Damn, she's good
by Tom Sullivan
Just last night we were breathing a sigh of relief to hear that Notorious R.B.G. had left the hospital after a stent procedure. I still remember watching Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Senate confirmation hearings and thinking, damn, she's good.
But these are more troubled times. It is odd to think the fate of the nation may hang on the 81 year-old Ginsburg staying for now right where she is.
During this fall's campaign, we had a time convincing people to get off their couches to vote because the Supreme Court was at stake in the Senate race. The workings of the unelected court are that much more removed from the way people think about issue- and personality-driven electoral politics. The Washington Post's Paul Waldman might agree.
Ordinarily, the Supreme Court is brought up almost as an afterthought in presidential campaigns. The potential for a swing in the court is used to motivate activists to volunteer and work hard, and the candidates usually have to answer a debate question or two about it, which they do in utterly predictable ways (“I’m just going to look for the best person for the job”). We don’t usually spend a great deal of time talking about what a change in the court is likely to mean. But the next president is highly likely to have the chance to engineer a swing in the court. The consequences for Americans’ lives will probably be more consequential and far-reaching than any other issue the candidates will be arguing about.
After Democrats lost ground in this fall's election, the prospects for getting any remotely progressive SCOTUS nominee approved by a Republican Senate during Obama's tenure are slim. (Not that Obama would nominate anyone remotely progressive.) However long Ginsburg remains, Waldman believes the next change of personnel on the conservative 5-4 court "could be an earthquake."
Consider this scenario: Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2017, and sometime later one of the conservative justices retires. Now there would be a liberal majority on the court, a complete transformation in its balance. A court that now consistently favors those with power, whether corporations or the government, would become much more likely to rule in favor of workers, criminal defendants and those with civil rights claims. Or alternately: The Republican nominee wins, and one of the liberal justices retires. With conservatives in control not by 5-4 but 6-3, there would be a cascade of even more conservative decisions. The overturning of Roe v. Wade would be just the beginning.
Unless state Democrats can get their act together soon, it could take more than a 2016 presidential win to ensure SCOTUS replacements for Ginsburg and others that will tilt the balance more to the left. They also have to reclaim the Senate state-by-state. But a big presidential win in 2016 could help. Take it with a grain of salt, but one GOP columnist thinks 2016 prospects look better for Democrats:
Democrats in 2014 were up against a particularly tough climate because they had to defend 13 Senate seats in red or purple states. In 2016 Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats and at least 18 of them are likely to be competitive based on geography and demographics. Democrats will be defending precisely one seat that could possibly be competitive. One.
As Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham said about geography and demographics, “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” Still, I'm sure we all want to know where that one seat is.
In the meantime, good health to you, Notorious R.B.G.