Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares125 Views

    Bernie Sanders says he opposes urging Justice Sonia Sotomayor to step down

    by

    Bernie Sanders said he opposes any move to force Sonia Sotomayor, the senior liberal justice on the US supreme court, to step down so that Joe Biden could nominate a younger liberal replacement before he finishes his term as president.Sotomayor, 70, is known to suffer from health issues, and some Democrats fear a repeat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died during Donald Trump’s first term – giving him a third opportunity to nominate a new justice and further shore up the top court’s conservative bent.In his first term, Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia, Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Anthony Kennedy, and Amy Coney Barrett to take the place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died less than two months before the 2020 election – leaving six largely conservative judges to just three liberals.Trump’s first-term appointees to the court were critical to overturning abortion rights and a series of other rulings that delighted conservative activists.In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sanders, a progressive senator who identifies as an independent but usually votes with Democrats, said it would not be “sensible” to ask Sotomayor to step down while Biden is still in office.He added he’d heard “a little bit” of talk from Democratic senators about asking Sotomayor, who is serving a lifetime appointment to the supreme court, to step aside.“I don’t think it’s sensible,” Sanders said, without elaborating further.No elected Democrat has so far publicly called on the justice to resign, but the idea comes amid a feverish effort by Democrats to “Trump-proof” their agenda before the Republican takes office in January.Supreme court justices are nominated by the sitting president but face an often grueling confirmation process in the Senate. With Democrats soon to lose control of the body, the opportunity for Biden to appoint – and for Democratic senators to confirm – a successor to Sotomayor is fast slipping away.Biden appointed Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson to the supreme court. She was confirmed in 2022. However, with just two months left in office, it is unlikely that Biden and a Democrat-controlled Senate would be able to nominate and confirm a new justice to the court in time.Democrats have previous floated the possibility of increasing the number of justices to counter the court’s political make-up. In July, Biden proposed term limits and a code of ethics for court justices, after a series of scandals relating to the conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito called into question their impartiality.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBiden said the court had “gutted civil rights protections, taken away a woman’s right to choose, and now granted Presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office”.In a second term, meanwhile, Trump could have the opportunity to further deepen the court’s conservative leaning, as Thomas and Alito are both in their mid-70s.Just as Democrats are considering whether Sotomayor should step down to install a replacement liberal justice, Republicans could do the same after they take power in January. “Alito is gleefully packing up his chambers,” Mike Davis, a conservative legal operative, predicted on social media this week.Although a Republican majority in the Senate refused to take up confirmation hearings in 2016 when Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia, protesting that to do so in an election year would be unfair, they had no such problems when Trump nominated Barrett to replace Ginsburg in 2020, also an election year. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      RBG’s son fights decision to give Musk and Murdoch mother’s namesake award

      by

      The son of the late US supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called a decision to give Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch an award named for his mother a “desecration” of her memory.Discussing protests made to the Dwight D Opperman Foundation, which gives the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Woman of Leadership award, James Ginsburg told CNN: “I don’t want to speak to what our other plans might be if the foundation doesn’t see the wisdom of desisting and ending this desecration of my mother’s memory. But I will say that we will continue to fight this.”The second woman appointed to the US supreme court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg spent 27 years as a justice, becoming a hero to American liberals. She died aged 87 in September 2020 and was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, the third conservative justice installed by Donald Trump.Ginsburg helped establish the award colloquially known as the RBG, saying it would honour “women who have strived to make the world a better place for generations that follow their own, women who exemplify human qualities of empathy and humility, and who care about the dignity and wellbeing of all who dwell on planet Earth”.Previous recipients have included Barbra Streisand and Queen Elizabeth II.Last week, the Dwight D Opperman Foundation announced a five-strong list it said was chosen from “a slate of dozens of diverse nominees” but which included just one woman.That was Martha Stewart, 82, the lifestyle entrepreneur (and member of the first RBG award committee) who in 2004 was convicted of fraud and jailed for five months.The men were:
      Musk, 52, the billionaire owner of SpaceX, Tesla and X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, through which he has taken increasingly rightwing political stances;

      Murdoch, 93 and the rightwing media baron owner of Fox News;

      Michael Milken, 77, a financier jailed on securities charges, pardoned by Trump and now a philanthropist;

