Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death didn’t just leave a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. It left a court evenly divided Supreme Court between four leftist justices and four strict constructionist justices. With his usual acumen and clarity, Ted Cruz explains why an evenly divided court is a recipe for a civil breakdown.
We can all understand the reasonableness of having an uneven number of Supreme Court justices: It substantially diminishes the likelihood of a stalemate. However, Ginsburg’s death means that, as we head into the most contentious election process in American history, the Court has eight justices. Worse, the justices are split evenly along ideological lines.
On the one side are the so conservative justices. In this context, conservative means that they believe that the Constitution as written, and as its authors intended it to be understood, must be the single-most-important document in any judicial analysis. Next in order of importance for analysis are acts of Congress, again to be interpreted as Congress intended when it passed the documents.
Regarding that last analytical metric, Justice Gorsuch failed horribly when he imputed transgenderism to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, despite his monumental slip-up, Gorsuch has mostly been a reliably “strict constructionist.” The other strict constructionists on the Court are Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh.
On the other side are the justices who, like Ginsburg herself, believe that their responsibility is to achieve certain political ends that align with “justice” and “equality,” as those terms are defined in the leftist rubric. They’re the judges who, when the Constitution proves unhelpful, will look to Europe or Africa for “norms” upon which they can rely. There’s always a lot of navel-gazing going on. Their decisions are often fraudulent and almost invariably turgidly written. The leftist justices are Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Roberts.
(Excerpt) Read more at:
