Really, GOP? You don’t think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg fervently wished that Trump would not be the one to nominate her successor?
That’s right — wished. She did not demand, dictate, or order it. She said she wished it. Times being what they are, though, the story was exaggerated, twisted, dissected, and run through the mill of partisan interpretation.
“I doubt those were her dying words.” Right, well, nobody claimed that they were. Her granddaughter, Clara Spera, said that her grandmother made the statement in the days before her death, in response to a direct question about whether she had a message for the public. She did not say they were the actual last words the woman spoke as she left this life.
“She was a lawyer so if that’s what she wanted, she would have written it down!” Two things here: first, we are not talking about bequeathing property or assets as one would in a will. That a dying person didn’t take the time to write down a list of things she hopes happen after she’s gone is not weird; it would be weird if she had. Secondly, writing it down would give no more power to her words than a second-hand telling of them had. Are we suggesting here that if she had written it down and had it notarized and witnessed that the GOP would exclaim “Wait! This changes everything, guys. We must now hold off on filling the vacancy!”? Of course not, and she would have known that. (There is also the fact that Spera says she did write it out for her at the time, but that really doesn’t matter.)
“Justices don’t get to choose their replacements!” Duh. Again, two things: One: she did not try to “choose” her replacement. Not a single name was purportedly mentioned. (For that matter, she didn’t even say “I hope it is a liberal,” though we can fairly infer that from what we know about her.) Two, nobody on the left is suggesting that a legal genius like Ruth Bader Ginsburg misunderstands the process by which justices are chosen. It is not the Democrats who are suggesting that she thought her words had legal effect; it is the Republicans, in their unnecessary zeal to counter-act any possibility that her wish be taken seriously, who keep arguing that point.
Listen, I love me some RBG. I loathe me some DJT. I am a little nervous about what kind of person he will choose (though not as nervous as others because of my unpopular opinion that justices normally do attempt to follow the law, not their personal beliefs.) But I understand that her wish is just a wish. The nomination, confirmation, and appointment process is what it is, and no one, except for those trying to create controversy where none lies, expected it to be otherwise.
Sure, there was room for argument and hope that the party in power would not try to shove a nominee through in the short amount of time before election day; it seemed a fair suggestion, given that Scalia’s death was 9 months before the election and the sitting president was not permitted so much as a hearing on his pick. Now, of course, the “no new justices during an election year” rule has been retconned into “no new justices during an election year when we don’t like the president, but if we do then game on.” But the debate over the hypocrisy and stupid political gamesmanship is a separate matter from the debate over what Ginsburg wanted or didn’t want.
A ceremonial resolution was presented in the senate to honor Ginsburg. What should have been a unanimously passed no brainer died because someone on the Dem side — Schumer maybe — tacked Ruth’s wish onto it so Ted Cruz killed it. What should have been a fitting commemoration to her service was destroyed by one side’s insistence on including a statement they knew full well would rankle the other, and the other side being unwilling to ignore it, even though they knew full well it had absolutely zero effect. They could have let it go. Both of them, the Democrats and the Republicans. It was not necessary to add that statement, but it wouldn’t have made any difference to have let it go through anyway.
RBG’s wish is a non-story, a poignant detail from her last days that amounts to nothing more than an anecdote. Of course some are going to wield it like weapon, insisting that granting her “dying wish” is somehow a moral imperative, and others are going to play dumb and pretend like it was some attempt to control the judiciary from beyond the grave. It has made the days after her death really ugly.
We all know we are about to engage in a ruthless battle over the nominee; let’s just get on with it and leave the dead out of it. This was not a last will and testament; it was just her giving her last opinion.
“RBG’s wish is a non-story, a poignant detail from her last days that amounts to nothing more than an anecdote.” Indeed. It’s not even newsworthy….so why was it “news”. Oh, right….Report
She started fighting with cancer 21 years ago in 1999. She’s had it 5 times. She started having tumors while Obama had a super majority during the EARLY days of his Presidency (Feb 2009) and could easily replace her with her clone. She had a heart stent put in on Nov 2014 (and could have had Obama lame duck a replacement even then) when she was 81.
She was going to die in office.