      And Sylvester Stallone, 77, the star of films including the Rocky saga and the violent Rambo franchise.
      The list prompted protests including a widely publicised letter to the foundation from a former Ginsburg clerk. Jane C Ginsburg, the justice’s daughter and a Columbia University law professor, called it “an affront to the memory of our mother”.James Ginsburg, the founder and president of Cedille Records, a classical music label, told CNN he did not have “a clue” how the list of honorees was decided.He said: “The original purpose of the award was … to recognise an extraordinary woman who has exercised a positive and notable influence on society and served as an exemplary role model in both principles and practice.“And whether you want to discuss the wisdom of opening up that to men or not is one thing, but I think it would be hard pressed to apply that description to people like Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch. And that’s why the family is so upset … the whole family and her clerk family …“I’ve been contacted by people I know and people even that I don’t know about this, saying how upset they are. My sister even got a threatening letter and one of the things we want to do here is set the record straight. The family had nothing to do with this. We were not consulted. We are vehemently against this appropriation of our mother’s name and this insult to her legacy.”The Opperman Foundation has said it intends to honour both men and women because Ruth Bader Ginsburg “fought not only for women but for everyone”. The Guardian contacted the foundation for further comment.James Ginsburg said his mother would be “appalled” by honours given in her name to “people who pretty much stand against all the things that she stood for in terms of trying to … make the world a better place for people striving for equality and for a more inclusive world where everybody is treated with respect.“I think one of her law clerks made a great analogy … it’s a little bit like … if somebody gave money to a university to build a physics lab and they built a football stadium instead. It so violates the purpose of what was intended here. And this is not what my mother signed on to when the award was first created …“We can discuss the wisdom of each [nominee], but the two that obviously stand out here are Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch.”The two men did not immediately comment.James Ginsburg said: “When you think of trying to create a more just society, which of course was mom’s ultimate goal, those are probably about the last names that would come to mind.”
      This article was amended on 18 March 2024 to correct a misspelling of Ginsburg. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Mitch McConnell greatly damaged US democracy with quiet, chess-like moves | Gary Gerstle

