Thoughts by Ralph L Myers
The results of the death of Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg
and causation have many powerful and conflicting implications. In this white
paper, I want to expound on what I view as powerful and inconsistent
implications.
Implication One: (Cause and Effect) The
political maelstrom: In a deeply divided America, 2020, anything that happens,
especially if it has a political cause and resultant effect, seems only to act
as something that further divides us. The death of US Supreme Court Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one such particularly significant event.
The correct action to take: Nominate a replacement for
Justice Ginsberg.
Implication Two: (The US Constitution Applies,
not political partisanship)
Since the death of Justice Ginsberg, several articles
and the talking heads' waterfalls of opinions have flooded the media and
internet.
On September 20, 2020, an article was written by
Charles Creitz of Fox News appeared on its Web Site. Mr. Creitz, in his
article, elaborated on the political free-for-all. America was confronted by
this very same situation in 20016, that outgoing President Obama should replace
Justice Scalia. Following his presidential right and prerogative, he nominated
Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia. However, the nomination went no
further as the Senate (Republican Controlled) would not bring it to the floor
for a vote of confirmation. At that time, Vice President Biden urged the Senate
to move forward with the nomination by providing that House to defer to the
President's constitutional duty and provide "advice and consent." Mr.
Biden considered it an unprecedented act of obstruction that the Republican
majority would not let it go any further than a nomination. Fast forward to
2020, Presidential Candidate Biden has made a 180-degree turn with the death of
Justice Ginsberg, according to an article written by Joseph Curl of Daily
Wire.com. Candidate Biden is quoted in his Twitter on Friday, September 18,
2020: "Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President and that
President should elect a successor to Justice Ginsberg. Other than for strictly
political partisanship, this demand is redundant. The voters have already
selected a President, and he is Donald Trump. He has the right to act within
the constitutional authority already granted him. He also has the power to
nominate a new justice and does not or should not wait for the next President
to select Justice Ginsburg's replacement. He would be neglecting his
constitutional obligation. Finally, he is rightfully taking advantage of using
the Senate Republican-controlled party to ratify his candidate to replace
Justice Ginsberg.
The correct action to take: Nominate a candidate. Have
that candidate approved by the Senate by vote and confirm that person to become
the newest SCOTUS member.
Implication Three: Political expediency, today I believe this, but now I think that.
In 2016, a presidential election year before Obama's
term of office expired, the Democrats believed and pushed for him to replace
Justice Scalia.
Today, I believe this premise is correct. In February
2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland a few weeks later to replace
Justice Scalia. He is quoted in an article appearing in "Daily
Torch," saying, "I have fulfilled my constitutional duty. Now it is
time for the Senate to do theirs." At that time, Americans for Limited
Government President Rick Manning was quoted in the same article noted.
"Just as it was Obama's constitutional role to nominate for Scalia.
Similarly, the Senate should exercise its part as well by waiting until after
the election, stating, President Obama has exercised his constitutional
prerogative to nominate someone to the late Antonin Scalia's seat on the
Supreme Court." Political partisanship, rather than the constitutional
rule of law, is back in play due to the passing of Justice Ginsburg, as is the
hypocrisy of the political players.
In a speech given in 2016 after the passing of Justice
Scalia, Justice Ginsburg, when asked by an attendee if the Constitution
prevented the President from filling the seat? Justice Ginsburg's response was:
"As you know, the President has the authority to name appointees to the
Supreme Court, but he has to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The President is elected for four years, not three years, so the powers that he
has in year three continue into year four, and maybe some members of the Senate
will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be." The fact that
she reportedly told her granddaughter Clara Spera, "My most fervent wish
is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed."
Justice Ginsburg, an overseer of the US Constitution,
knew the correct constitutional process in replacing the Supreme Court's
Justice. Sadly, near her time of death now wished the Constitution could be
changed to allow a delay in replacing her seat on the court. Even if Justice
Ginsburg had a codicil in her will stating her wish that her seat is not filled
until a new President is installed, it is just that, a wish that has no legal
standing in the US Constitution.
Now, let us look at current Presidential Candidate Joe
Biden's thoughts in 2016 and now 2020, hypocrisy and political expediency
epitomized. In a New York Times op-ed mentioned in the article written by Daily
Wire correspondent Joseph Curl cites Mr. Biden’s argument against Senate
Majority Leader McConnel that a replacement for Justice Scalia's should not be
seated until after the presidential election. At the time, a Democrat was
occupying the Whitehouse. President (Obama) declared that the President had a
"constitutional duty to seat a justice on the high court when a vacancy
arises. "The President has the Constitutional responsibility to nominate;
the Senate has the Constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent.
