Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Dead

[Muda69]

https://reason.com/2020/09/18/ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-dead/

Quote

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died, the Supreme Court announced on Friday night.

Ginsburg, who was 87 years old and had battled cancer on and off since 1999, died surrounded by her family at her home in Washington, D.C., the Court said in a statement. Ginsburg served on the Court for more than 27 years after her 1993 appointment by President Bill Clinton. At the time, she was only the second woman in U.S. history to be named to the country's highest court.

"Our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement.

Ginsburg rose to prominence during the women's rights movement of the 1970s while working as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). She was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

During her time on the Supreme Court, Ginsburg was known as a liberal firebrand and a feminist icon—and even, in the final years of her life, a meme.

Her death leaves a vacancy on the nine-judge bench less than two months before a presidential election, and seems almost certain to set off a major political fight. President Donald Trump has already appointed two justices to the Supreme Court during his first term—Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—and may now have the opportunity to appoint a third if the Republican-controlled Senate agrees to move the nomination quickly.

Just days before Ginsburg's death, NPR reports that the justice told her granddaughter that "my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

When Justice Antonin Scalia died in the summer of 2016, however, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) infamously refused to consider the confirmation of a replacement until after that fall's presidential election. All eyes will now be upon McConnell to see how he handles this new vacancy.

Initial reports indicate that Trump may name a nominee in the near future, but Republicans would need significant support in the Senate for a confirmation to occur. McConnell, in a statement, said he would bring Trump's nominee to a vote on the Senate floor, but other Republican senators have reportedly cast doubt on that.*

Multiple sources close to President Trump with direct knowledge tell ABC News he is expected  put forth a nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat in the coming days via me & @KFaulders

— John Santucci (@Santucci) September 19, 2020

 

It is perhaps poetic that Ginsburg and Scalia are linked in that way, through their deaths, since they were also close friends in life despite holding deeply diverging views about politics and the law. At a time when America is deeply in need of a reminder that political disagreements need not transcend basic civility or mutual respect, their example should remain.

....

RIP, Ms. Ginsburg.  

Who are the frontrunners for nomination?  I assume it's going to be a female?

 

[Lysander]

Yes.  5, I hear.  Per below, certain appendages (or lack thereof) account for more than legal scholarship.
 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Lysander

[swordfish]

She was a great champion for her cause(s) and will be missed by both sides.  Her mistake was assuming that Hillary would win in 2016, and was stuck waiting out for the next election to rely on a Democrat President to replace her with another with her same passion.  The President will do exactly what he is supposed to do, nominate a replacement.  The Senate will then be left with the decision to make, confirm or punt until after the election.

The President has indicated that his nominee will be a female, and thanks to the former Senator Harry Reid, a simple majority vote in the Senate will be all that is necessary to confirm her.

The top contenders are:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/trump-list-of-supreme-court-nominees.html?auth=login-email&login=email

Leading Candidates to Fill Supreme Court Vacancy

President Trump has vowed to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “without delay.” Here is who might fill the seat.

By Carl Hulse and Adam Liptak

• Published Sept. 19, 2020Updated Sept. 21, 2020
• •  
  •  
  •  

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday created a Supreme Court vacancy that President Trump has vowed to fill “without delay.” He has issued four lists of potential nominees, the most recent one last week, and Mr. Trump said on Saturday that he expected to nominate a candidate in the next week, telling a campaign rally that night that it “will be a woman.” Here is a look at some of the leading candidates on those lists.

Amy Coney Barrett

Image

Credit...Robert Franklin/South Bend Tribune, via AP

Judge Barrett, a member of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, is the likely front-runner for the job as Republicans see advantages in replacing Justice Ginsburg with a woman. A former law professor at Notre Dame, Judge Barrett has a rock-star reputation in conservative circles. Her devout Catholicism prompted tough questioning by Democrats at her confirmation hearing in 2017. Her interview with Mr. Trump in 2018 for a seat on the Supreme Court was said to have not gone well.

 

 

Barbara Lagoa

 

Credit...Florida Supreme Court, via Reuters

Judge Lagoa also sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. A Cuban-American, she was the first Hispanic woman appointed to the Florida Supreme Court. Two decades ago, she was part of the legal team that represented the Miami family of Elián González, the 6-year-old boy who was found floating alone in an inner tube off the Florida coast on Thanksgiving in 1999. Judge Lagoa recently sided with the 6-to-4 majority on the 11th Circuit that ruled that a Florida law requiring former felons to pay court fines and fees before they are eligible to vote is constitutional.

Patricia Mazzei contributed reporting from Miami.

While either nominee would be great, SF would like to see Judge Lagoa nominated, just to see liberal heads explode trying to get her blackballed.......

[DanteEstonia]

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

The Senate will then be left with the decision to make, confirm or punt until after the election.