      by

      Mitch McConnell greatly damaged US democracy with quiet, chess-like movesGary GerstleWhile Trump’s coup attempt may have failed, McConnell’s own machinations have proven highly effective The January 6 committee has now revealed how far Donald Trump was willing to go to prevent the peaceful and lawful transfer of power from his presidency to that of Joe Biden. Yet, his deadly serious attempt to upend American democracy also had a slapdash quality to it, reflecting Trump’s own impulsive nature and his reliance on a group of schemers – Rudy Giuliani, Mike Flynn, Sidney Powell, Roger Stone and John Eastman among them – of limited ability. It is not entirely surprising that Trump’s coup failed.Another brazen GOP action, however, has succeeded – this one engineered by the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, whose chess-like skills of political strategizing put to shame Trump’s powerful but limited game of bluster and bullying. The act to which I refer is McConnell’s theft of Barack Obama’s 2016 appointment to the supreme court, a radical deed that has dimmed somewhat in public consciousness even as it proved crucial to fashioning a rightwing supreme court willing to overturn Roe v Wade and to destabilize American politics and American democracy in the process.This summer may be one of the most consequential in US democracy | Thomas ZimmerRead moreMcConnell is widely considered to be a cynic about politics, more interested in maintaining and holding power than in advancing a particular agenda. This is true up to a point. But it is equally true that McConnell has believed, for decades, that the federal government had grown too large and too strong, that power had to be returned to private enterprise on the one hand and the individual states on the other, and that the legislative process in Washington could not be trusted to accomplish those aims. Hence the critical role of the federal courts: the federal judiciary, if sufficiently populated by conservative jurists, could constrain and dismantle the power of the federal government in ways in which Congress never would. It was fine, in McConnell’s eyes, for Congress to be paralyzed and ineffectual on most domestic issues, as long as the GOP, when in power, stacked the federal judiciary and the supreme court with conservative judges and justices. Thus, across Trump’s presidency, McConnell pushed 175 district court appointments and 54 court of appeals appointments through the congressional confirmation process, far exceeding in numbers what Obama had managed during the second term of his presidency.The supreme court, of course, was the biggest prize of all. The GOP had failed for 30 years to fashion a court to its liking, largely, it believed, because too many of its appointees – Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and even John Roberts – had gone “rogue” on key issues: gay rights, gay marriage, affirmative action, Obamacare and, most of all, abortion. McConnell was worried that the GOP would fail again, this time under his watch as majority leader. Hence his willingness to steal an appointment that by historical practice and precedent belonged to Obama.The tale of McConnell’s steal begins in February 2016, when Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the lion of the judicial right, suddenly and unexpectedly died. Obama had just begun the last year of his presidency, and McConnell was entering his second year as Senate majority leader. McConnell immediately declared that he would hold no hearings on a new supreme court justice, regardless of whom Obama nominated. McConnell’s ostensible justification: it was inappropriate, he declared, for a president on his way out of office to exercise so profound an influence on America’s political future. Let the next president, to be elected in November 2016, decide who the nominee should be. That way forward would, McConnell argued, be a way of letting “the people”, through their choice of president, shape the supreme court’s future.Obama nominated a centrist (and distinguished) jurist, Merrick Garland, in the hopes that it might soften McConnell’s and the GOP’s opposition. McConnell would not budge. He behaved as though no nominee had been put forward, allowing both Garland and Obama to twist in the wind across eight long months. We know the rest of the story: Trump won in November and nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia’s seat. Gorsuch was an arch-conservative jurist vetted by the Federalist Society. Knowing that he would be unable to secure the 60 votes necessary to bring closure to debate on the nominee, McConnell blew up the filibuster requirement for supreme court justices. Gorsuch was then confirmed (54-45) on the Senate floor.Technically, McConnell had violated no laws. The Senate, by simple majority vote, has the authority to remove the filibuster from virtually any issue at any time. With regard to supreme court nominations, the constitution simply states that the president has the power to nominate justices and that the Senate’s advice and consent are required for confirmation. Still, McConnell’s refusal to authorize any action on Garland broke with 150 years of senatorial precedent and practice. The Senate had rejected nominees in the past, but only after debate and a vote. Some who were told they had little chance of winning such a vote had voluntarily withdrawn their names. A few had seen their cases deferred for a few months. But the last time a nominee was made to suffer Garland’s fate – consigned indefinitely to purgatory – was 1866. And that ancient case had a plausible justification that the Garland case did not: the nomination had come from a president – Andrew Johnson – on his way to impeachment and possible removal from office.McConnell’s action was a calculated gamble. In early 2016, he did not know who or how strong the Republican nominee would be. But he regarded Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, as vulnerable and beatable. And he expected his defiance of Obama on a supreme court nomination to fire up the GOP base. The stakes of the battle made the substantial risk worthwhile. McConnell distrusted Chief Justice Roberts because of the latter’s critical role in preserving Obama’s Affordable Care Act – another example, in the majority leader’s eyes, of a GOP-nominated justice going “rogue”. A Garland appointment might well have strengthened the centrism of the court, which is where Roberts wanted the power of his court to lie. McConnell wanted a court that would resist that drift, even if it meant breaking with a time-honored senatorial precedent. The end – a “truly” conservative court – justified the means.Imagine, for a moment, that McConnell in 2016 had followed precedent and held hearings for and a vote on Garland. The moderate Garland might well have been approved and become Scalia’s replacement. Let’s presume, for the sake of argument, that the next two appointments went as they did: Brett Kavanaugh replacing the retiring Anthony Kennedy in 2019 and Amy Coney Barrett replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg when the latter died in 2020. Had this scenario prevailed, the court would have entered its 2021-2022 term with three progressives (Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor), one moderate (Garland), and five conservatives (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett).This hypothetical court may well have declined to overturn Roe v Wade. Two of the votes that Samuel Alito needed to assemble his majority in the 2022 case repudiating Roe (Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization) were weak ones: Roberts and Kavanaugh. Roberts astonishingly admitted in his concurrent opinion that he thought it wrong to use Dobbs to overturn Roe, even as he was voting to do so. Kavanaugh, meanwhile, laced his own concurrent opinion with the anguish of someone deeply troubled by the affirmative vote for a Roe reversal that he, too, was casting.What if Garland was sitting on this court rather than Gorsuch? Roberts, still in command of this court, may well have cobbled together a coalition to preserve Roe. He might have pulled a conflicted Kavanaugh to his side, and he might have worked out a deal with the court’s progressives (and probably Garland as well) similar in spirit to the one that Sandra Day O’Connor had engineered in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992): jurisprudentially messy but workable as a compromise between America’s warring tribes. Were Garland sitting on this court, in other words, women in America today would still have a constitutionally protected right to reproductive freedom.McConnell could not have foreseen in 2016 the particular way in which a majority of justices would coalesce in 2022 to overturn Roe. But his actions then were designed to lay the foundation for this sort of outcome. He resolved long ago that he would allow no principle to stand in the way of his pursuit of a rightwing court. Thus, in October 2020, he did not hesitate to abandon the arguments he made in the Garland case to jam through the Senate Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, even though Trump was much closer to the end of his presidential term than Obama had been to his in 2016. The ends – a rightwing court –justified the means.McConnell’s machinations broke no laws. His 2016 supreme court steal, however, upended a century and a half of accepted senatorial practice. The price for the country has been high: damage to the court’s legitimacy, deepening cynicism about Washington politics, and a growing conviction that America’s ailing democratic system can’t be fixed.
      Gary Gerstle is Mellon professor of American history emeritus at Cambridge and a Guardian US columnist. His new book, The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era, will be published in April
      TopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsUS supreme courtMerrick GarlandRuth Bader GinsburgAmy Coney BarrettBrett KavanaughcommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Justice, Justice Thou Shalt Pursue review: how Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed America

