Why I never bought the Dem's "Scary Supreme Court" argument
One of the main arguments for "Vote Blue No Matter Who" was what fascist Trump was going to appoint to the Supreme Court, and opposed to a "good liberal" that Hillary would appoint.
I never bought that argument, and this NY Times article from today is just a small example of why.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday put a one-week hold on a lower court’s order for President Trump’s bank records to be turned over to Congress.
The stay issued by Justice Ginsburg came just three days after the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York said that Deutsche Bank and Capital One must cooperate with subpoenas of two Democratic-controlled committees in the House of Representatives.
Recall that this is the same woman that Democrats were praying for this past year.
Nowhere in American society has the Overton Window shifted further to the right than the Supreme Court.
Despite whatever the news media tells you, the right-wing media in particular, there are no leftists on the Supreme Court, and there haven't been for decades. Nor have there been any liberals.
As for the justices that Presidents Clinton and Obama appointed, it would be a stretch to even describe them as "centrists". What big difference has Sotomayor or Kagan made?
As for Garland , let's look at this.
In al Odah v. United States (2003), a panel that included Garland unanimously held that federal courts could not hear challenges from Guantanamo detainees.[
Anyone on the left that was hoping for the Supreme Court to protect them from the excesses of the right is deluding themselves.
I'm old enough to remember what an actual leftist on the Supreme Court looks like.
Their names were William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall, and they wouldn't even recognize today's Supreme Court.
To give you an idea of how far the Overton Window has shifted, this article is from 1986.
Six appointments by three Republican Presidents since 1969 have left Brennan and Marshall the only consistently liberal voices on an increasingly conservative Court. They are now a minority of two in finding the death penalty unconstitutional. They can often manage to cobble together enough votes to prevent the outright reversal of a liberal precedent—preserving affirmative action, the right to abortion and an arrested suspect’s right to an attorney during questioning, for instance—but they are swimming against a stiffening conservative current in the Court’s opinions.
A friend of mine asked a good question before 2016: "When was the last time the Supreme Court made a real difference, in a good way?"
All I could think of was Roe V Wade, and that was the early 70's.