In 2020, Americans are being met with a new issue on the ballot -- the Supreme Court. Every American who votes this November has the potential to radically alter the direction of the United States’s progress and policies for decades to come. As Republicans attempt to push the appointment of SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett, it's essential to analyse how exactly Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing may end up affecting the course of this country for decades to come.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Legacy
There is no easy way to describe the generational impact of any justice on the Supreme Court, and especially not Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But her impact can be found throughout our lives, even if we may not notice it. Before she was appointed to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg was a trailblazer for gender equality -- and as part of the American Civil Liberties Union, she, along with many others, struck down a plurality of discriminatory laws that established legal differences between men and women and forced laws to account for the lives of everyday Americans. Rather than tackle inequity when it came -- she held one core argument dearly: equal protection under the 14th Amendment should always cover discrimination by sex -- no matter the implications. Ginsburg didn’t just seek to eliminate laws that discriminated against women, but also fought to take a deeper look at how standard societal roles may harm men, tackling the standard belief that men were to be the “breadwinners” in the home -- a belief that defined many of the cases she fought. As part of the ACLU, her fights against sex-based discrimination created a good portion of the atmosphere allowing for greater equality in the workforce -- and as a result, more women are the breadwinners of the home than any time before in history. She once said she believed that men and women could “create new traditions by their actions, if artificial barriers are removed, and avenues of opportunity held open to them." And as an associate justice, she made the removal of those barriers her life’s work. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was part of the groundbreaking decision to legalise same-sex marriage through Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) -- which helped change the course for LGBTQ equality, along with Bostok v. Clayton County (2020), a ruling that outlawed discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. One notable dissent of hers on the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear (2007) motivated the Obama administration to sign equal pay into law -- and she defended Affirmative Action in the case of an onslaught from all directions -- noting the importance of it for increasing gender equality and setting a level playing field. Ginsburg’s fight for equality was oftentimes motivated by her personal setbacks. As a woman in the law field, she was no stranger to discrimination and inequality -- and that resilience was her motivation for much of her trailblazing work as a judge.
Appointing a New Judge: The Rundown
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s final words, delivered to her granddaughter, encapsulates the significance of the debate right now: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” For Democrats and Republicans alike, the race against time is crucial. While Republicans seem to be slowed by COVID-19, along with the hosting of a potential superspreader event, the wake of President Trump’s diagnosis, and the SCOTUS events currently being hosted -- the Democrats are relying on an argument last used against President Barack Obama. In 2016, as former President Obama aimed to replace Justice Scalia with lawyer Merrick Garland, Senate Republicans argued, citing the “Biden Rule,” that the Senate ought not to hold a vote on any justice nominations until the appointment of a new president. The Biden rule draws its sources from a 1992 Senate floor speech, where former VP and Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden "once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over." [It sometimes may be referred to as the Thurmond Rule when applied to judicial nominees entirely.] The argument for Democrats, similarly, rests on the same premise. While the refusal to accept an appointment came in early February in the case of Merrick Garland, Amy Coney Barrett faces appointment less than a month before the election, making the Biden rule more consequential than ever. With so little time before the election, Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment has essentially become a proxy war for the presidential candidates.
Amy Coney Barrett: On the Issues
Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment has served as a source of controversy for Democrats and Republicans alike. While Republicans aim to use a potential confirmation to gain a conservative leaning for the court, the Democrats worry that this may lead to a setback for progress and a roadblock for future Democratic goals. Many LGBTQ Americans have pointed out that her membership as part of the People of Praise, known to “reject openly gay men and women,” may be an indicator of her stances on decisions related to LGBTQ issues. In the wake of recent statements from Justices Thomas and Alito, arguing against the 2015 Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges as part of a four-page letter advocating for the overturning of the landmark same-sex marriage decision, Judge Barrett’s positions on LGBTQ rights are facing even more scrutiny. Aside from her former loyalty to anti-LGBTQ groups, she defended the Supreme Court’s dissenters on the 2015 marriage equality decision, as well as arguing that Title IX protections ought not to protect transgender Americans. Coney Barrett has also repeatedly positioned herself with anti-abortion stances, arguing that the Roe v. Wade (1973) case was an “erroneous decision,” advocating for a law prohibiting abortions at any time during pregnancy depending on the reason for abortion, and insisting that the ACA’s birth control programs were an “assault on religious liberty.” And when it comes to the ACA, Coney Barrett has continuously argued against it. In the court decision to uphold the ACA in NFIB v Sebelius (2012), she opposed the move, saying that Justice Roberts “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.” Once again, she opposed the Court’s decision in King v. Burwell (2015), arguing that the dissent to uphold the statute held the better argument. Government watchdog Accountable.US note that Coney Barrett usually takes the side of businesses rather than people -- with a 76% favouring. One notable example of her doing so is with a 2017 ruling of hers in regards to a case of racial discrimination in the workforce. The said ruling allowed an Autozone to “intentionally assign members of different races to different stores” for work, with the dissent comparing it to a “separate-but-equal arrangement” like those tackled in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg could mean a dramatic shift in American politics for years to come. Her stances against abortion, the Affordable Care Act, and LGBTQ+ rights, as well as a clear shift towards businesses -- are a representation of the Republican Party's platform entirely. While Democrats try to use the Biden Rule to block her nomination until post-election, an argument supported just four years ago by Barrett herself, Republicans are continuing to try and push her confirmation, with the first of many hearings scheduled for the 12th of October. This election may mean more than any other. As a proxy war for both parties -- the coming appointments will determine the course of the United States for decades to come.
Written by Christopher Lorde
Bình luận