More stories

  • in

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg obituary

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    US supreme court justice and champion of women’s rights

    Play Video

    3:20

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her own words – video obituary

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has died aged 87, was the second woman to sit on the supreme court of the United States. Nominated to the court by Bill Clinton in 1993, she had already established a reputation as a champion of gender equality and women’s rights as advocate, academic and appeals court judge. Throughout her long career, she was firm in her twin convictions: there is discrimination against women in the US (and elsewhere), and that discrimination violates the American constitution.
    In her 27 years on the supreme court bench, she was a consistent moderate liberal. Her role as the senior liberal justice, after 2010, became increasingly important as the balance of opinion shifted in the court, and her scathing dissents on conservative majority decisions, particularly on women’s rights, made her a celebrated figure on the left.
    In recent years Ginsburg was treated, as one New Yorker writer said, as “a pop culture feminist icon, a comic book superhero”. She was formidably clever, and had in her youth almost superhuman capacity for work. But what made her historically so important was her clear conviction of the injustice of unequal treatment of women, and her absolute certainty that it could be cleansed by applying the constitution.
    Her emphasis changed over her long career. Early on, as a law professor at Rutgers, New Jersey and then Columbia, New York, and especially in her advocacy work for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970s, she seemed a committed feminist. As director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, she argued six gender discrimination cases before the supreme court, winning five, persuading the bench that gender discrimination was a violation of the constitution’s equal protection clause. She sometimes argued – as she did in Weinberger v Wiesenfeld (1975), representing a widower denied benefits after his wife died in childbirth – that women, as well as men, could be the unfair winners of an unjust system. More

  • in

    What does Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death mean for the supreme court?

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    A replacement for the liberal justice could reshape the court for a generation, marking Trump’s most lasting legacy

    Play Video

    3:20

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her own words – video obituary

    The supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on Friday evening. As messages of grief and gratitude for her life and career swept the country, here’s a look at what the liberal icon’s death means for the supreme court and what happens next.
    What does this mean for the court?
    Ginsburg’s death has set up nothing short of a historic war for the future of the court – and American life under the law. Donald Trump and Republicans in the Senate are determined to replace Ginsburg with a conservative justice. Their doing so could decisively tilt the ideological balance of the court for a generation and would probably constitute the most lasting legacy of the Trump presidency.
    What’s at stake?
    Reproductive rights, voting rights, protections from discrimination, the future of criminal justice, the power of the presidency, the rights of immigrants, tax rules and laws, and healthcare for millions of vulnerable Americans, to name a few issues. Every big issue in American life is on the line.
    Why is so much at stake?
    Replacing Ginsburg with a young conservative justice would fundamentally shift the ideological balance of the court, creating a seemingly bulletproof conservative majority of five justices (excluding chief justice John Roberts, who would make six conservatives but who is seen by the far right as less reliable). This new majority could usher in a new legal landscape that could last at least 30 years.
    Didn’t Trump already appoint two justices?
    Yes, Trump appointed justice Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. But they replaced justices who were nominated by earlier Republican presidents. They have pulled the court right, but not as far right as replacing Ginsburg with a conservative would. Ginsburg was nominated by Bill Clinton in 1993.
    That sounds dramatic. Is it really such a big deal?
    Yes. An ideological tilt of this kind on the supreme court has not happened for 50 years. Since 1969, Republican presidents have appointed 14 out of 18 justices elevated to the court – but certain Republican appointments, such as Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter turned out to occupy moderate ground or even drift liberal on some issues. In the recent hyper-partisan age, that middle ground on the court has mostly disappeared.
    Can Trump and the Republicans pull this off?
    It’s not a sure thing. Any new appointment by Trump must be confirmed by straight majority vote in the Senate. Senate leader Mitch McConnell has said he would confirm a new justice before the election. But McConnell is working with a narrow 53-47 majority, and if Trump nominates a conservative with extreme views, confirmation might be more difficult.
    But yes, there is definitely the time and the will for Trump to pull this off. And the willingness of Republicans to violate every norm in the process should not be underestimated. The Republican senator Joni Ernst of Iowa said in July that a Trump pick could even be confirmed during a lame duck session of Congress, meaning after the 3 November election but before a new Senate is installed.
    Who will Trump pick?
    He’s released a list of potential picks, among them Amy Coney Barrett, 48, whom Trump appointed to the US court of appeals for the seventh circuit in 2017. Barrett worries progressives as a committed Roman Catholic with conservative views on social issues. At Barrett’s circuit court confirmation hearings, the Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein expressed concern that the judge would be guided by church law instead of the constitution.
    “The dogma lives loudly within you and that’s a concern,” Feinstein said, “when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”
    Astonishingly, earlier this month the president augmented the list with the names of three sitting Republican senators among 20 additional names, including Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, who then tweeted “It’s time for Roe v Wade to go”, referring to the landmark 1973 court ruling that led to the legalization of abortion in the US.
    Could Trump fail to confirm a Ginsburg replacement?
    Trump sees appointing conservative judges as a political winner with his base, and a third supreme court justice in his first term could help him win re-election.
    But the hypocrisy in a move by McConnell to confirm a Trump pick with so little time before the election – after McConnell blocked the Barack Obama nominee Merrick Garland in March 2016 on the grounds that “only” eight months remained before that year’s election – could be politically costly.
    Because McConnell might be more worried about helping Republican senators win in close races, allowing McConnell to keep his leadership post, than helping Trump win a long-shot race, the political will to push a Trump nominee through might falter.
    The resistance to the confirmation would be extreme and the political fight would be all-consuming.
    Just hours before Ginsburg died, moderate Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had remarked hypothetically, it was reported on Friday evening, that she would not confirm a new justice until after the presidential inauguration in January, 2021.

