So you Democrats think that President Trump shouldn’t have been able to nominate a replacement Supreme Court Justice for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Maybe you’re right. But you must realize that each presidential term lasts a full 4 years. You wouldn’t want to work at your job up until the age of 65, but not get the benefits that go along with it (paycheck, healthcare, etc) past age 60, would you?
A civilized society needs hard cut-offs. If there weren’t rules governing the moment things become illegal, we’d have no use for the popular phrase “Rules were meant to be broken.” Take those ridiculous signs on the side of the road that read “Speed Limit” with a large, bold, seemingly random number below it. Those signs mean nothing to drivers because of the near universal understanding that a limit of 35 MPH really means 42ish, 45 allows 52, and 70 may as well read “Welcome auf der Autobahn.” Because of poor enforcement of these state and federal mandates, automobiles travel at a high variety of speeds, making roads exceedingly more dangerous than they need be.
So, what the hell do speed limits have to do with Supreme Court Justice appointments? Speed limits demonstrate the chaos that can happen when you posit hard cut-offs, yet don’t enforce them. When you set your alarm for 7:00 AM prior to slipping under the covers of your impeccably made bed, you intend to use every second of your allotted sleep time. You don’t plan on waking up naturally at 6:55 AM. Similarly, while the President is President, he—or eventually she—has the power afforded by the Presidency until the very last second. The Constitution specifies each Presidential term is 4 years in duration—no more, no less.
Getting back to Supreme Court Justice appointments, though, one consideration must first be addressed. Who is the first suspect when a married woman dies under questionable circumstances? Always the husband. He’s the one with the most to gain—whether that simply be freedom from a marriage he no longer wants, or a big life-insurance payday. Who should be the primary suspect when an iconic 87 year-old liberal Supreme Court Justice dies just 47 days prior to a hotly contested, likely disputed election? While he certainly didn’t pull the proverbial trigger, a sitting Republican President—who stands to appoint a conservative Justice as replacement—must be top of the list. Once suspicion proves frivolous, the sitting President can appoint whomever he deems the best fit.
Ultimately, Trump had every right to nominate Amy Coney Barrett. Personally, I wish he wouldn’t have, but that is his Constitutional right as the sitting POTUS. Even if Stephen Breyer were to die on January 19, 2025 of a sudden cardiac event, a lame duck President Trump would still have the right to nominate Justice Breyer’s replacement if cleared of wrongdoing before noon the following day. Any POTUS worth their salt should have a name at the ready in just such a circumstance. Whether the Judge were to be confirmed with such a late hour nomination, though, is another matter altogether.
On a slight, but extremely necessary tangent, did you all see Amy Coney Barrett’s face at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing? While she waited for questions to eventually be asked by members of Congress who first delivered their lectures, her face did little to speak positively about her personality. Her smirk is the very definition of “Resting Bitch Face.” Let me be clear that I have nothing against the lady. I honestly know very little about her beyond her court of public opinion diagnosed RBF. But it seems to me that we are set to replace the seat of the Notorious RBG with the Squeaky-Pitch-Voice RBF.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify who can sit on the Supreme Court—RBF or not. You don’t need to be a judge, or even a lawyer. Nor does it quantify the number of members on the Court. We’ve had 9 members on the Highest Court in the Land since 1869, but the number has ranged from 6 to 10 since the Court first convened in 1790. Yet, there hasn’t been a sitting Justice on the Supreme Court without a law degree since 1957. Many laws are somewhat illogical. Too often legal professionals have been so long immured in the intricacies of laws that they fail to step back and really delve deeply into the logic behind those very laws that rule their professional lives. We need someone who can think outside the box. Someone who can peer through to a deeper understanding of the real world consequences of laws and actions that remain blurred out from the cognition of trained legal minds.
Here’s my suggestion. I think we need to explore the full extent of the options granted by the lack of confinement allowed by the Constitution. We need at least one member on the court that has no allegiance to any political party. Someone whose only loyalty is to logic— allowing them to think outside of the box. At the next opportunity, I suggest the radical—but 100% legal—nomination of someone who not only has no legal experience, but who also has NEVER voted. If that weren’t neutral enough, they also must check at least two of the following boxes: mixed-race, LGBTQ, physically disabled, recovering addict, nude or otherwise blackmailesque photos of them on the internet, or other specification that occupies a heavy portion of a Venn diagram of underrepresented America. Throw in an advanced degree from a highly respected—but non-Ivy League school—and we have someone who meets all the qualifications for impartiality.
So you blue folks out on the left still think we should have waited until after the election for the President to nominate a replacement for the Notorious RBG? Very recent, historical precedent favors that argument. There were 270 days between Antonin Scalia’s death and the election in 2016. Perhaps it takes that much longer to rule out foul play in the death of an obese, 79 year-old male by a middle-aged black man, than it does a physically fit, 87 year-old female buy an old white dude. Or maybe the Republican-held Senate implements its own sliding scale version of the speed limit as it sees fit. So, I guess, yeah, come to think of it . . . You’re Probably Right.
[015] October 21, 2020