Considering the show the Senate put on in 2016, it would be wise to wait until after the election. If they don't, Biden could appoint 4 people to a 13-seat SCOTUS. 

[Muda69]

56 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Considering the show the Senate put on in 2016, it would be wise to wait until after the election. If they don't, Biden could appoint 4 people to a 13-seat SCOTUS. 

Just say no.

Packing the Supreme Court is a horrible idea. Democrats must reject it.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/21/packing-supreme-court-is-horrible-idea-democrats-must-reject-it/

Quote

Democrats are understandably furious and fearful over the likelihood that President Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate will replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a conservative. That does not justify packing the Supreme Court with progressives in retaliation.

The judicial branch’s primary virtue, and the reason it is a separate branch of government, is that it’s nonpolitical. The separation of powers preserves liberty because it prevents those who make the laws from applying them. Independence of the judiciary is perhaps the single most crucial innovation of modern liberal democracies. Virtually all tyrannies insist that judicial power be subject to the will of the government because they know that tyrannical power ultimately rests on force, and that means killing, suppressing or imprisoning their enemies.

Packing the court would de facto end the independence of the American judiciary. It would establish the norm that when the opposition controls a majority of the court, it is legitimate for the ruling party to add as many members as necessary to ensure that the government’s friends control it. There is also nothing to prevent the government from adding multitudes of new judges to appellate and district courts to remedy perceived imbalances. Every judge would thus know that their controversial rulings would never last; the reigning government would immediately reverse them by stacking the courts with new, malleable members. The rule of law as we know it would be gone.

This isn’t idle speculation. The British House of Lords was never a court, but it shows how such political dynamics could play out. The institution was once a fully coequal branch of government with the House of Commons. In 1909, however, it refused to pass the Liberal government’s “People’s Budget,” which proposed the first national welfare state measures for the United Kingdom. A general election was called, which returned a Liberal government. Even though the Lords approved the new budget, Liberals sought to remove the Lords’ coequal status and passed what would eventually come to be known as the Parliament Act of 1911. King George V ensured its passage by threatening to pack the House of Lords with sufficient Liberal peers. The threat worked, and the Lords surrendered their independence.

Democracy advocates have sharply criticized efforts to pack the courts in other countries. Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party has systematically used its parliamentary majority to install its own judges throughout the entirety of the judicial branch. This has been widely — and rightly — condemned as an assault on the rule of law and liberal democracy. That criticism would apply equally to any Democratic attempt to pack U.S. courts.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has shown he understands that. Last July, he stated that he opposed court packing, telling Democrats that they would “live to rue that day” if they walked down that path. He doubled down on this sentiment at a debate in October, saying, “We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.” He’s right.

The United States has faced this dilemma before. The incredibly bitter election of 1800 featured Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson and incumbent President John Adams, a Federalist, who traded accusations that the other was undemocratic and would destroy the new nation. Federalists responded by expanding the number of judges with what derisively became known as the Midnight Judges Act. Adams also appointed a new United States chief justice, John Marshall, who was confirmed by the Federalist-controlled Senate only seven days after his nomination. Jefferson’s party later repealed the act packing the lower courts and terminated the judgeships, but did not seek to pack the Supreme Court to override the Federalist majority, even after Marshall authored the landmark Marbury v. Madison opinion establishing the judiciary’s power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. The result was the establishment of the norm we have come to treasure: judicial independence even in the face of fierce partisanship.

That independence must be preserved — especially because the judiciary has assumed so much power since our nation’s founding. The court’s composition is politically controversial precisely because it has used the power Marshall established to decide politically contentious questions — the rights to abortion and same-sex marriage among them. Once courts become political footballs, new governments will expand courts to ensure that court rulings never go against their will. That would eviscerate the Bill of Rights, turning it from a protection against majority rule into a mere parchment proclamation.

Biden says he is running to save America’s soul and American democracy. Court-packing would do more than anything Trump has done to ruin the rule of law, thereby poisoning our soul and our democracy.

 

[DanteEstonia]

24 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Just say no.

Packing the Supreme Court is a horrible idea. Democrats must reject it.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/21/packing-supreme-court-is-horrible-idea-democrats-must-reject-it/

 

Turnabout is fair play.

[Muda69]

4 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Turnabout is fair play.

?

 

[swordfish]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-ted-cruz-ginsburg-senate-election?fbclid=IwAR3uiUchN3aJBrzWfGPQ3CB1kXq4D8HdKgxg0C13vUHHxPLk0QDEAC7lQ9A

Sen. Ted Cruz: After Ginsburg -- 3 reasons why Senate must confirm her successor before Election Day

The Supreme Court has become the preeminent arbiter of our constitutional rights

 

On Friday, our nation lost a historic Supreme Court Justice: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a brilliant justice, a legendary advocate, a careful lawyer, and, as only the second woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court, a trailblazer. She led an extraordinary life that shaped the lives of others and she leaves behind her an extraordinary legacy.

