Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death Illuminates the Partisan Divide in Our Country
Death of esteemed Supreme Court Justice opens contentious political debate as election nears.
Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
The dying wish of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was that she “[would] not be replaced until a new president is installed.” This may seem to align with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s claim that, in the wake of Justice Scalia’s passing, a new Supreme Court Justice should not be appointed in an election year. However, Ginsburg’s words not only express a political sentiment uncommon of a Supreme Court Justice, but also reveal a reality that many on Capitol Hill fail to realize: the Supreme Court is becoming more political each and every day. Recently, we have seen one party or the other vie for political influence by filling the seat with a Justice that shares their political beliefs. This political tendency has only become more prevalent in recent years, and has also led to statements made by Justices, including Ginsburg, that are politically motivated.
Some people, especially fervent supporters of Justice Gins- burg, have repeatedly stated that we have an obligation to respect the dying wish of one of the most influential justices in history. Her career aside, it is unreasonable to say that the party in power has some moral obligation to pass up an opening for them to nominate their own justice. Furthermore, her dying wish was overtly political, and it is not her duty nor her right to stipulate which president should nominate her replacement. I would like to think that this is less politically driven than it seems, but it seems to share the intentions of Mitch McConnell and other top Republicans after Scalia’s death in 2016. At the time, they argued against President Obama’s nomination, citing the upcoming election as a reason to postpone the nomination until after the election cycle. The notion of the people deciding which party would nominate by using their vote in the election was heavily implied, and it furthers the narrative that the Supreme Court should be a political entity. Ironically, McConnell and the other Republicans now contradict themselves by arguing the contrary following the death of Justice Ginsburg. Being in even closer proximity to an election, Ginsburg’s death and McConnell’s promise to replace her quickly have incited many people to rally against some of the top Republicans, calling them hypocrites.
In my opinion, those who sided with McConnell in 2016 and now seek to replace Justice Ginsburg are opportunists who see a tumultuous election coming up, and want to secure another seat on the Supreme Court.
However, I find these to be petty arguments that serve little purpose other than to distract us from the true problem with the Supreme Court, which is that it has become a mere shadow of the apolitical body it should be.
As we have seen, this nomination is already harming bipartisan efforts across the board and further divides an already fractured country. Though there are indeed arguments to be made for and against this nomination, we should focus on preventing something like this from being such a topic of division. We must also remedy the deeply flawed notion that a nominee for the Supreme Court should be chosen based on election results. To do this, we must prioritize law over politics when choosing who is to serve on the highest court in the land.