The Left Threatens Political Shenanigans and Violence After Ginsburg's Death

I was amazed at the number of articles I saw over the weekend painting Ruth Bader Ginsberg as some sort of saint or wishing that she "rest in peace" from nominally conservative sources. For instance, David Post at The Volokh Conspiracy writes: "She had the kind of fierce integrity that I think we all would want to see in a judge; she was always determined to get it right, to do right by the litigants and to do right by the law." Rod Dreher praised her as "an admirable woman who served her country faithfully." U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (Tex-R) called her a "titan" and stated: “Despite our ideological differences, I have always maintained a deep respect for Justice Ginsburg. Her unwavering commitment to public service has inspired a generation of young Americans – particularly women – to reach for their dreams.”

    I understand that there is respect and deference due to a particular office, even if the person occupying that office has never done anything to earn that respect and deference. I understand that prominent politicians have to mouth sympathy and faint praise as part of their role in maintaining public and political decorum. I also understand that even the worst people can otherwise be kind to those they know, or be polite to their adversaries. "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite," Winston Churchill explained. And Ginsberg may have been, in fact, quite collegial and a genuinely nice person. 

    But here is a woman that thought nothing of legislating from the bench; who was quite willing to hold the Second Amendment null and void because she thought it was passé while discovery new rights that advanced her pet liberal causes; and who supported the killing of millions of unborn babies throughout her career. "Her principal legacy is the conception that distinctions based on gender or sexual orientation are at all times and places presumptively illegitimate," notes George Liebmann. (She would have, presumably, supported boys/men in a girls/women locker room). He adds, "I can recall no important case in which she seriously imposed substantive constitutional limits on any federal action, either legislative or administrative." And, "[f]inally, in her last phase, she repeatedly offended judicial propriety, by appearing at advocacy group fundraisers, endorsing legislation from the bench, receiving the adulation of thousands in a football stadium, and disparaging a presidential candidate."

    In Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar, Marc Anthony says of Caesar, 

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones;

So let it be with Caesar. 

And so let it be with Ginsburg.

    Since we, as a country, have shifted more and more to using the Supreme Court to amend our Constitution, the fights for Supreme Court nominations have become increasingly acrimonious, to the point that the Left is willing to risk civil war to stop President Trump from replacing Ginsburg.

    Jennifer Rubin, writing at the Washington Post, encourages her fellow Leftists to abandon all political restrain and embrace will to power should Trump replace Ginsburg. She begins her article suggesting that we, as a nation, should honor Ginsburg's last request that she "not be replaced until a new president is installed." "How like her," gushes Rubin, "to leave an admonition to respect the Constitution, to act fairly and to do justice — even if others might ignore or scorn her." I don't find anything in the Constitution requiring the president refrain from nominating a new justice in favor of a successive president, and I don't see unnecessary delay as fair or just, particularly since some aspect of this coming presidential election will end up before the Supreme Court. Rubin knows this as well, which explains her warning to Republicans:

    Democrats cannot hope to persuade the unpersuadable or to shame the shameless. Instead, they must explain unequivocally: If the Senate confirms a new justice before the next president is inaugurated, the new Senate and president will by any means necessary obliterate the impact of that move.

    If need be, Democrats will expand the Supreme Court and change the lifetime tenure of justices. (Federal judges have lifetime tenure but not guaranteed tenure to a specific seat.) If need be, Democrats will eliminate the legislative filibuster. (Don’t think for a moment that if they show restraint, the Republicans would not eliminate the filibuster the moment they are back in the majority.) If need be, Democrats will admit D.C. and Puerto Rico as states as there is justification for doing so quite apart from the Supreme Court, thereby expanding the Senate to 104 votes.

In short, in the Democrats' usual spirit of compromise, she offers Republicans the choice between giving the Democrats a majority on the court or the Democrats taking a majority on the court. 

    Elie Mystal, writing at The Nation, notes that "[t]he nominee McConnell tries to push through over the next few months will likely wield power[!] in this country for the next 30 to 40 years." Thus, he also exhorts his readers to support packing the Supreme Court.

    If the Democrats are unable to block Trump’s nominee, there is but one choice should Joe Biden win the White House and the Democrats take back a majority in the Senate: pack the Supreme Court. As I’ve written before, the number of Supreme Court justices is set by legislation, not the Constitution. If McConnell can successfully block one Supreme Court appointment because a Republican justice died under a Democratic president but rush through a second nominee because a Democratic justice died under a Republican president, then McConnell has proven that the composition of the Supreme Court is a function of raw political power.

    Should Democrats ever hold that power again, they must act. The addition of two justices is simply a proportional response necessary to right the wrongs committed by McConnell. The addition of 10 justices, as I have advocated, puts the Supreme Court on a path toward long-term reform.

Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times opines: 

    Outraged people should take to the streets en masse. Democrats in the Senate may not be able to stop Republicans from shoving a nominee through before the election or during a lame-duck session, but if it happens they should do all in their power to grind Senate business to a halt.

    And if Republicans do give Ginsburg’s seat to some Federalist Society fanatic, Democrats must, if they win back the presidency and the Senate, abolish the filibuster and expand the court, adding two seats to account for both Garland and Ginsburg.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have threatened impeachment proceedings to slow or stop nomination of a replacement for Ginsburg. 

    And those are the more reasonable ones. Miranda Devine's Sunday op-ed in the New York Post cites protesters and prominent liberals on the Left calling for more rioting, arson, and outright civil war if Trump attempts to replace Ginsburg. 

    The takeaway is that the civil unrest will continue, if not increase, between now and the election.