Happy Last Day of Summer!
Tomorrow is the Vernal Equinox, marking the Sun's transit of the Equator, and the beginning of Autumn.
We join the nation in extending condolences to the family of the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was unquestionably an icon in the women's rights movement and as such, an important figure in our nation's history.
It is curious that the recent passing of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia did not meet with the same publicity as did the passing of Associate Justice Ginsburg. In legal academic circles, while both Ginsburg and Scalia sat on the Court, Scalia was acknowledged as the brightest mind and best writer on the Court. He was also known as a jurist who defined the law by the many majority opinions he wrote. In contrast, Ginsburg was noted as a dissenter who, rather than leading the Court to the law, found reason to disagree with the law as announced by the Court.
Make no mistake, Supreme Court dissents are a hallowed tradition. Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who served on the Court for 31 terms, is often referred to as "The Great Dissenter." He earned that name because many of his dissents caused the Court to reverse its rulings in later terms. In contrast, Ginsburg's dissents did not have that effect. The vast majority of her dissents over her 27 terms have remained as dissents rather than causing the Court to later reverse itself. As such, while her Supreme Court jurisprudence is academically interesting, it has not had a major effect on American law. Ginsburg was much more effective in shaping American law during her 13 years as a Circuit Court Judge, and before that, in private practice, where she had an impressive record of successfully representing clients in ground-breaking women's rights litigation.
But when you're a darling of the liberal media...
AND NOW, the Democrats want the government to effectively shut down because it's an election year. The President is supposed to abandon his duty to nominate a replacement justice with the advice and consent of the Senate. And the Senate is supposed to abandon its duty to give advice and consent. And the Democrats say that this is so because the Republicans refused to consent to the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016. Yet as the Kavanaugh hearings (and for those with longer memories, especially the Bork hearings) have shown, the Democrats have proven that there is no guarantee of consent by the Senate in Supreme Court nominations. As President Obama said, elections have consequences -- including the election of 2016!
There are only 6 weeks until Election Day. It's time to get down to business, and secure victory for our Party and the Nation!!