      by

      Two and a half years ago, at a naturalization ceremony for newly minted Americans, Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked: “What is the difference between a bookkeeper in New York City’s garment district and a supreme court justice?”Her answer: “One generation … the difference between opportunities available to my mother and those afforded me.”From this new selection of Ginsburg’s arguments, speeches and opinions – the justice’s greatest hits – it is clear she deserves at least as much credit as any other American for that remarkably rapid transformation.This book is full of evidence that even in a nation like ours, where over the last 50 years the concentration of power in the hands of the top 1% has steadily worsened, a brilliant and determined individual with the right alliances can still bring about extraordinary change within her own lifetime.The book’s co-author, Amanda L Tyler, writes that Ginsburg’s work for gender equality is comparable to Justice Thurgood Marshall’s trailblazing quest to dismantle segregation.The burning determination of the gay activist Frank Kameny similarly transformed the status of LGBTQ people – and Ginsberg’s commitment to equal rights for all meant that she ended up doing just as much to expand the rights of sexual minorities as she did for the rights of women.Looking back from the third decade of the 21st century, the breadth and depth of the discrimination women of Ginsberg’s generation faced at the beginning of their careers is astonishing.Harvard Law School never allowed a woman student until 1950. When Ginsburg entered, in 1956, she was one of just nine women in a class of 500. Across America, women were routinely excluded from jury pools. Through the 1960s, the supreme court even declined to disturb a law that prohibited women from bartending “unless they did so under the auspices of a husband or father”.In 1963, when she started teaching law at Rutgers, Ginsburg was only the 19th woman professor at an American law school – and the dean proudly disobeyed the newly passed Equal Pay Act by paying her much less than her male colleagues, because she had a “husband with a well-paid job”.Ginsburg’s determination was obvious. When she was still in law school, her husband, Marty, developed a virulent form of cancer. They also had an infant daughter. But neither handicap prevented her or her husband from excelling in their studies and she actually described her child-rearing duties as an advantage in law school, because they gave her a more balanced life than most of her classmates.“Each part of my life was a respite from the other,” Ginsberg explained, six decades later. “After an intense day at the law school, I was glad to have the childcare hours. And then when Jane went to bed, I was ready to go back to the books. I think it was an appreciation that there is more to life than law school that accounts for how well I did.”In one of the first cases she litigated with her husband, in 1971, Moritz v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, they argued that Charles Moritz, a never-married man who cared for his mother, was denied a caregiver deduction a woman in his position would have received.Congress amended the law to permit all caregivers to claim the deduction going forward, but the government kept the appeal going anyway. It was then that Ginsburg received her greatest gift from her adversary: a list of every provision in the United States Code that differentiated on the basis of sex.“There it was, right in front of us,” she recalled, “all the laws that needed to be changed or eliminated … it was our road map, a pearl beyond price, that list of federal statutes.”In the 60s, excelling in law school didn’t mean a woman would be a strong candidate to be hired by any of the fanciest firms. But in retrospect Ginsberg agreed with the first woman on the supreme court, Sandra Day O’Connor, that even this kind of adversity had its advantages.Ginsburg often repeated O’Connor’s comment: “Suppose you and I had gone to law school … when there was no barrier to women in the legal profession. Where would we be now? We would be retired partners of a large law firm.” But because they had to find a different path, “both of us ended up on the US supreme court.”This book is also a reminder of the wisdom of Vincent Scully, the great Yale architectural historian, who noted just two years after Ginsburg was appointed to the court that “ours is a time which, with all its agonies, has … been marked most of all by liberation” – black liberation, women’s liberation and gay liberation.“Those movements, though they have a deep past in American history, were almost inconceivable just before they occurred,” Scully said. “Then, all of a sudden in the 1960s, they burst out together, changing us all.”Ginsberg’s energy and perspicacity gave her a singularly important role in bringing about many of those fundamental changes. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Women march against Trump and Republicans in major US cities