Much like the news in 2016 of the great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing during an election year, Friday’s news was instantaneously followed by the question of when to fill the vacancy that now stands on the Court.

Here’s why President Trump must nominate a successor next week and why the Senate must confirm that successor before Election Day:

First, this nomination is why the American people elected Donald Trump as president and this confirmation is why the American people voted for a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.

The Supreme Court has become the preeminent arbiter of our constitutional rights. And the type of justice that serves has a profound impact on public policy and our fundamental liberties.Video

Unfortunately, over the past six decades, the Court has arrogated to itself far too much power—well beyond what it is entitled to under the Constitution. It has seized this power at the expense of Congress, the executive branch, the states, and We the People alike.

The 2016 election was not only a referendum on our Supreme Court; it was a referendum on the direction of our entire judicial system.

The American people had the option between a faithful originalist vision of the Constitution and a progressive liberal activist vision, and they rightly chose faithful originalism.

Despite the best efforts of Senate Democrats to delay the confirmation of President Trump’s well-qualified Supreme Court nominees and all 216 of his nominees we've confirmed to the federal bench, Republicans have answered this important call from the American people and we should not stop now.

Second, twenty-nine times in our nation’s history we’ve seen a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year or before an inauguration and in every instance, the president proceeded with a nomination.

Nine presidents, including George Washington, Woodrow Wilson, William Taft, and Herbert Hoover, faced with whether to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, did so before Election Day when their party held the majority in the Senate.

And on nineteen different occasions up to 1968, the president sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy while his own party controlled the Senate. Nine out of the ten nominations made before Election Day were successfully confirmed, while eight out of the nine nominations made after Election Day were also successfully confirmed.

Three presidents, who had already lost the presidential election, have filled lame-duck Supreme Court vacancies.

When this issue arose in 1992, then-Senator Joe Biden made clear the Senate had the right to proceed. He noted, however, that the Senate should ensure the process is ‘fair’ to the nominee. I believe this Senate can meet the standard of fairness.

More recently, when faced with this question in 2016, there was a divided government. When the presidency and the majority of the Senate are held by different parties in an election year, the Senate historically has not confirmed the president’s nominee. Senate Republicans stayed the course in 2016.

But that is not the case today. The presidency and the majority of the Senate are held by the same party. And just like in 2016, when Republicans held firm against filling a vacancy based on precedent, we should not break from precedent now.

And finally, as we approach what is likely to be a contested election that hangs in the balance of the Supreme Court, our nation is at risk of a constitutional crisis without nine justices on the bench.

Twenty years ago, I was part of the legal team that litigated Bush v. Gore and went to the Supreme Court.

For thirty-six days, the country did not know who the president was going to be, and if we had had a four-four court it could have dragged on for weeks and months. In the midst of deadly pandemic, economic devastation, and violent riots erupting across the country, that is the last thing the American people need.

As I wrote in my forthcoming book, "One Vote Away—How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History," every single vote on the Court matters in every major case the Court hears.

There is no room for error. On too many issues, we are one vote away.

This could very well be the case come November, and we need to do everything we can in the Senate to be ready for that possibility.

Earlier this month, President Trump put forward a list of extremely qualified, principled constitutionalists who could serve on the Supreme Court, and he is expected to formally nominate one of those candidates as soon as next week.

When he does, the Senate has a constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. We also have an electoral responsibility to uphold the will of the American people. We must deliver on both, and we must deliver without delay. The stakes have never been higher.

 

Anyone on the left having an issue with the President having a nominee and the Senate voting before the election, should remember to thank their own former Senator Harry Reid (D) for the senate only needing a simple majority to pass a SCOTUS nominee........

 

[Bobref]

Ted Cruz is a whack job.

Every time I hear someone make dire predictions about what the court is going to be like if nominee X gets confirmed, I think about Earl Warren. One of the greatest and most influential CJs of all time, the leader of the coalition that pushed the court in the opposite direction Eisenhower — who appointed him — anticipated.

Eisenhower was quoted as saying of his time as President: “I made two mistakes and both of them are sitting on the Supreme Court. [Referring to Earl Warren and William Brennan]”

[Lysander]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

Ted Cruz is a whack job.

Every time I hear someone make dire predictions about what the court is going to be like if nominee X gets confirmed, I think about Earl Warren. One of the greatest and most influential CJs of all time, the leader of the coalition that pushed the court in the opposite direction Eisenhower — who appointed him — anticipated.

Eisenhower was quoted as saying of his time as President: “I made two mistakes and both of them are sitting on the Supreme Court. [Referring to Earl Warren and William Brennan]”

Souter.