I’m sure she would rather be replaced by her own team, but if you’re unwilling to step down then it’s pretty random.Report
Her family says that after her husband died she threw herself even more into her work. She probably would have died sooner if she’d given it up. I won’t second guess her decision to stay. It was her life’s work and she didn’t owe anything to anyone.
Maybe looking back she wished she had, but who in 2014 could have predicted this shit show?Report
Really, who could have predicted? A political push back to 8 years of Obama with the Dems running a candidate that was a lightening rod to the other side? Who could have predicted this? Didn’t Nate Silver or some other guy actually do that that? Of course, no one paid any attention to him.Report
This comment makes no sense because there’s literally no Democrat who could be president who the Republicans would not turn into a lighting rod for partisanship.
and yes I’m including Jesus age Christ reborn and running as a Democrat because suddenly they discover the old testament was a lot more meaningful than the new and who’s this hippie Jesus anywayReport
The “shit show” has VERY little to do with anything. Trump is a mess but his Supreme picks are standard high functioning GOP. One assumes he’s stealing someone else’s homework.
The end result is there is no difference between who he’s putting up and who a President Pence would.
I’m even hard pressed to think that a President Pence could do this with less Drama. The Dems are going to freak out and do things like make false rape accusations no matter how boring and ethical the choice is.
——————–
Moving the talk back to RBG, when you look at the changes she made and the adversary she overcame, my expectation is she was carved out of willpower and determination.
From her point of view the illness would have been just one more thing to overcome, and she did so 4+ times.Report
Recap link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/rbg-retirement-obama.htmlReport
Watching her casket arrive at the Supreme Court the other day, I was struck about how “ordinary people” it all was. Her pall bearers were former clerks, and while they tried to match step carrying her home one more time, they were not the precision military honor guard that Congressmen and Presidents get. They were 8 humans charged with carrying their boss, mentor and friend through a crowd of other humans who were their colleagues. It could just as easily have been up the steps of a small synagogue in Brooklyn.
That humanity may well be her greatest gift, and it is reflected in both her desire to work through everything thrown at her, and her final message. That this is now weaponized in service of politics is revolting.Report
The joke that I saw going on the twitters was “what about Scalia’s last wish?”
In any case, I agree that RPG probably wanted to be replaced by someone who had a similar judicial philosophy. I imagine that every single person on the court has a judicial philosophy that they think is a correct judicial philosophy and the only differences are how many other judicial philosophies they see as equally valid.
That said, the fact that actual politicians are saying that RBG’s dying wishes are relevant is one of the ghosts haunting us right now and this ghost is a proxy for the “real” fight. Nobody would care if RBG’s dying wish was something involving the Chicago Bears. Well, Lions fans might care. Anyway, her opinion was just another cudgel for folks to use. If you don’t agree with her, you must not respect her! And if you don’t respect her, you’re bad!
Which, I suppose, brings us back to the whole “a judicial philosophy” versus “*THE* judicial philosophy” thing.
And how willing you are to allow for there to be equally valid different ones.Report
Whether or not those were her actual dying words, the idea of them was introduced into the political troposphere, where they will be used by all involved in politics in some sort of attempt to gain partisan advantage.
Thus it ever was.
(If the people who first let loose the idea of her “dying wish” to the public didn’t think this would happen, they are political naif’s)Report
I’m pretty sure that Donald Trump’s brother’s dying words were “I hope Donald replaces RGB with Amy Coney Barrett”, but no reporter wrote it down and published it. Still, the country should respect his probable wishes.Report
The conformation hearings will need to explore the nominee’s opinions about Bush v. Gore, e.g. “Is handing the presidency to an incompetent Republican a binding precedent?”Report
“Would you agree that Republicans are poo poo heads?”
“I don’t think that that question…”
“Answer the question.”Report
Also, “Which of the Civil War amendments should the Court repeal next?”Report
If we agree that the 21st repealed the 18th, I think that the “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” should be removed from the 13th.
