Monday, September 21, 2020

Can't Stay Away

I thought I would probably just stay offline for a week and see what developed after US Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg died, but there is little value in doing that. The Republican party has made it clear that they will appoint a very conservative justice to replace a liberal one.  I just didnt expect them to act so fast.

There are couple things going on here and I just can't stay silent.  The first is that Justice Ginsberg was an unusually thoughtful and careful thinker.  I always personally thought she was special.  While I don't try to read detailed legal decisions, I always found summaries of her questions and arguments to be clearer and more focused than most other Supreme Court Justices (some of whose were downright bizarre and represented political goals more than they did law).

The second is that her replacement will likely be extremely conservative and likely to tilt the Court to a degree of reactionary conservatism.  I am scared, angry, and worried about a generation of reversals of basic civil right decisions.

For the benefit of those who do not pay as much attention to The Supreme Court as they do the Presidency or Congress (as so many do not in the US and do not really need to elsewhere), here is a brief summary of the politicalization of the US Supreme Court...

In our history, there have been times when the Supreme Court nominees were very political chosen.  But after WWII until a few decades ago, nominees were generally moderates chosen for legal expertise and a sense of some political neutrality.  That was mostly because both the Democratic and Republican parties had liberal and conservative members and no extremely ideological judge could get through the Senate for approval.

As the political parties began to chose a side in "self-purging",  Supreme Court candidates became more representative of party politics.  One could blame Richard Nixon for bringing Southern Democratic conservatives and Republican conservatives together to form a new majority Republican party under the idea of "law and order" (a code word for racism and white supremacy).  Economic and liberal Republicans moved to the Democratic party which promised "a big tent".  I was one of them.

Over the next couple of decades, both parties spread apart ideologically.  The Republicans realized that taking over The Supreme Court had advantages for a decade or more (the Democrats, to my constant amazement, never seemed to catch on to that).   Republicans went for advantage; Democrats stayed respectful of the Preident's right to select Judges at all levels

In this century, timing of Supreme Court retirements and deaths has given the Republicans the opportunity to name more Supreme Court judges than the Democrats.  But it isn't JUST that.  There is a major difference between Republicans and Democrats.  

Republican politicians come from businessmen and lawyers used to fighting to win by any means.  Democrats tend to come from community activists used to succeeding by creating consensus among groups.  Republicans enjoy high-stakes poker; Democrats let their kids win at Candyland*.  Let's say both play chess.  Republicans will try a a Fool's Mate playing their Mother; Democrats will try to let their friends get a draw.  Republicans are Dad who sends you to your room for not finishing dinner; Democrats are Mom who sneaks you dessert later. 

That may be changing as Democrats see the lack of benefit by seeking consensus and getting kicked in the face for trying.   

But here's my point...  

In February 2016,  conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia died.  It was the right of President Obama to name and expect to have approved a replacement.  He nominated Merrick Brian Garland (who serves as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has served on that court since 1997 with good reputation).  

Republican US Senate Leader Mich McConnell declared it was improper for a President to name a Supreme Court Judge in an election year  (this was 10 months before the election).  Most all other Republicans agreed and some even swore on camera that they would never change their minds on this issue as a "matter of principle".  Because the nominee should be chosen by the next President.

Now it is 2020, only 48 days before the next election.  President Trump is demanding to name Ginsberg's replacement and those Republican Senators who swore never to allow a Court approval at any point in an election year are saying they will approve anyone Trump names within days.

My Dad hated "lying"; I hate "hypocrisy".  They are close but different.

In a way, it doesn't matter what the views of Trump's nominee are.  It is the hypocrisy of the Republican Senators who changed their views just as a matter of winning.  I am disgusted by the amorality and
hypocrisy of the Republican party in this matter.

    -----------------

* When I was growing up, my family played board games a lot.  Dad was lethal.  Mom probably was kinder.  But Dad never explained how he won.  He just LOVED winnng at anything.  And when I got better at any game than him, he stopped playing it.  Granted, I learned a lot from losing and DID figure out his secrets slowly.

Move ahead to 1980.  My parents (who said we should always stay close together as a family) suddenly went and moved from MD to NH taking my minor sister with them.  So I visited them each Summer.  Sis liked to play board games too.  Her favorite was Careers.  I was lethal, like Dad.  And that probablt distressed her at first because I was her "adored Big Brother".  

But I kept showing her what I had done to win (and there were many ways), and she caught on o the idea that I was teaching her how to play games.  I explained there was a way of looking at how a game worked and taking advantage of that.  In Careers you could win by meeting goals you set in your mind at the start.  Any version of $, happiness, or fame that got you to 60.  But you just had to focus on it.  She mentioned that to me years later saying I had helped her look at some parts of life more analytically and clearly.

The point was Dad killed, Mom was kind, and I explained.   Dad was  Republican, Mom was a Democrats, and I was somewhere between...


3 comments:

Megan said...

It's hard to understand from over here why politics is so nasty and un-useful in the USA.

Our equivalent of your Supreme Court is the High Court. Judges are appointed by the government of the day but must retire no later than their 70th birthday, so they tend not to serve for nearly as long as your judges. They also don't need to be confirmed in the way that yours are, so that whole process simply doesn't exist - and a bunch of true nastiness is avoided!

Megan
Sydney, Australia

ANGEL ABBYGRACE said...

I have to clear something up because it is an important factor. You stated "Republican US Senate Leader Mich McConnell declared it was improper for a President to name a Supreme Court Judge in an election year (this was 10 months before the election)", while that is true Mitch said it was improper, the reason he said that was because it was a lame duck president and the party of the President and party of the Senate differed. You also have to go back to some of the things Harry Reid did to change the Senate while he was the Majority to understand why the Republicans did what they did. It's all politics and whoever is in power is going to do what they are able to do under the constitution of the United States. Also RBG herself has expressed that whether a president was in his 3 or 4 year of his presidency he had every right under the Constitution to name a new Justice. I don't know how you can say this is anymore hypocrisy than what Democrats have said in the past about this same exact topic or the awful rhetoric they are espousing about "packing the court" with more Justices when they come back into Power or even impeaching a President for doing what he is supposed to do. I know we would not find any agreement on differing views of each party but there are reasons why the Republicans are acting upon naming a new Justice. You are right I'm sure it will be someone with 'conservative' positions but if you look at some of the decisions of the last two nominees you will find that they sometimes went with what was considered the 'liberal' side of the court much to the dismay of many. All one has to do in especially understanding why Republicans want to seize on this nomination is what happened to Justice Kavanaugh. If you don't think that was atrocious and vicious and senseless I don't know what I can say. I watch the hearings from gavel to gavel and it shames me how some people used politics and smearing lies on such a man with fine character. Just because you don't like someone's politics it really shouldn't give you the right to destroy someone's reputation with lies.

pilch92 said...

I think in-between is best. I am registered as independent. I have never though black and white, I am always in the gray.

A Day Late

But I wanted to remember a sad day. I remember some parts.  I was only 13.  I saw a lot on TV afterwards.  But my most specific image is the...