Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Author/Contributor Ralph Myers:

Supreme Court of the United States

The results of the death of Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and causation have many powerful and conflicting implications. I want to expound on what I view as powerful and inconsistent implications.

Implication One: (Cause and Effect)

The political maelstrom:

In a deeply divided America, 2020, anything that happens, especially if it has a political cause and resultant effect, seems only to act as something that further divides us. The death of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one such particularly significant event.

The correct action to take:

Nominate a replacement for Justice Ginsburg.

Implication Two:

(The US Constitution Applies, not political partisanship)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Since the death of Justice Ginsberg, several articles and the talking heads’ waterfalls of opinions have flooded the media and internet.

On September 20, 2020, an article was written by Charles Creitz of Fox News appeared on its Web Site. Mr. Creitz  elaborated on the political free-for-all. America was confronted by this very same situation in 2016, that outgoing President Obama should replace Justice Scalia. Following his presidential right and prerogative, he nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia. However, the nomination went no further as the Senate (Republican Controlled) would not bring it to the floor for a vote of confirmation.

At that time, Vice President Biden urged the Senate to move forward with the nomination by providing that (the Senate) House defer to the President’s constitutional duty and provide “advice and consent.” Mr. Biden considered it an unprecedented act of obstruction that the Republican majority would not let it go any further than a nomination.

Fast forward to 2020, Presidential Candidate Biden has made a 180-degree turn with the death of Justice Ginsburg, according to an article written by Joseph Curl of Daily Wire.com. Candidate Biden is quoted in his Twitter on Friday, September 18, 2020: “Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that President should elect a successor to Justice Ginsburg. Other than for strictly political partisanship, this demand is redundant. The voters have already selected a President, and he is Donald Trump. He has the right to act within the constitutional authority already granted him. He also has the power to nominate a new justice and does not or should not wait for the next President to select Justice Ginsburg’s replacement. He would be neglecting his constitutional obligation. Finally, he is rightfully taking advantage of using the Senate Republican-controlled party to ratify his candidate to replace Justice Ginsburg.

The correct action to take:

Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

Nominate a candidate. Have that candidate approved by the Senate by vote and confirm that person to become the newest SCOTUS member.

Implication Three:

Political expediency, today I believe this, but now I think that.

In 2016, a presidential election year before Obama’s term of office expired, the Democrats believed and pushed for him to replace Justice Scalia.

Today, I believe this premise is correct. In February 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland a few weeks later to replace Justice Scalia. He is quoted in an article appearing in “Daily Torch,” saying, “I have fulfilled my constitutional duty. Now it is time for the Senate to do theirs.” At that time, Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning was quoted in the same article noted. “Just as it was Obama’s constitutional role to nominate for Scalia. Similarly, the Senate should exercise its part as well by waiting until after the election, stating, President Obama has exercised his constitutional prerogative to nominate someone to the late Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court.” Political partisanship, rather than the constitutional rule of law, is back in play due to the passing of Justice Ginsburg, as is the hypocrisy of the political players.

Justice Ginsburg Thoughts:
In a speech given in 2016 after the passing of Justice Scalia, Justice Ginsburg, when asked by an attendee if the Constitution prevented the President from filling the seat? Justice Ginsburg’s response was: “As you know, the President has the authority to name appointees to the Supreme Court, but he has to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President is elected for four years, not three years, so the powers that he has in year three continue into year four, and maybe some members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.” She reportedly told her granddaughter Clara Spera, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed.”

Justice Ginsburg, an overseer of the US Constitution, knew the correct constitutional process in replacing the Supreme Court’s Justice. Sadly, near her time of death she now wished the Constitution could be changed to allow a delay in replacing her seat on the court. Even if Justice Ginsburg had a codicil in her will stating her wish that her seat is not filled until a new President is installed, it is just that, a wish that has no legal standing in the US Constitution.

Joe Biden’s Thoughts:

Now, let us look at current Presidential Candidate Joe Biden’s thoughts in 2016 and now 2020, hypocrisy and political expediency epitomized. In a New York Times op-ed mentioned in the article written by Daily Wire correspondent Joseph Curl cites Mr. Biden’s argument

Official portrait of Vice President Joe Biden

against Senate Majority Leader McConnell that a replacement for Justice Scalia’s should not be seated until after the presidential election. At the time, a Democrat was occupying the White house. President (Obama) declared that the President had a “constitutional duty to

seat a justice on the high court when a vacancy arises. “The President has the Constitutional responsibility to nominate; the Senate has the Constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent.

