Progressive activists are upset that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg won’t retire or die before the end of the year, when Republicans may retake the Senate. They won’t directly say the “die” part, but their anger over the former leaves little doubt that they’d happily accept the latter.
This argument has been going on for a while. Progressives are very worried about the prospect of someone who would event slightly adhere to the Constitution replacing someone who will do their bidding on the court. If Republicans retake the Senate in November, the President would have a difficult time appointing, say, Attorney General Eric Holder or someone of his ilk to replace her.
She told Elle magazine, “Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Republicans] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam…. I think I’ll recognize when the time comes that I can’t any longer. But now I can.”
First off, Elle is wrong in their parenthetical. It wasn’t Republicans who “took off the filibuster,” it was Democrats, specifically Harry Reid. Progressives wanted to pack the lower courts with activists, and they have.
But the Crown Jewel of judicial activism has always been the Supreme Court, and for that the filibuster remains intact. For now.
Progressive activist for New Yorker magazine, Jonathan Chait, is already advocating for another filibuster rule change. He writes, “if they [Republicans] use it as a generalized blockade, stopping Obama from nominating any mainstream Democratic figure, then Senate Democrats would almost surely enact another rule change.”
To activists like Chait, anyone to the left of Noam Chomsky is a “mainstream Democratic figure.”
As Chait and his fellow progressive activists go back to the well and once again pull out the long knives on their ideological sister, it’s worth noting the irony of the willingness of these “champions of women and the elderly” to throw someone who is both under the bus to advance their cause.
While I disagree with Ginsburg on just about everything, she’s not lost her capacity to do her job. Her only “sin” is not wanting to be put to pasture so someone younger can do it for longer.
Progressives are publicly attacking a cancer stricken elderly woman simply because she wants to continue to work. Monsters!
Of course, their true motivation is much worse – they want to avoid the prospect of voters having a say in the governance of their country.
If Republicans retake the Senate, Obama won’t have a rubber-stamp when it comes to replacing her. Democrats won’t be able to change the rules to continue their court-packing scheme. That’s what really has them upset.
It’s amusing watching people who claim their party represents the “will of the people” seek to avoid it at every turn.
Progressives are quick to cite polls as a reason their agenda must be accepted – “Polls show a majority support a minimum wage hike, so we must do it because ‘democracy!’” But agree to that notion and respond with, “Polls show a majority want Obamacare repealed, so we must because ‘democracy!” and they suddenly lose interest in the concept.
Why are progressives afraid of allowing “We The People” to have our say? Because we may not vote correctly, we may vote in favor of our will, not theirs. And not submitting ourselves to their will, as Justice Ginsburg has learned, is the only real sin anyone can make in the eyes of a progressive.