A Glaring Supreme Court Vacancy
by Justin O. Smith
“She just died? WOW. I didn’t know that. She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman, whether you agree or not. She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I’m actually sad to hear that.” ~ President Donald J. Trump, September 18th 2020
The woman considered by many Americans to be a national treasure, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a history-making jurist born on March 15th 1933,in Brooklyn, New York, ushered in the Jewish holiday of the Days of Awe with her death on September 18th 2020, having served in the federal court and the Supreme Court for four decades. Ginsburg’s life was one of great accomplishment for a woman of her time, a remark she would appreciate if she heard it. Her life’s work was a mixed-bag and filled with many items, both ignoble and principled, that brought ultimate harm and good alike to American society, but too often it tore asunder the Constitution and the founding ideas and principles that best support true liberty.
In the days preceding her death from pancreatic cancer, at age 87, as her strength and her life slipped away, Ginsburg dictated the following words to her granddaughter Clara Spera: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
If You’re listening, Ruth, we don’t always get what we want.
Chief Justice John Roberts stated: “Our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her — a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”
A 1954 graduate of Cornell University, Ginsburg was well remembered by all. Cornell President Martha Pollack stated: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a true hero and a giant of American jurisprudence. A relentless champion of equity, she dedicated her life to innumerable, honorable causes, always fighting for what was right. While the nation mourns her passing, we can find solace in the indelible imprint that she leaves on American society and on the lives of each of us who found inspiration from her actions and who will carry her spirit with us long into the future.”
Justice Ginsburg had to fight and scrap every step of the way to gain acceptance in a male dominated profession, in the first days of her career, from Harvard Law to Columbia University , first being rejected for a coveted Supreme Court clerkship with Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1960. who rejected her only for being a woman. But, her mentor, Professor Gerald Gunther finally secured her a clerk position, by telling U.S. District Judge Edmund Palmieri he would never recommend another Columbia student for Palmieri’s chambers if he refused to hire Ginsburg. Palmieri agreed with the stipulation he would fire her if she proved unsatisfactory.
Ginsburg became the first tenured woman on the law faculty at Columbia University. She coauthored the first casebook on sex discrimination, and she founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, a socialist/ communist front that hid behind its supposed fight for liberty for all Americans as it very often worked to subvert the Constitution and liberty in America. And, during her time at the ACLU, Ginsburg was the chief strategist of an insidious campaign to effect social and political change for women through the courts, by essentially “discovering” non-existent “rights” and steadily expanding the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to prohibit distinctions based on sex.
As an advocate at the Women’s Rights Project, through the ACLU, Ginsburg researched and argued six gender discrimination cases before the Supreme Court during the 1970s. She won five, earning acclaim as the Thurgood Marshall of the women’s rights movement from those who recall her early days as a litigator and director of the Women’s Rights Project.
Once she was asked who was the smartest person she ever knew, and she named her mother, Celia Amster Bader. During her Amherst talk, during a 2004 Holocaust remembrance ceremony, Ginsburg offered a truly striking observation that spoke volumes about what it really means to be an American, observing: “I had the good fortune to be a Jew born in the U.S.A. My father left Odessa bound for the New World in 1909, at age 13. My mother was first in her large family to be born here, in 1903 … What is the difference between a bookkeeper in New York’s Garment District and a Supreme Court Justice? Just one generation, my mother’s life and mine bear witness.”
Twenty years after her last argument before the Supreme Court, to Ginsburg’s credit and speaking as the father of two daughters, who I taught to be fiercely independent and to think things through, her explanation in the 1996 discrimination case of United States v. Virginia was excellent, correct, righteous and true, one of her best moments. In a moment of personal triumph, writing for the majority of a 7-1 decision, she stated that Virginia had failed to provide the “exceedingly persuasive justification” that the Constitution required for treating men and women differently, concluding: “Women seeking and fit for a V.M.I quality education cannot be offered anything less under the state’s obligation to afford them genuinely equal protection. Generalizations about ‘the way women are’, estimates of what is appropriate for most women, no longer justify denying opportunity to women whose talent and capacity place them outside the average description.”
Also to her credit, Ginsburg championed for the mentally disabled, as seen in Olmstead v. LC (1999). The ruling held that the Americans With Disabilities Act often requires people with mental disabilities to be placed in community settings and not institutions, with Ginsburg writing: “Institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life.”
And, if there’s any ruling that can possibly move some forgiveness for all her other leftist rulings, perhaps it is M.L.B v. S.L.J and a parent’s “right” to be able to pursue their parental rights in court, despite being too poor to pay for the filing costs that normally are required before a case may proceed. Although the Supreme Court of Mississippi had ruled that the state had no obligation to pay for the filing, Ginsburg rejected their opinion in the majority ruling that stated “the state may not bolt the door to equal justice” when it comes to parental rights.
Adored by all the liberal, marxist socialists and communist women, and many men too, at barely 5 feet tall and a hundred pounds, Ginsburg’s powerful, dissenting opinions attracted a great deal of attention, as the Court moved farther towards the right. In June of 2013, a law student at New York University, Shana Knizhnik anointed Ginsburg with the nickname of the Notorious R.B.G, a play on the Notorious B.I.G, a famous rapper who was Brooklyn-born, just as Ginsburg was. The name stuck, and along with her serene yet severe expression, eyes framed by oversized glasses, a frilly lace collar adorning her black judicial robe, and a gold crown phot-shopped on her head at a rakish angle, R.B.G became an internet sensation.