At a speech given by Mr. Biden at Georgetown University, he said, “I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires. Now that Joe Biden is the Democratic Candidate for President, he no longer feels the way he did in 2016. In fact, he has made a 180-degree turn with the death of Justice Ginsburg, writing on Twitter recently: “Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg.” The Constitution no longer fits his need. It hampers them.

The correct action to take:

Follow the Constitution, nominate and confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement.

Implication Four:

Threats of violence from the politically extreme left.

I think a vast majority of Americans, regardless of their political party leanings, are alarmed, angered, confused at the inaction their elected officials have taken, and tired of the tirades from extreme leftist activists. President Trump has been confronted with their outbursts even before he was elected in 2016. It would be redundant to list all the false accusations that were concocted, unproven, and finally leading to a failed impeachment. Of course, President Trump was impeached in the House of Representatives, strictly upon a party-line vote. However, he was acquitted in the Senate trial, and again the vote to impeach was nearly along party lines.

Let us examine calls for violence as being acceptable in combatting President Trump and his followers. In an article published on Blabber Buzz, here are some notable quotes:

**Twitter users threatened arson and apparent violence to Republicans if Justice Ginsburg is replaced before the elections. “If they even try to replace RBG, we burn the entire f*****g thing down,” author Reza Aslan, a far-left activist tweeted. Azlan later responded to Senator Mitch McConnell’s vow to hold a vote on President Trump’s nominee, “Over our dead bodies, literally,” he threatened.

**The darling of the leftist Democrats, Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, said RBG’s death should inspire the left to radicalize.

**A Canadian political science professor called for arson, prompting accusations he made a terroristic threat. “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS, ” Waterloo professor Emmett MacFarlane wrote on Twitter.

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld responded to the controversy by criticizing anyone who might make fun of people for worrying about political terrorism. Mr. Gutfeld said, “Leftists promise violence and “burn it all down” if they don’t get what they want. Then their enablers in the media mock you worrying that there might be violence and “burning it all down” when the leftists don’t get what they want.”

I think Gutfeld’s statement is sadly true when one looks back on what has been transpiring since June 2020. Enough is enough; dedicated Americans who value their freedom and liberty will not be intimidated and will fight back at the ballot box and in the streets if necessary.

The correct action to take:

Follow the Constitution and replace Justice Ginsburg now.

Implication Five:

The threat of Impeachment, 2.0

Speaker of the House, Pelosi has once again threatened President Trump’s Impeachment if he does his constitutional duty of appointing a replacement for deceased Justice Ginsburg. While President Trump was impeached in January of 2020 by the House of Representatives. That Impeachment was based upon concocted and fraudulent charges that were strictly predicated upon the Democratic House leadership and were proven to be without merit. What confronts us now is that Impeach the President is a new attempt is nothing more than political gamesmanship and again decidedly without merit.

In an article that appeared in the Washington Examiner on September 19, 2020, Justice Department Reporter Jerry Dunleavy cited a recent poll. The poll was conducted by Marquette University that showed 67% of all adults believed the Senate should hold a hearing if a vacancy occurred during the current Presidential election, with only 32% in opposition. Similar substantial numbers across Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, who supported holding confirmation hearings was included in this poll. Those numbers were 68-31%, 63-37%, and 71-28% respectively. The Marquette University Poll was taken three days before Justice Ginsburg’s death.

President Trump is not violating his oath of office by exercising his power to appoint a replacement for the seat made vacant by the death of Justice Ginsburg. Countless implications can, more than likely, be discussed and argued over the next few days. But to borrow a quote from former President Obama, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day I won.”

How true, Mr. Obama, and that is the case for President Trump now, the 2016 election indeed did have consequences, and he is within his constitutional right to exercise them.

This ladies and gentlemen are both an implication and consequence!

The correct action: Nominate and confirm a replacement for Justice Ginsburg.

 

About the Author: The Cordata Neighborhood is in North Bellingham of Whatcom County.

Ralph Myers

Just finished writing a book about the history of the Cordata Neighborhood Association as narrated by Co-Founder Julianna Royal Guy. The book was published by local publisher Village Books in Fairhaven. I donated my time and efforts at no charge to the Cordata Neighborhood Association I served as president of the Cordata Neighborhood Association, and on the Board of Directors of the Corona Court Homeowners Association. Also, I edit and publish newsletters for both of those organizations. I am a writer, copywriter, amateur photographer and artist.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here