2020 Sep 28 - US Supreme Court

Ok, what to talk about this week? I was encouraged by Boris saying that the world needs to unite against a common foe and I initially thought, that it was time to go to war with Germany again, it's been a while after all and it's about the only way that you could get a flight overseas right now, in the back of an Atlas C1. What else? Well there's the recent 'rule of six' law which could very well lead to a murder at the home of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves as they frantically try to avoid a visit by the police. If you're wondering why he's called Happy it's because he likely now owns a 3/7 stake in ownership of the mine.

But the big news the last week was the battle over the US Supreme Court, as compared to the 'supreme food court' at my local shopping place which offers half a dozen types of cuisine, most of it friend and all at wildly marked up priced. The last week or so though saw justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pass away meaning that President Trump and the Republican controlled senate will be appointing a new justice and their pick is Amy Barrett. She's a staunch catholic to the extent that you wonder whether or not the pope really is a catholic, in comparison at least. I'd have thought that religion and Washington would go together though, like when they look at the deficit and pray for a miracle, or people are asked to give generously and bundles of money are exchanged. Anyway, her appointment would make the court conservative leaning for the next decade or two. The left or right thing is of course madness though, judicial proceedings should be non-political, but the US has for a few decades has almost purposefully drafting legally dubious laws on the basis that they can sort it out because they're not up for election in 10 months. Nancy Pelosi once famously said Obamacare must be passed to ‘Find Out What Is in It’ in the process almost making a comparison between healthcare and a lottery scratch card. Although I guess in the US both the lottery and healthcare both do end up with someone else getting very rich at your expense.

Of course the largest part of this story is that the court is almost certainly going to decide the result of the presidential election, as it did in the 2000 election which ironically featured involved 2000 lawyers. Alas 2020 will not be so kind with everyone seeing this one as the one of the most pivotal, by which I mean litigious, election ever. Three points of interest that I found in all of this:
1) Obama apparently asked Ginsberg to step down a number of years ago so that he could appoint a new and very young left-leaning judge who could stick around for decades. Apparently she said no because she viewed it as a life job and not a political appointment. Presumably the concept of seriousness and integrity was lost on the President who at the time was talking about the Benghazi incident in the way a 12yo talks about Minecraft.
2) Justice Ginsberg, on the topic of Roe v Wade and abortion, actually stated in 1992 that she though the decision had been a mistep and that she'd rather the ruling had been different, it order for the politicians to sort it out in law and not in a court. No matter what you thought of her politics you have to admire someone telling a bunch of people to do their job instead of passing the buck.
3) The appointment will be by a majority of 1 vote, possibly 2. Normally the Senate needs a 60-40 result to guarantee passing a law, it's why it's so unproductive, it's designed so that only bipartisan laws can be passed. The one case where this isn't the case is in Supreme Court Justices. That change was put in place by Obama and Harry Reid several years ago who forced through a procedural change when they didn't get their own way appointing a controversial judge. The only way therefore that the current situation could be more ironic would be if the new choice of female court justice was Alanis Morissette.
Share >>>