      by

      Thousands of mostly young women in masks rallied on Saturday in Washington DC and other US cities, exhorting voters to oppose Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans in the 3 November elections. The latest in a series of rallies that began with a massive women’s march the day after Trump’s January 2017 inauguration was playing out during the coronavirus pandemic. Demonstrators were asked to wear face coverings and practice social distancing. Rachel O’Leary Carmona, executive director of the Women’s March, opened the Washington event by asking people to keep their distance from one another, saying the only superspreader event would be the recent one at the White House. She talked about the power of women to end Trump’s presidency. “His presidency began with women marching and now it’s going to end with woman voting. Period,” she said. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Senators stir ghosts of Scalia and Ginsburg for Amy Coney Barrett hearing

      by

      Depending on your point of view, the woman seated before the Senate judiciary committee for her first day of questioning was either the female Scalia or the anti-RBG. Or maybe, of course, both.As proceedings commenced in a brightly lit and deeply sanitized hearing room, Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s third nominee to the supreme court, described herself as an originalist in the tradition of her mentor. Like the late Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked, she subscribes to a theory of constitutional interpretation that attempts to understand and apply “meaning that [the constitution] had at the time people ratified it”.That time was the 1780s, when only white and land-owning men could vote. Oddly, Scalia often produced opinions that delighted conservatives. Outside the Capitol on Tuesday, a group of conservative women gathered to sing and pray, hands extended heavenward.Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican committee chair, asked Barrett if it was appropriate to call her the “female Scalia”. She demurred.“If I am confirmed, you would not be getting Justice Scalia,” she said. “You would be getting Justice Barrett.”All of the young conservative women out there, this hearing to me is about a place for youLindsey GrahamThat, of course, is exactly what Democrats fear.In several rounds of questioning, Democratic senators portrayed the would-be justice as a rightwing crusader, chosen to undermine the civil rights legacy of the justice she hopes to replace, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, a world-famous champion of women.Outside the Capitol on Monday, progressive activists had worn blood-red robes and bonnets, symbols of female oppression taken from The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel.Barrett has roots in a charismatic Catholic group, People of Praise, which has been cited as an inspiration for Atwood. Such citations are wrong, but in the hearing room on Tuesday Democratic senators nonetheless painted a determinedly dystopian picture, of an America ruled by a conservative court.In their telling, millions – constituents with names, faces and gut-wrenching stories the senators took took pains to tell – stand to lose access to life-saving services provided by the Affordable Care Act; poor women who cannot afford to travel for an abortion will be forced to make dangerous choices; same-sex couples may no longer have the right to marry.Barrett declined to answer questions on such issues – and in doing so, perhaps provocatively, cited RBG. A dictum Ginsburg set forth during her 1993 confirmation hearing: “No hints, no forecasts, no previews.”“These are life and death questions for people,” insisted Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the panel. Barrett’s repeated refusal to answer questions on abortion was “distressing” Feinstein said, noting that Ginsburg was far more forthcoming about her views on the issue.“I have no agenda,” Barrett said, not for the first or last time.But Donald Trump does.The president chose Barrett from a list of what he called “pro-life” judges. He has said he hopes, even expects, the court will overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that established the right to abortion.The president tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for himDick DurbinThe president has also insisted he needs a ninth justice on the court before the election, in case the result is contested.“Who came up with this notion, this insulting notion, that you might violate your oath?” Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, wondered sarcastically, in response to Republicans’ accusation that his party was impugning Barrett’s judicial independence merely by asking where she stood on key issues.“Where could this idea have come from? Could it have come from the White House? Could it have come from the president’s tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for him? That is where it originated.”Despite it all, the hearing played out with an air of inevitability. Graham was clear. This was “the hearing to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court”, rather than the traditional opportunity to “consider” her nomination. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Trump-Biden debate revealed the dangers of Britain's 'special relationship' | Martin Kettle