    Topics

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    US supreme court

    Law (US)

    Trump administration

    Donald Trump

    US politics

    explainers

    Share on Facebook

    Share on Twitter

    Share via Email

    Share on LinkedIn

    Share on Pinterest

    Share on WhatsApp

    Share on Messenger

    Reuse this content More

  • in

    Trump expected to announce new list of potential supreme court justices

    The White House is expected to announce a new list of potential supreme court justices as soon as Wednesday, a move designed to shore up conservative support for Donald Trump as his race for the White House against Joe Biden enters the final stretch.Trump’s decision to name a list of possible picks during the 2016 election is widely seen to have boosted support among conservatives otherwise queasy about backing him against Hillary Clinton. Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both now on the court, were included on that list of reliably conservative picks.Last week, the White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, flagged the impending announcement, telling reporters: “You will see it soon.” On Tuesday, Politico reported that the list was imminent.Trump signaled he was compiling a new list after a pair of supreme court rulings went against his administration in June.The updated list is expected to include many of the 2016 lineup, including Raymond Kethledge, 53, an appeals court judge on the sixth circuit, and Amy Coney Barrett, 48, a member of the seventh circuit appeals court.Both were reported to have been close to being nominated when Kavanaugh was picked in late 2018, to fill a seat vacated by the retirement of Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh, a former White House aide to George W Bush, was confirmed after contentious confirmation hearings featuring allegations of sexual assault, which he vehemently denied.After Trump’s two picks, conservatives hold a 5-4 majority on the supreme court, where seats are vacated by the retirement or death of an incumbent. Over the summer, the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, has announced health problems including treatment for cancer.Trump promotes his judicial appointments as perhaps his most important accomplishment. A Biden presidency, he warns, would mean more liberals on the highest court.But Trump’s appointees have not always performed as anticipated. This summer, for example, Gorsuch sided with the chief justice, John Roberts, and the liberal justices to guarantee protection from discrimination in the workplace for LGBTQ individuals – a disappointment to conservatives.Last month, Vice-President Mike Pence told the Christian Broadcasting Network that Roberts, who was appointed by George W Bush, had been “a disappointment to conservatives”.But Trump’s appointments to lower courts offer plentiful consolation. During his first term, nearly 200 judges have been installed with lifetime appointments.According to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Federal Judicial Center, in July there were 792 active judges across the three main tiers of the federal system.Of those, Trump has appointed 194, or 24% of the total. Barack Obama appointed the largest share of currently active federal judges, 39%. Of judges still sitting, George W Bush appointed 21% and 11% were appointed by Bill Clinton.Much smaller shares were appointed by George HW Bush (2%) and Ronald Reagan (2%). A single federal judge, Puerto Rico’s Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, dates her appointment to Jimmy Carter’s administration. More

  • in

    The supreme court just delivered a huge blow to Trump's belief that he's above the law | Lloyd Green

