Fulfilling Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish

RBG’s death on Sept. 18 has sparked a ferocious debate within the federal government over Trump’s plan to fill her seat on the Supreme Court before the presidential inauguration, ignoring RBG’s wish to not do so 

Brittany Lang/ Feature Editor/The USD Vista

Following the death of the powerhouse that was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the White House and Republican leadership wasted no time by jumping on the opportunity to nominate a conservative replacement to fill the now-vacant seat on the Supreme Court. 

President Donald Trump announced on Sept. 19 during a rally held in Fayetteville, N.C. that he will be nominating a new SCOTUS justice to fill RBG’s seat “without delay,” and that the new justice will be a woman, “a very talented, very brilliant woman.” The crowd erupted in applause and proceeded to chant “fill that seat!” 

This move by the White House has the potential to manipulate the transformation of the nation’s highest court to their own selfish advantage. It is evident that the choice of individual who will fill the seat will significantly alter the ideological makeup of SCOTUS, and dramatically impact future legislation despite the results of the presidential election on Nov. 3. This is something we should all be outraged over not just for the sake of keeping RBG’s memory alive, but also for the sake of our democracy.

Consequently, the White House’s plan to fill RBG’s seat before the election has supercharged activists on both sides of the political spectrum. What is most upsetting is that her potential replacement is an individual who stands in stark contrast to much of what RBG stood for during her life and her time as a SCOTUS justice.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 48, a member of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, was nominated by Trump this past Friday to succeed RBG. She will receive a vote on the Republican-controlled Senate floor as promised by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. 

Barrett, if confirmed, would not uphold RBG’s legacy as a trailblazer for women rights and equality. As a conservative, devout Catholic, and vehement opponent of abortion, Barrett is expected to rule in contrast to some of the progress that RBG fought tirelessly for. The court is already considering a request from the Trump administration to reimpose restrictions on medication abortions — a law that was relaxed as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. 

One reason the Trump administration and Republican leaders in Congress want a vote in the Senate to happen before Election Day, is to ensure that in the possibility that there is a challenge to the election’s results, there will be a conservative majority on the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Trump.

This shameless maneuvering by the president and his cohorts was being conducted while they were performatively paying tribute to RBG’s remarkable life and the legacy she has left behind. Her deathbed wish as reported by NPR was as follows: “my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” 

There are distinct contradictions in the rhetoric and reasoning used by McConnell and other Republicans who are adamant about RBG’s replacement. In 2016, McConnell blocked President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination Merrick Garland after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, when the presidential election was nine months away. He claimed that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next SCOTUS Justice — the same exact sentiment Democrats are echoing now, five weeks away from the election.

Republican Senator and Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Lindsey Graham, is currently under fire for the stark contradictions in his words today compared to 2016 when he was resolute in his belief that the new president should be electing the Supreme Court Justice replacement. 

“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,” Graham said. 

There cannot be one set of rules for a Republican president and a different set of rules for a Democratic president. Installing a new justice would be an extremely inappropriate move at this moment in time, which is something members of both political parties should be able to understand. 

If Trump was to succeed in his efforts to fill the vacant seat, conservatives would hold six seats on the court for the foreseeable future since SCOTUS justices are appointed for life. This would evidently be a massive loss for Democrats and especially women across the country. This nomination by Trump could have the potential to alter the course of the election in his favor by swaying many conservatives and evangelicals to vote for him on Election Day, who may not have been planning to vote for him before. 

Barrett is Trump’s third conservative nomination over the past 4 years — one third of the high court. If she is confirmed, Trump will have appointed the most justices to SCOTUS in one term since President Richard Nixon.

Another potentially devastating effect that replacing RGB with Barrett would have would be reversing the progress made to combat the climate crisis. One of the earliest cases that the Supreme Court is hearing will be pivotal in the climate debate. 

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals will hear a suit brought forth by states mostly led by Democrats against the Trump Administration’s move to rollback regulations on carbon emissions from power plants adopted during Obama’s presidency. These regulations put a limit on power-sector emissions for each state and provided options to choose from on how to stay within the limit, such as making the switch to natural gas and renewables. 

Whatever the outcome of this suit may be, it is extremely likely that the losing party will appeal to the Supreme Court. If the court rules in favor of the Trump Administration, the new regulations will reduce carbon emissions by only 11 million tons by 2030 compared to 415 million tons under the Obama plan. This would undermine the 2007 Massachusetts vs. EPA decision which established the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

This outcome would make it so the EPA loses its ability to regulate harmful emissions which is the sharpest tool there is at the moment to curb climate change, especially in a post-Trump presidency. 

On another note, the individuals who are planning on voting for Trump should also be cautious of what filling RBG’s seat would mean for the upcoming presidential election. Trump is at risk of further alienating women who are center-right on the political spectrum. Trump already has a significant disparity in the gender of his voters, and this move could push women who reside in affluent communities towards voting for Democratic nominee Joe Biden. 

No matter what party you belong to or your personal views towards each presidential candidate, the legacy that was left behind by RBG should not be tainted by appointing a new justice to the Supreme Court just weeks before one of the most highly contested elections in U.S. history. 

We need to respect RBG’s dying wish to wait until after the installation of a new president, where the choice of the new justice is reflected by the people’s choice of president. This is the least we can do to remember a woman who has left her fingerprints all over the everyday lives of men and women in our country. 

RBG was the champion of the notion that it is unjust to make distinctions between people based on sex alone  —  her legacy is the ability to perform your gender as you wish. To do right by her would not be replacing her with an individual who does not agree with this notion, woman or not. 

“The views expressed in the editorial and op-ed sections are not necessarily those of The USD Vista staff, the University of San Diego, or its student body.”