been so very dark. RBG's death, if well timed for her Jewish nature on Rosh Hashanah (those who die on that day are deemed particularly honorable), adds to it all.
There has been various good obits, including by Irin Carmon (who co-wrote a book about her) and Linda Greenhouse (the long time Court reporter and now biweekly commentator). Linda Greenhouse at one point noted that RBG was considered a judicial restraint liberal on the court of appeals. She was there for over a decade, so that perhaps should get more attention.
On SCOTUS, she was more traditionally liberal, if (except for some key dissents) not likely to write in major cases except for sex equality related ones. This is partially a result of the control of the Court. OTOH, it is also partially her skill-set in procedural matters, which was a particular expertise of hers. One person cited an opinion of hers protecting a woman who couldn't pay the fees required in a parental termination case. This equal protection principle was particularly important because of the interest (parental rights) at issue. Kennedy noted the line of cases mixed due process and equal protection interests, a theme he later used in Lawrence and Obergefell, in the latter in part citing this case.
(One interesting foonote is the citation of Lindsey v. Normet, which is repeated part of a string of cases cited to show that economic and social legislation generally, especially against some claim for benefits like housing or the like, should be weighed using rational basis review. But, here, it is used because the opinion did strike down a portion of the process challenged. So, it was actually not a total loss.)
Biden has drew the line -- the winner of the 2020 elections should be the one who picks her replacement. Reports are that she on her deathbed dictated a statement that she strongly wished the next president to do the deed. I doubt anyone is really surprised except perhaps by her making it known. Biden also made the important comment that the normal process to confirm justices takes longer than the time between now and Election Day, which CNN, e.g., showed in a recent article. RBG was confirmed in fifty days, which might be a talking point. But, that was before the 21st Century and was pretty quick anyway. Plus, not so close to an election etc.
I also saw at least one law professor noting that if a confirmation occurs before Election Day or during the lame duck (assume Trump + a Republican Senate in 2021 might change the equation), that moderates will be pushed into supporting court packing. She might be basically talking about herself since the person strongly opposed it in the past. Lyle Denninson, the SCOTUS reporter vet (he's around 90 now) still opposes it. But, then again, he in reply to one comment noted we were "fine" at the moment, which was just funny even if limited to the state of the Senate.
I thought in 2016 that Scalia died early enough that it was fair, especially given the pick, to confirm a new justice. It is harder to talk about that in late September with current practices (including Gorsuch) taking two months or so to confirm especially. You can talk about "technically" the person elected is still in power, but dying in mid-February (and picking the person -- to me a bit too long -- in March) is rather different than the situation now. But, the precedent was set in 2016. It will just be damn wrong, putting aside who we are dealing with, to shift again.
McConnell, right after her death was announced, did so shift. Somehow the control of the Senate and presidency together matters, not just the right of the people to decide in an election year. It's Calvinball. Lindsey Graham too seems to have shifted. Such an asshole. The gentle ladies of Maine and Alaska might hold. That "might" very well might be too optimistic. But, you need four if the Dems hold. We saw that with Kavanaugh. I thought Amy Coney-Barrett was better than Kavanaugh, and in some role she might be okay on SCOTUS, but don't want her for RBG.
Will the Dems, if they can, expand the Court if she is confirmed in October or December? I just don't know. But, with the ERA, statehood for D.C. (and Puerto Rico?), the end of the filibuster for legislation, etc. up in the air, the 2020s will be rather interesting. If some travesty happens in November, still so. Just in a more dark way. Not that 2020 has not been so very dark. RBG's death, if well timed for her Jewish nature on Rosh Hashanah (those who die on that day are deemed particularly honorable), adds to it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!