      by

      Ever since the pioneering Kennedy-Nixon encounter in 1960, the questions that political journalists pose after US presidential debates have been the same. Who performed best? Who had the better of this or that part of the argument? Who exceeded expectations or fell short? Who had the best lines and delivered the best zinger? And has any of it changed the election odds?They are still being asked after the first televised match-up between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. With five weeks to go before the US votes, the questions still matter. But after Tuesday’s verbal roughhouse they also feel crowded out by other uncertainties that seem more epochal, more dystopian and more pressing, not least when seen from this side of the Atlantic.It can seem overblown, but it now makes sense to ask if America is on the edge of becoming ungovernable, or if the rule of impartial law enforcement still commands respect. It is also possible, in ways that were not true in the past, to consider whether the US can be relied on internationally, and whether it is realistic to continue to regard it as an ally. But if it is not an ally, what follows from that? The answers are increasingly uncomfortable.Perhaps most potently, it has to be asked whether America, with all its fabulous energy, wealth, liberty and ambition, still offers the inspirational model to the world that it did to so many, for so long. Or instead is today’s America, defined increasingly by its inequalities, violence, fundamentalism and racism, becoming a model to be rejected, to be guarded against and even, in some cases, to be resisted?Sober answers to these questions matter to the whole planet, above all because of climate change and amid the coronavirus pandemic. But they matter to Britain in very particular ways too. The UK’s claim to a special relationship with the United States has been the cornerstone of its view of itself in the world ever since 1945. A deference to, and infatuation with, America also runs deep in our culture. But if the US is changing in an increasingly dangerous fashion, where does that leave that foreign policy or that infatuation?Britain has a lot riding on getting the answer right. Coming at precisely the time when the UK is casting off its alliance with its own continent, the issue has special urgency. Back in 2016, when Britain voted to leave the European Union, the allure of the exit for many leavers rested partly on the apparent dependability of the transatlantic alliance. But that was pre-Trump. America is a different place and becoming more so. Even leavers should sometimes ask what exactly this wheel of fire is on to which they are binding themselves.Fundamentally, the credibility of any alliance, whether with Europe, the US or anyone else, rests on material self-interest over things such as trade and security. But these material issues are also oiled by common values and trust, without which the relationship remains brittle and pragmatic. The bigger ally will always call the shots. And Britain is not the bigger ally.Few of these values matter as much as respect for the rule of law. It is not difficult to list ways in which this has been undermined by Trump’s America. The list would include everything from the president’s tax returns to breaches of international treaties. The danger for Britain is that, in defence of its unequal alliance, it is beginning to follow the US down the same route of playing fast and loose with the law for political reasons.Take one hugely significant example. Trump and the Republican senate leadership are trying to install the conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett in place of the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the US supreme court before the presidential election on 3 November. This is a wholly political act. But it is not new. It is merely a particularly shameless step in a long history of politically shaped justice in the US.In the long term, the Barrett nomination is aimed at creating a conservative 6-3 majority in the court, which may then start to undo abortion and other civil rights. But the overriding and immediate purpose is to construct a court that may rule on the result of the November election itself. If that were to happen, and if the court awarded the disputed election to Trump, the politicisation of American justice would be complete.In Britain, judges are still selected on the basis of their legal qualifications, not their politics. Even if you know the identity of the current UK supreme court president, which most people will not, it is a fair bet that you don’t know whether Lord Reed can be classified as a liberal jurist or a conservative one. We are better off as a country for that. Judges should neither be cult figures, as Ginsburg became for some American liberals; or hate figures, as she was for conservatives.Seen against the backdrop of a divided America facing the Barrett nomination, Britain’s institutions may still seem gratifyingly independent and resilient. But for how long? The Johnson government’s purge of senior civil servants, and its plan to install conservative ideologues to govern the BBC and the independent regulators, are a declaration of war on pluralism and independence. If the United States continues its slide into culture wars and worse, the task of stopping this from dragging Britain down too will become increasingly urgent.•Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      How the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg could change America

