Why a Ginsberg post and not a "Harris administration" post? Because the Harris administration was a foregone conclusion. I had already informed the readership that a Biden vote is a whoever Biden (well, his people) picked as VP. So none of this surprises those paying attention.
So now we have the passing of Ginsberg. I've written not a few pieces on the very bad decisions falling out of SCOTUS including ludicrous dissents. That said, I do agree with some commentators that a balanced court is most desirable. However we did not have a balanced court before yesterday's news and we do not have one now. We have had decisions in which the plain reading of a law has been completely ignored. We have had decisions where the court usurped in whole the power of the legislature. We have had decisions where the court intruded on the clear power of the executive because they didn't like something Trump said. We have had a court that has refused to address issues of the second amendment where clear infringements are being made by various states. SCOTUS is broken and it is a reflection on the wider government. But back to Ginsberg.
Ginsberg was clearly at a stage where she should have relinquished her seat before Trump was elected. She should have been replaced during Obama's first term. The failure to do so is a huge mistake of that administration. But Democrats, like Republicans before them couldn't imagine not losing elections due to some fantasy about being on the "right side of history" and having misjudged their demographic advantage (which is coming without a doubt). So rather than put extreme but private pressure on Ginsberg to resign so they could put in a younger and healthier justice who would sit for the next 20 odd years, they let 8 years pass. In addition Democrats killed of filibustering of SCOTUS appointments.
Stupid stupid, stupid. Again, because they thought they would hold the reigns for power for ever and ever. Amen. That turned out to be another fatal mistake.
Normally, I would agree with those who say that we should wait until after the election. Normally. However; Democrats have been totally corrupt in the past 5 years. From the Dirty Dossier (the actual collusion). The illegal spaying on a campaign using government agencies and agents. The corruption of local courts. The misuse of police powers to allow mass rioting while prosecuting those defending their lives and property. No. No quarter should be given now. As Dan Bongino put it, these are the new rules.
There's a list of candidates and they should be put forth Monday morning. Democrats said filibuster was a relic of Americas racist past. So fine, new rules, no filibuster. Thems the new rules.
Preferably the candidate should be a non-Jew. Non Catholic and non Ivy League. I say this because these three classifications are over represented on the court relative to the population at large. 43% of the US claim a protestant religion whereas over half of the court is Catholic (22% of US pop is Catholic). Until Ginsberg's passing there were 3 Jews on the high court. Jews make up 2% of the US population.
Most importantly, any candidate should have the understanding of what "shall not be infringed" and "Shall not be abridged" means. They should understand that such constitutional restraints fall through to the lowest and most local government body in America. That includes every agency from the Fed down to the little town in the middle of nowhere. That candidate should understand that the "equal protection" guarantee of the 14th amendment does not have an exception for people designated non-POC.
This is not a left-right issue. If a judge cannot uphold the constitution regardless of whether he or she is sympathetic to the case or not, then they are not qualified. Period.
It's too bad this situation has to be as stressful as it will be (people already threatening riots) but that's what happens when people refuse to accept the results of a legitimate election and show their asses for four years.