Republicans only get what they expect about 50% of the time.

Not sure if Cruz is a whack job or not outside of his facial hair decision.  Bad call on his part.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Lysander

[DanteEstonia]

5 hours ago, Muda69 said:

?

 

 

[swordfish]

AGAIN - remember to thank former Senator Harry Reid for the simple majority rule that turned these true politicians loose......

[DanteEstonia]

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

AGAIN - remember to thank former Senator Harry Reid for the simple majority rule that turned these true politicians loose......

1. The filibuster is not in the Constitution. 

2. Most State Governors lack the power to appoint judges, for reasons like this. 

3. It takes two to tango.

[swordfish]

[DanteEstonia]

8 hours ago, swordfish said:

But, the Tories said there shouldn't be an appointment in an election year. 

But, Tories are hypocrites, so it's to be expected. 

[Muda69]

Amy Coney Barrett Thinks the Second Amendment Prohibits Blanket Bans on Gun Possession by People With Felony Records: https://reason.com/2020/09/23/amy-coney-barrett-thinks-the-second-amendment-prohibits-blanket-bans-on-gun-possession-by-people-with-felony-records/

Quote

Rickey Kanter, who owned a Wisconsin company that sold therapeutic shoes and footwear inserts under the brand name Dr. Comfort, pleaded guilty in 2011 to one count of mail fraud for shipping inserts he falsely claimed were approved by Medicare to a podiatrist in Florida. Kanter received a prison sentence of a year and day, followed by two years of supervised release. He also paid a $50,000 fine and agreed, in a separate civil settlement, to pay Medicare a $27 million reimbursement. But that was not the end of his punishment, since his felony conviction meant that he permanently lost the constitutional right to possess firearms.

That categorical ban on gun ownership by people with felony records, a feature of both Wisconsin and federal law, cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment, Supreme Court contender Amy Coney Barrett concluded in a 37-page dissent from a 2019 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Barrett's thorough and scholarly opinion marks her as a judge committed to applying constitutional provisions in light of their historical background and original public meaning.

In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to own guns for self-defense. At the same time, the majority opinion mentioned some "presumptively lawful regulatory measures," including "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill." But both Barrett and her two colleagues on a 7th Circuit panel, who upheld the federal and Wisconsin bans that Kanter challenged, agreed that Heller did not settle the question of whether the Second Amendment allows the government to disarm someone like him.

"The constitutionality of felon dispossession was not before the Court in Heller, and because it explicitly deferred analysis of this issue, the scope of its assertion is unclear," Barrett wrote. "For example, does 'presumptively lawful' mean that such regulations are presumed lawful unless a historical study shows otherwise? Does it mean that as-applied challenges are available? Does the Court's reference to 'felons' suggest that the legislature cannot disqualify misdemeanants from possessing guns? Does the word 'longstanding' mean that prohibitions of recent vintage are suspect?"

In addressing a question that she and the majority agreed Heller left unresolved, Barrett considered English common law, proposed and ratified provisions of state constitutions in the U.S., and firearm restrictions enacted in the 18th and 19th centuries. Her conclusion:

History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.

That rationale does not easily fit laws that take away the Second Amendment rights of anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony (or, under federal law, "a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year," which is similar but not quite the same thing), no matter how long ago the offense occurred and whether or not it involved violence or even an identifiable victim. While Kanter ripped off Medicare (and therefore taxpayers), the government presented no evidence that his particular crime or any other personal characteristics showed he had violent tendencies that posed a threat to public safety.

The categorical ban on gun possession by people with felony records is therefore "wildly overinclusive," Barrett noted, quoting UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. "It includes everything from Kanter's offense, mail fraud, to selling pigs without a license in Massachusetts, redeeming large quantities of out-of-state bottle deposits in Michigan, and countless other state and federal offenses," she wrote. The ban is also underinclusive, she added, since people may reasonably be deemed dangerous even when they have not been convicted of a felony—for example, when they commit certain violent misdemeanors (another disqualification under federal law).

Given the poor fit between the ban's scope and its ostensible purpose, Barrett said, it is not "substantially related to an important government interest"—the test under the "intermediate scrutiny" that the majority said it was applying in this case. "Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe," she wrote. "Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment."

Barrett closed with a warning that will alarm gun control advocates but reassure people dismayed by the failure of federal courts to follow up on Heller and the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (which made it clear that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments) by taking the right to arms as seriously as other constitutionally protected rights. "While both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data, that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest," she wrote. "On this record, holding that the ban is constitutional as applied to Kanter does not 'put[] the government through its paces,' but instead treats the Second Amendment as a 'second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.'"

Ms. Barrett so far sound like a good choice for SCOTUS to me.  And for the record I am not a 'gun nut' or even a collector.  I currently own one, and only one,  firearm.