      by

      She was a pioneer of women’s rights and a liberal icon of the US supreme court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death last week may alter the course of American politics and lead to a seismic shift towards a more conservative court for years to come

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      This episode first aired on Today in Focus, the Guardian’s global daily news podcast. The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has rocked the US presidential election, just weeks before it is held. The liberal icon on the supreme court played a role in expanding women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights and voting rights for African Americans, but her now vacant seat is likely to be filled by a far more conservative figure picked by Donald Trump. Liberal-minded Americans fear that many reforms, particularly on abortion rights, could be rolled back. Moira Donegan tells Anushka Asthana that amid the mourning for an extraordinary life, the politics of selecting judges for the supreme court has never been more politicised. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Can the Democrats turn the tables on Trump in supreme court battle?

      by

      Hard numbers suggest that the fight over the nomination of the conservative Catholic judge Amy Coney Barrett to the US supreme court is over before it begins. The 53-47 Republican majority in the Senate is solidly in favour of Donald Trump’s preferred replacement for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg – and according to the constitution, it is the Senate, not the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, that decides. There appears to be little the Democrats can do. But is that true? Get out the votePolls show most voters believe Ginsburg’s replacement should be selected by whoever wins the White House, with independent (uncommitted) voters especially strongly opposed to a rushed process.A Washington Post-ABC News survey found a 58-37% split in favour of delay among all adults. If Republicans defy public opinion and push through a final vote before the 3 November election, Democrats may begin to pick up critical support in several tight Senate contests. In such a scenario, the GOP may delay the final Senate vote until after the election. And if, as seems likely, the election result is itself disputed (and goes to the supreme court for a ruling, as in 2000), politics will freeze – and almost anything could happen. Another worry for Trump: 64% of Democrat voters say the prospect of a reinforced conservative supreme court majority has made it “more important” that Joe Biden wins, as against 37% of Republicans who say the same for Trump. The president is already in trouble with non-religious white suburban women voters, many of whom view him as a misogynist hostile to women’s rights, such as abortion. By energising such opposition, the nomination could backfire on Trump. Change the rulesEven if Barrett’s nomination is confirmed, the Democrats may pursue a number of reforms, without reference to the Supreme Court, that could prevent the Republicans manipulating the electoral system (and thus judicial appointments) in future – and retroactively redress the court’s political balance. One such reform would be a strengthening of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure universal registration and to stop partisan congressional redistricting and vote suppression practices that discourage voting by ethnic minorities in poorer, pro-Democrat areas. Another badly needed measure is an overhaul of the outdated voting system itself, for example to avoid future controversies over postal voting, currently being exploited by Trump. Big snag: in order to implement these and similar measures, the Democrats would need majorities in both houses of Congress, and control of the White House. But proponents say that if that outcome is achieved in November, there must be no hesitation. Democrats, they say, must learn to be as ruthless as their opponents. Move the goalpostsMore radical proposals under discussion include action by a Biden presidency to expand the supreme court bench from the current nine justices to 11, which could go some way towards mitigating the prospective 6-3 conservative majority (assuming Judge Barrett is confirmed). Even more dramatic is a proposal to grant statehood to the District of Columbia, which includes the city of Washington, and to the “unincorporated territory” of Puerto Rico. The disenfranchised African-American and Latino majority in Washington DC has long campaigned for statehood, viewing its denial as discriminatory. With 3.2 million inhabitants, Puerto Rico is more populous than 20 mostly Republican-voting rural states. If both acquired statehood, the 100-seat Senate would gain four, most likely Democrat senators. More