Liberals anxiously await the return of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the SCOTUS bench after she missed opening court arguments for the first time in 25 years. Her absence follows months of health problems that have plagued the SC Justice.
So far in his first term as president, Donald Trump has picked two Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Many of his core supporters would be satisfied if this was all Trump accomplished, but he’s also managed to eliminate loads of business killing regulations and cut taxes for the working class. A booming economy assures Trump’s 2020 reelection and solidifies his softer, around the edges support and brings independent voters over to him.
The possibility of a third Trump SCOTUS pick is antithetical to liberals across America. Ruth Bader Ginsburg represents and, for many, leads a weakening, slimming block of judicial “resistance” to the president and his agenda, the law be damned; feelings come first. Dozens of nationwide circuit court level injunctions against soundly legal executive orders are the best example of judicial activism today and how the “resistance” leverages the judicial branch to unilaterally stretch their powers and oppose the equal yet separate executive branch. For the record, these nationwide injunctions have been widely dismissed for breaching the law either by circuit appellate courts or The Supreme Court of the United States.
Speaking of judicial activism, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made now infamous negative comments about Trump during the 2016 election, breaking the high court’s apolitical tradition (at least in public discourse). She’s made her bias towards the president known, which brings doubt over all her SCOTUS opinions concerning the president. It begs one to ask – should she permanently recuse herself from all Trump cases?
RBG’s health problems are more serious than most news agencies are willing to report. In November, she fractured three ribs, which is serious enough for someone of such an advanced age (she is 85, born at the height of the great depression), but then in December it was announced that she had lung cancer and underwent surgery to remove the malignancies. Her cancer was likely discovered following routine diagnostics after the injury to her ribs. SCOTUS, as of last month, said that she had no further signs of cancer elsewhere in her body. However, this is Ruth Bader Ginsburgs third public round with cancer since her appointment in 1993. Her vast wealth and power insures that she will have access to the best health care moving forward.
These health scares raise another important question – is it ethical to pressure RBG to stay on the bench just for the sake of her party? No doubt the Democratic party and its ideological allies rue the idea of Trump getting a third SCOTUS pick, let alone in his first term. There’s been a lot of assumptions in this article, I’ll admit, but I like to think that they have been made from within the realm of reality with plausibility and logic behind them. These aren’t far stretches of the imagination. Is it then safe to assume RBG is under pressure from Democrats and liberals across the political spectrum? Absolutely. Aside direct pressure, such as phone calls, in person meetings, emails, and other forms of communication, justice Ginsburg is also no doubt considering the kind of treatment she would receive should she retire and enjoy her golden years in peace instead of literally dying in court. She’d be a political pariah for her remaining time on earth, subject to much of the same abuse as President Trump from the same radical people, but for different reasons.
It would best for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the country if she took her leave. She is under no obligation, as sick and as old as she is, to spend her dying days bitter and serving the means of politics.