I've been trying to tell you - for years - that the United States of America has a deeply flawed political system. Other countries also have deeply flawed political systems, but at least they are not beholden to a constitution established 250 years ago, by a small number of white men, in circumstances completely different from what exist today. Today, you have a group of "conservative" justices, nominated & confirmed by a undemocratic process that are making decisions based on an "originalist" interpretation of that 250 year old constitution. I'm baffled why anyone would think that's reasonable.
Because you insisted on that idea in multiple posts - frustratingly insisted against all the evidence - back in the day: the US Constitution was perfect according to you. Admittedly, that may seem like a long time ago to you, but I've never heard you explicitly reject that point of view.
Not a chance. The Democrats knew this was coming the day Ginsburg died. They've effectively done nothing to try to stop it since. They'll stamp their feet for 6 months about this as constituents grow increasingly tired of their incompetence and vote Republican just to get those specific Democrats in Congress out; and the bloodbath they've wrought on themselves will likely be so thorough that I can see Republicans getting a supermajority in both houses.
And to think, this could've all been avoided if Ginsburg had retired when Obama asked her to or if the Democrats had run even a slightly more palatable candidate in 2016. We could also quit electing old people who've been in politics so long that they're completely out of touch with the average American. I mean how is Biden, a man who's been in politics for nearly 50 years, the right person to understand what the average American goes through? His whole career has been dictated by the highest bidder.
I mean she retires earlier in Obama's presidency, Obama replaces her with a younger and/or healthier justice, and Trump doesn't get to nominate Amy Coney Barrett. That puts the split at 5-4 instead of 6-3. Roberts seemed pretty iffy on fully overturning Roe v. Wade and with a closer margin, he probably would've looked for more of a middle ground by limiting abortion rights instead of getting rid of it completely.*
The math isn't lost on me. I'm still stuck on RBG vacating a seat when asked. She was fit to serve on the Court until she wasn't.
The Supreme Court should be apolitical. However, it hasn't been apolitical in a long time and it certainly wasn't during Obama's term. RGB had been around long enough to know this and if you look back through the recent voting trends in the US, there was a good chance that a Republican was going to follow Obama due to the back-and-forth nature of presidential swings.
How I think the court should function, how the framers of the Constitution intended it to work, and how the court currently functions are different. While I think the court should be apolitical, I recognize it isn't and if one side "plays the game" so to speak while the other doesn't you end up with what happened today. RGB should've recognized the game, Obama certainly recognized it and was attempting to outplay the other side. RGB refused and in doing so it came at the cost of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Either RGB was naive in thinking that the Republicans could be trusted or she was stubborn and wouldn't do something for the good of the party.
If you truly believe the Court should be apolitical, there are no caveats. Not one. The suggestion that Ginsburg vacate her seat when her place in it isn't a detriment (I'm talking about mental and physical faculties being compromised and not mere advanced age and the concern that she may croak when the "other guys" get to choose her replacement--the latter being especially odd from someone who frequently insists people should vote for a third party) is counter to the idea that the Court should be apolitical. That the Court isn't apolitical isn't justification for political maneuvering if you believe the Court should be apolitical.
Yes, I recognize that Republicans lack principles. I don't. I'd wager RBG didn't either, and I recognize she was an incredibly intelligent woman and recognized that Republicans lack principles, but I think she also had a respect for the institution that Republicans do not and Obama did not when asking her to vacate her seat. **** the party.
I hope your suspicions are not unfounded.
She could have boiled that whole speech down to fourteen words...
www.nbcchicago.com