    Donald Trump’s future may rest with the nation’s voters and a New York grand jury, although not necessarily in that order. On Thursday, the US supreme court upheld a subpoena issued by Manhattan’s district attorney, Cyrus Vance, which demands eight years of Trump’s tax returns. Once again, Trump’s secrets are no longer his own.Voting 7-2, the high court rejected the president’s contention that he was immune from investigation simply because he lives in the White House. Writing for the court’s majority, Chief Justice John Roberts argued: “We cannot conclude that absolute immunity is necessary or appropriate under article II or the supremacy clause.”Trump learned the hard way that the US constitution is neither invisibility cloak nor rag. It is also not whatever the president says it is.As Roberts framed things, “No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.” Significantly, under the court’s ruling, the lower court will continue to exercise oversight of the proceedings.In a separate ruling, issued minutes later and by a 7-2 margin, the court rejected the president’s contention that Congress had no right whatsoever to review his tax returns and financials. Roberts observed: “When Congress seeks information ‘needed for intelligent legislative action’, it ‘unquestionably’ remains ‘the duty of all citizens to cooperate’.”The House of Representatives had cast a particular eye on Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank, his de facto lender of choice and last resort. On the other hand, the court denied Congress instant access to the records.The majority held that the lower courts had paid insufficient attention to the issue of separation of powers and the potential for encroachment upon the executive branch. In other words, this battle will continue beyond Trump’s tenure unless a Biden administration weighs in. And even then.The decisions came on the final day of the court’s 2019-20 term, but they could not have arrived at a worse moment for Trump. There are less than four months to the election and once again the president is ensnared in a snare of his own making. A porn star, a Playboy model and alleged hush money are again on stage.Even before the supreme court announced its rulings, Trump had used Twitter to complain of harassment. After the court went on summer vacation, the president kvetched about its lack of deference. Practically speaking, it is unlikely that Trump’s returns will be shared with the public any time soon.Even the tech baron Peter Thiel likens Trump’s re-election effort to a marooned boat skippered by a hapless crewSeparately, Trump’s annual financial disclosure form is on a 45-day extension. It is the sole legally mandated window into the president’s holdings and income.As for New York’s prosecutors, the operative issues appear to be whether the Trump Organization deducted the payments from reported income, the legality of such a move under state law, and who in Trump’s orbit greenlighted the deduction if taken. Lurking in the foreground is the implicit question: what did Trump know and when did he know it?The record currently reflects that Michael Cohen, then an officer of the Trump Organization and Trump’s personal lawyer, orchestrated payments to the former adult film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal at the behest of his client, Trump. Cohen pleaded guilty to related federal crimes in 2018. At the time, the justice department essentially tagged the chief executive as an unindicted co-conspirator. Government filings expressly tie Trump, AKA “Individual-1”, to Cohen. (As a coda, within hours of the court’s rulings, Cohen was taken back into federal custody for violating the terms of his Covid-19 release from prison.)From here onward, Kayleigh McEnany, the president’s spokeswoman, will be forced to refer questions about Trump’s taxes to his personal lawyers for answers that will never come. McEnany wants us to believe that her boss is “the most informed person on planet Earth when it comes to the threats that we face”.Then there is political reality. Despite Trump’s assurances, the US is not “in great shape”. Trump-Pence 2020 looks a lot like the Grim Reaper’s scythe. Support for Trump is withering where Covid-19’s march goes uninterrupted. The president’s base is not blind.Even the tech baron Peter Thiel, who donated more than $1m to Trump’s 2016 run, likens his re-election effort to a marooned boat skippered by a hapless crew. Loyalty can survive only so much abuse and incompetence.Vance, the Manhattan district attorney, and the Trumps have some history. Less than a decade ago, Vance declined to indict Ivanka and Donald Jr over their role in the Trump Soho project, an undersold condominium-hotel in lower Manhattan. The optics were messy, to say the least. Vance received a $25,000 contribution – which he returned – from Marc Kasowitz, another Trump lawyer.This time around, however, the Trumps may not be so lucky. Four decades ago, Vance’s father served as Jimmy Carter’s secretary of state. But in 1980, the elder Vance resigned over a botched effort to rescue 52 Americans held hostage by Iran. Vance père had opposed the operation from its outset and quit over principle. Ultimately, his nexus to the president did not mean all that much.Against that backdrop, don’t bet on Vance fils being played by Trump a second time. The current president is a wounded politician facing electoral elimination – just like President Carter. There’s no upside to Vance balking at an indictment if he has the goods. The Vances know what roadkill looks like. More