Irony of Ironies

The following invitation arrived in my inbox this morning, from the Los Angeles chapter of Berkeley Law Alumni:

Exploring the Legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Thursday, September 9, 2021

12:00 - 1:00 pm PDT

Unfortunately, Justice Ginsburg's true legacy was on full display at the Supreme Court yesterday, as SCOTUS, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the 5-4 majority, voted to gut Roe v. Wade by declining to stay Texas's vigilante anti-abortion law. To put it as simply as possible, this would not have happened if Justice Ginsburg had resigned in 2014, while Obama was president and Democrats controlled the Senate. 

I doubt if the discussants at next week's Berkeley program will point out that Ginsburg's actual "legacy" will be the evisceration of almost everything she stood for, but that is likely how she will be most remembered five or ten years from now. 

We can only hope that Justice Breyer is paying good attention. He should resign tomorrow, effective upon the confirmation of his successor.

Comments

[anon]

To personalize judicial opinions is the delegitimize the court. To be sure, some Justices are "better" than others in terms of quality of reasoning, constitutional insights, judicial demeanor and other objective factors.

But, shallow partisans simply want the SCOTUS to vote as a legislative branch votes. These partisans don't care about the "law." Just as in every other aspect of our lives, these ever so holier than thou totalitarians simply want a Justice to VOTE AS TOLD TO VOTE by their fellow political partisans.

It is a tribute to the true mediocrity of Ginsburg that Lubet states: "Ginsburg's actual "legacy" will be the evisceration of almost everything she stood for, but that is likely how she will be most remembered five or ten years from now."

Indeed, she was such a hero to leftists because she was a reliable vote for their partisan causes, not a great justice.

[Dave Garrow]

DFR re RBG, if that's an abbreviation that's allowed here (!), but I continue to disagree with Steve re SGB. 30 VI 22 will be fine.

[Steve L.]

Decaf French Roast?

As to SGB, 30 VI 22 will be fine so long as Pat Leahy stays healthy (and Sherrod Brown, Jean Shaeen,John Tester, and the other Democratic senators in states with GOP governors, plus Diane Feinstein if Gavin Newsom is recalled).

[PaulB]

If Newsom is recalled (which he won't), the first piece of legislation that the state will pass is to take away the right of the governor to name a replacement for the Senate. Not unlike Massachusetts in 2004, when facing Kerry becoming the nominee, the legislature took away Governor Romney's ability to appoint a successor.

[Steve L.]

PaulB: Yes, that reduces the risk without quite eliminating it.

[anon]

Ah yes, the party that adheres to "norms" like:
Packing the court;
Adding tiny jurisdictions as states to gain 2 Senators per;
Doing away with the filibuster;
Changing the rules of voting during an election;
Changing the rules of Senatorial appointment for purely partisan reasons (Lubet favors this one, though he suggests he would go further);
Change the rules of the census;
Override "the" science regarding boosters for political reasons;
Override the advice of the military for purely political reasons;
and, on and on and on.
ONe really must respect the party that respects "tradition and norms."
Can someone produce a list that would pertain to the other party? Probably.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The left has forgotten that in its hysterical zeal to win at all costs. Accordingly, it is exposed for its ruthless lack of principles.