OP-Ed: Our Democracy Shouldn't Have Rested on RBG's Shoulders
The news of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death came as a shock to all of us. However, considering her health and age, it wasn’t a true shock that she passed away, rather it was the ramifications of her death that left many in a state of disbelief. Suddenly, it felt like our country that was already going through a historically tumultuous time was on the verge of losing access to fundamental rights, like access to health care and abortion. However, we must not forget this all really boils down to the health of an 87-year-old woman. Is this what a successful democracy looks like?
The Supreme Court is made up of nine justices nominated by the current president and confirmed by the Senate, each of which serves for life. When selecting a justice, the president considers the potential justice’s political views, of course, and what they would do for the country. However, there are only so many crucial issues that Supreme Court justices address that are foreseeable, and Roe v. Wade, the case that determined a woman’s right to an abortion, is anticipated to be on the docket soon. Really, nowadays, when presidents appoint justices, they are considering what the justice would do if a case that has the potential to overturn Roe made its way into the Court.
It was just one week after RBG’s death when the president announced his SCOTUS pick - uber-conservative Amy Coney Barrett. Because it would be the accomplishment of the century for the Republican party to have an overwhelmingly majority right-leaning court, conservatives in Washington are hoping and praying they can get the nomination by the election. This would also accomplish the GOP’s goal of eventually overturning Roe v. Wade. Liberals are upset that McConnell and all of his millionaire Senator golf friends are going back on their word and encouraging a confirmation. It’s all ridiculous. And it all depended on Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health.
How could a woman’s right to abortion directly depend on the stability of an 87-year-old woman with a 10+ year battle with pancreatic cancer? It shouldn’t be this way. When the founding fathers gave the SCOTUS the power of judicial review, they did so wishing to have the nine justices maintain a living constitution and interpret our laws fairly. The justices were supposed to serve for life with the literal goal of avoiding politics and acting with integrity within the framework of the constitution. The framers would roll in their graves to see Senators using this sacred power for political gain, as these crucial rights of our democracy risk being taken away because of a polarized system.
Maybe it’s just a mischance that these circumstances fell into place, however it’s likely that this same situation could occur again. Perhaps it’s time to actually reevaluate and acknowledge that this system may be dated for our divided country. Democrats, for example, have talked for years about adding seats to the Supreme Court to avoid polarization and unfair majorities; maybe it’s time they actually take the legislative or executive action to make that happen. Some have talked about having an age cap at 65 that forces justices to retire earlier and therefore keep fresh blood moving through the court. This is certainly another option to consider.
Whatever route change may or may not take place, we can’t keep pretending it’s just unfortunate RBG died when she did. She should’ve been able to rest peacefully, assured that the supposed best country on Earth would prevail with democratic values at the forefront, instead of polarity and hypocrisy.
By Annie Levy