Even more curiously, Notorious RBG’s politics did not affect her personal relationships. She was a very close friend of the extremely conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, before he passed.
However, to her shame, she fought intensely to protect “the right of abortion”, which has never been found in any U.S. legal code or anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, at anytime prior to its magical appearance in 1973. After the Court upheld Congress’s Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, in part: [The majority ruling] “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In candor, the Act, and the Court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court — and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.”
As a mother of a son and a daughter, one is left puzzled at how she could be such a staunch supporter of so heinous and evil an act, as abortion. And no matter how many times one calls it a “right” or attempts to justify it in some other manner, it’s still baby murder anyway one slices it.
In 1999, just a month after undergoing cancer surgery, Justice Ginsburg, suggested: “No door should be closed to people willing to spend the hours of effort to make dreams come true”. Well, I would offer that some people’s dreams are other people’s nightmares. Some people dream of committing mass murders, while others dream of being able to engage in deviant, unnatural, vile and evil sex acts with children and being able to marry people of the same sex. Some people dream of an authoritarian government where no Inalienable Rights exist and people all join in together in the service of the government and one’s Supreme Leader.
One must also note Ginsburg’s disdain for the U.S. Constitution, in 2012, as she told Egypt’s Al-Hayat TV, that the U.S. Constitution would not be the best model for post-revolution Egypt, stating: “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
Someone should have objected to this bit of idiocy on her part, since a more recent time stamp on an idea doesn’t make it the best idea of one’s days. She was touting a constitution constructed by the communists of the black African National Congress primarily for South Africa’s black people, that largely restricts the white people of their country, and in the process, she erroneously asserted that it included “freedom from discrimination”. She also praised the constitutions of Canada and the European Union. Ginsburg was simply blinded by the positive rights they advanced, since she always has held via implication, that rights come from government, as seen through her opinions and dissents, rather than as being from God.
Of course, rights that are subject to the whims of men and women holding office on any particular day can easily be eradicated, whereas our Inalienable Rights exist despite the actions of any men and as granted by God. And for those of us who hold this as a fundamental truth, it is of the utmost importance that we help President Trump and this Congress affirm and seat Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, as soon as possible, with a true conservative American who will uphold the principles of freedom and liberty for all Americans.
In the meantime, I shed no tears for this woman whose views regarding life in the womb and the rights of the UnBorn Child were so vile and so flawed, in many respects, that she advocated and upheld the non-existent “right” of a woman to murder her child in the womb, at every opportunity, even at the point of birth itself. She saw it as a matter of equality, although her position negated equality for the UnBorn Child and his rights as a living being.
I shed no tears for a woman whose views on the constitution were so anti-American and sympathetic to those enemies from within, the socialists and communists, who would destroy Christianity and the nuclear family in this nation, through her affirmation of homosexual marriage, in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Now, Ginsburg’s demise will serve only to motivate the country’s domestic terrorists and intensify America’s culture war and shake the nation to its very core. Her death has already set the stage for what promises to be a nasty and fierce political battle over who will succeed her, and the vacancy on the Supreme Court is now a front and center focus of the presidential campaign. And by no means should Republicans hesitate for a second to move immediately to fill it.
President Trump has a constitutional obligation to act promptly, and he stated as much, at around 9:00 am this morning (September 19th): “We were put in this position of power to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!”
Republicans won the election on November 3rd 2016. They hold the presidency. They hold the Senate. For Democrats to suggest that some unwritten rule exists that demands they must wait for the new election and a new president — hopefully a Democratic president in their way of thinking — is sheer double-standard lunacy. Whoever holds the seats of power when such openings occur have every right and authority to feel them under the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution.
As Dan McLaughlin wrote on August 7th for the National Review, anticipating this event: “Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835-36 and 1987-88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up the nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.”
Not only is the leader of the Supreme Court’s Leftists gone, but Chief Justice John Roberts no longer holds the controlling vote in closely contested cases, which may be a blessing in disguise. Although Roberts has a fairly consistent conservative record, for the most part, he has split on crucial cases, such as the time he saved the so-called Dreamers from deportation, upheld a major abortion precedent and upheld bans on large church gatherings during the COVID plandemic. And now, with Ginsburg gone and no clear majority, the next few weeks offer to be a bare-knuckle political brawl, writ large, across the stage of the presidential election.
President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel have already noted the hard reality of the necessity of taking advantage of this monumental opportunity. Whether or not President Trump wins in November, he will go down in history as one of the most significant presidents, if he can actually seat a third Justice to the Supreme Court, since the last Republican to install three Justices in his first term was Richard M. Nixon. And, we should all be hoping and praying that the President’s nominee is the incredibly intelligent, impeccable and honorable Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame University Law School graduate and a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, since Trump just hinted that he would pick a woman.
Ginsburg knew what was to come, and so she fought to remain as she attempted to set the terms of her own departure, in order to shape the election Her death will have profound consequences for the Court and America.
At every level and every segment of society imaginable, America is more volatile today than at any other time in history, and with the most significant election in decades so near, and such a monumental opening appearing on the U.S. Supreme Court, the country stands at the edge of a dangerous abyss and prepared to plunge into a prolonged conflict, marked by extreme and deadly violent civil upheaval, that promises to further damage and perhaps even end the republic. The stakes for the survival of America have never been higher.