At a speech given by Mr. Biden at Georgetown
University, he said, "I would go forward with a confirmation process as
chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were
chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the
Constitution requires. Now that Joe Biden is the Democratic Candidate for
President, he no longer feels the way he did in 2016. In fact, he has made a
180-degree turn with the death of Justice Ginsburg, writing on Twitter
recently: "Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that
President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg." The Constitution
no longer fits his need. It hampers them.
The correct action to take: Follow the Constitution,
nominate and confirm Justice Ginsburg's replacement.
Implication Four: Threats of violence from the
politically extreme left.
I think a vast majority of Americans, regardless of
their political party leanings, are alarmed, angered, confused at the inaction
their elected officials have taken, and tired of the tirades from extreme
leftist activists. President Trump has been confronted with their outbursts
even before he was elected in 2016. It would be redundant to list all the false
accusations that were concocted, unproven, and finally leading to a failed
impeachment. Of course, President Trump was impeached in the House of
Representatives, strictly upon a party-line vote. However, he was acquitted in
the Senate trial, and again the vote to impeach was nearly along party lines.
Let us examine calls for violence as being acceptable
in combatting President Trump and his followers. In an article published on Blabber
Buzz, here is are some notable quotes. Twitter users threatened arson and
apparent violence to Republicans if Justice Ginsberg is replaced before the
elections. "If they even try to replace RBG, we burn the entire f*****g
thing down," author Reza Aslan, a far-left activist tweeted. Azlan later
responded to Senator Mitch McConnell's vow to hold a vote on President Trump's
nominee, "Over our dead bodies, literally," he threatened.
The darling of the leftist Democrats, Representative
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, said RBG's death should inspire the left to
radicalize.
A Canadian political science professor called for
arson, prompting accusations he made a terroristic threat. "Burn Congress
down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS, " Waterloo
professor Emmett MacFarlane wrote on Twitter.
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld responded to the controversy
by criticizing anyone who might make fun of people for worrying about political
terrorism. Mr. Gutfeld said, "Leftists promise violence and "burn it
all down" if they don't get what they want. Then their enablers in the
media mock you worrying that there might be violence and "burning it all
down" when the leftists don't get what they want."
I think Gutfeld's statement is sadly true when one
looks back on what has been transpiring since June 2020. Enough is enough;
dedicated Americans who value their freedom and liberty will not be intimidated
and will fight back at the ballot box and in the streets if necessary.
The correct action: Follow the Constitution and replace
Justice Ginsburg now.
Implication Five: The threat of Impeachment, 2.0
Speaker of the House, Pelosi has once again threatened
President Trump's Impeachment if he does his constitutional duty of appointing
a replacement for deceased Justice Ginsburg. While President Trump was
impeached in January of 2020 by the House of Representatives. That Impeachment
was based upon concocted and fraudulent charges that were strictly predicated upon
the Democratic House leadership and were proven to be without merit. What
confronts us now is that Impeach the President is a new attempt is nothing more
than political gamesmanship and again decidedly without merit.
In an article that appeared in the Washington Examiner
on September 19, 2020, Justice Department Reporter Jerry Dunleavy cited a
recent poll. The poll was conducted by Marquette University that showed 67% of
all adults believed the Senate should hold a hearing if a vacancy occurred
during the current Presidential election, with only 32% in opposition. Similar
substantial numbers across Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, who
supported holding confirmation hearings was included in this poll. Those
numbers were 68-31%, 63-37%, and 71-28% respectively. The Marquette University
Poll was taken three days before Justice Ginsburg's death.
President Trump is not violating his oath of office by
exercising his power to appoint a replacement for the seat made vacant by the
death of Justice Ginsburg. Countless implications can, more than likely, be
discussed and argued over the next few days. But to borrow a quote from former
President Obama, "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day I
won."
How true, Mr. Obama, and that is the case for President
Trump now, the 2016 election indeed did have consequences, and he is within his
constitutional right to exercise them.
This ladies and gentlemen are both implication and
consequence!
The correct action: Nominate and confirm a replacement
for Justice Ginsberg.
