Former ABC, CBS and CNN reporter Jeff Greenfield hailed liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at The Daily Beast for openly declaring she won't step down now because she can't be replaced by a liberal who resembles her.
There’s a phrase judges use in an opinion that any lawyer instantly recognizes as a sure sign the case is lost; it’s when the court praises “counsel’s commendable candor.” That’s legalese for saying the lawyer admitted he’s got a losing argument.
Today, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg committed a different kind of commendable candor; one rarely if ever issued from the solemn halls of the Supreme Court.
Ginsburg told Elle magazine “Anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.” Greenfield:
It’s not the substance of what she said that’s so surprising; it’s highly unlikely that, with 60 votes needed to confirm a nominee, Obama would have any chance of success whether the GOP has 48 senators or 52 (I made the same argument in a recent Beast column).
No, what’s surprising is that Justice Ginsburg openly acknowledged the political calculations that are governing her decisions.
Greenfield concluded that it’s been a long time since a Republican president nominated a serious ideological disappointment:
Eisenhower appointees Earl Warren and William Brennan became reliable liberals, as did Nixon appointee William Blackmun and George H.W. Bush choice David Souter.
But Souter, named to the Court in 1990, is the last such example. Partly in response to his “apostasy,” presidents have become much more careful about picking judges who by and large will follow a predictable political path. On the Court bench today, only Anthony Kennedy holds the unofficial title of “swing vote,” and only on a few issues, such as gay rights. And Kennedy has been on the bench since 1988.
Somehow, Chief Justice John Roberts bowling over judicial restraint to declare Obamacare constitutional in 2012 is not recognized as “apostasy” to Republicans.