Do you disagree?Report
I think a corporation should be able to enslave its workers if motivated by a genuine religious conviction.Report
Pushback: there was something unseemly about saying it. Even if it could be presumed, there’s something ugly about saying it. It should tarnish her reputation, or rather confirm it as a political rather than legal person. Because she was an activist, someone interested in outcomes rather than process. In her time, the Court extended its influence over the individual. So the image of her last words being anti-democratic, that was bound to stick.Report
“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed” is entirely about process; it’s a desire that the precedent established in 2016 be respected.
Unless, of course, refusing to confirm a justice then while rushing to do it now is about outcomes rather than principle. Hard to believe, when so many pixels insisting otherwise were spilled at the time.Report
“ What should have been a fitting commemoration to her service was destroyed by one side’s insistence on including a statement they knew full well would rankle the other, and the other side being unwilling to ignore it, even though they knew full well it had absolutely zero effect.”
Not quite. The GOP wanted a different quote included, something about not wanting to increase the number of justices.
In this case, it really was BSDI.Report
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-senate-resolution-schumer-cruz/index.htmlReport
OK…. my words are still true. It’s just that the “sides” can be used interchangeably.Report
Yes.
But what stands out is the responses.
The GOP wanted to include a quote that politicized her death in their favor. The Dems said, “Let’s put in a different quote.”
The Dems wanted to include a quote that politicized her death in their favor. The GOP said, “ZOMG!!! HOW DARE YOU POLITICIZE HER DEATH!”Report
Not that it matters, but your own link says it was the other way around.Report
I read that differently but could be mistaken.
Even then… one side is deriding the inclusion of quotes… while trying to include quotes.
The Dems didn’t say don’t include a politicized quote. The GOP did. And then tried to include a politicized quote.Report
I don’t accept that. The order of events is important to the story. Does anyone know for sure what happened when?Report
Even with re-reading, the order of events is clear.
The GOP handed Schumer a resolution. Schumer added in the dying wishes, even saying it was exactly the same with that addition.
Cruz objected to Schumer. Cruz tried to remove the dying wishes and add no-more-than-9.
Schumer also pointed out that the GOP is ignoring her dying wishes so there’s that.Report
I disagree. Both sides wanted to add quotes.
One side also said they shouldn’t add quotes.
It’s not an issue of adding or not adding the quotes. It’s decrying something you’re actively doing.Report
If there was a politically-neutral statement about Ginsburg, and Cruz tried to politicize it and Schumer responded in kind, then Cruz was wrong and bears the blame. And vice versa. It’s not “both sides do it”. With this particular thing, one side politized it.Report
I concede that.
Schumer was wrong to politicize it.
Cruz was wrong to politicize it in response.
The GOP is hypocritical for whining about politicizing it.Report
You don’t politicize something in response to it being politicized. You drop in a chicken bone, it’s chicken soup. The guy who puts in the second bone doesn’t also make it chicken soup.Report
Pinky, this is a very good point.
The question of whether “tit for tat” is a justifiable strategy comes up a lot. (Not whether it’s effective, of course. That seems to be beyond dispute.)Report
This is Star Wars 101: it matters who shot first.Report
Em, are you the least bit surprised at the reaction to your entirely reasonable piece? Or did you find it as predictable as I did?Report
Not surprised at all. You literally cannot win here… but that’s what makes it so charming!Report
Yes, the temerity of people to have a difference of opinion!
#howdareyou!Report
People can have, and express, whatever opinions they want. And the rest of us can point and laugh.Report
What got me about the coverage is that RBG has been lying in state at the Supreme Court building for at least the past two years. How is this even news?Report
Stay classy.Report
I would like to remove my editor hat to respond in a way that this remark deserves, but I won’t because Ruth wouldn’t approve of what I have to say.Report
Hey, even Obama had governors rolling in aisles with his joke about Scalia’s death. ^_^Report
Citation?Report
I assume he means this. Which is not in any way disrespectful to Scalia.
“Some of you might be in the final year of your last term,’ working as hard as you can to get as much done as possible for the folks that you represent: fixing roads, educating our children, helping people retrain, appointing judges,’ Obama uttered, adding a dramatic pause. ‘The usual stuff.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1268384/Obama-cracks-Supreme-Court-Justice-Scalia-Death-Joke.htmlReport
We all know we are about to engage in a ruthless battle
Nicely done.Report
::takes a bow::Report