قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong – at least in relation to the future of the Supreme Court

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong – at least in relation to the future of the Supreme Court



If you try to turn to the progressive base of the Democratic Party, it is scary to take action against Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. However, with the RBG declaring that the Supreme Court should not be expanded, there is the possibility – and even the imperative – to do just that.

As Politico reported last week, Nina Totenberg of NPR asked Ginsburg about proposals to expand the court beyond its current membership. The judiciary replied, "Nine seems to be a good number, it has been a long time, and if anything, [court expansion] the court would look biased."

The fact that this is a sitting justice of the Supreme Court The question of the extension of the court underlines the growing understanding among voters and opinion leaders that the court was co-opted by the Republican Party and broke democracy for party political purposes by allowing the suppression of voters, gerrymandering and unlimited dark money.

RBG is a We condone that she agrees that it is not her job to acknowledge what all know that the Supreme Court has become a partisan institution breaking the taboo of dispassionate justice by making colleagues' commitment to the rule of law public Question, let alone demands for reforms that would restore it.

Although Ginsburg must continue to uphold it The 2020 presidential candidates, posing as an impartial institution of the Supreme Court, are not subject to any such obligation. On the contrary, they must recognize and expect that the Supreme Court is a political institution that has been abducted by the GOP in order to promote a party-political agenda for companies and billionaires.

It is also essential It is imperative that the Democrats tell voters that democracy can only be restored if the court is reformed. Even if a Democrat wins the White House and persuades Congress to pass his signature legislation, the Tribunal will cut or sharply curtail all important laws that the new President can pass. Frankly, it is naïve to believe that the Roberts court would allow Congress to expand access to health care, reduce economic inequality, reduce climate emissions, eradicate gun violence or correct immigration.

The Supreme Court will block all this, and if you think that Chief Justice John Roberts rides to your rescue and righteously rules, we urge you to join our upcoming John Roberts-Is-Not-a-Moderate campaign consequences. We will publish extensive data showing that Roberts voted as conservatively as his current most extreme and former colleagues ̵

1; the judges Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh – and that his reputation as a centrist is absolutely at odds with his record ,

] In fact, Roberts has used exactly the conventions of neutrality and collegiality that prevent the RBG from calling on their colleagues or calling for a judicial reform to strengthen its undeserved reputation as moderate. When Roberts stated in his confirmation hearings that his job was to call "balls and strikes" and that he would respect precedents, he toyed with the myth of the apolitical Supreme Court when he recently claimed that there was no Obama judge or Trump -Judge.

Last week, former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper declared the 11/11 candidate to be open to the Supreme Court expansion. Hickenlooper had opposed the idea, but came up after realizing that Justice Roberts and his conservative colleagues were now posing a serious threat to Roe v. Wade presenting equality of marriage and other core rights It is up to the 2020 candidates to explain to voters that our democracy is broken and that the current composition of the Supreme Court is a major reason for this. As long as the Supreme Court does not allow Congress to restore democracy, justice reform must remain on the table.


Source link