Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

letters

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Time to Mourn, a Time to Worry

Readers express their sadness at the loss of the superstar justice but also worry about a rushed confirmation process with the election looming.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2004.Credit...Evan Vucci/Associated Press

To the Editor:

Re “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Dead at 87,” by Linda Greenhouse (front page, Sept. 19):

My heart goes out to the family of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She will be remembered as a brilliant, fierce and eloquent guardian of our Constitution and a giant in the law.

However, my heart also goes out to the American people, who will have their faith in our nation’s democratic institutions tested as perhaps never before. The same Republican-controlled Senate that cited the then upcoming 2016 presidential election as a pretext to refuse to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, will no doubt rush to confirm a nominee by President Trump notwithstanding the approaching 2020 election.

The blatant hypocrisy of such a move will taint both institutions for years to come.

Stephen A. Silver
San Francisco
The writer is a lawyer.

To the Editor:

Bravo, Linda Greenhouse! Thank you for the remarkably cogent, brilliantly written piece on the life and judicial work of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ms. Greenhouse packed so much important information into a beautifully synthesized and thoughtfully analyzed retrospective on Ms. Ginsburg’s life and career.

Patricia Tackaberry
Stanwood, Wash.

To the Editor:

Re “Election Jolted as McConnell Vows a Vote on a Trump Pick” (front page, Sept. 19):

Upset that his mother, Gertrude, is marrying Claudius, his uncle, too soon after his father’s death, Hamlet famously says to Horatio: “The funeral baked meats/Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables.”

With apologies to Shakespeare, the funeral meats for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have not even been set on the table, yet Mitch McConnell is gleefully making statements about how the Senate will vote on President Trump’s nominee to replace her. Can we not mourn?

Multiple bills representing the will of the American people have collected dust on Mr. McConnell’s desk, yet he acts quickly and disrespectfully now. R.B.G. deserves our respect; Mr. McConnell does not.

Susan H. Hollingsworth
Shaker Heights, Ohio

To the Editor:

My first reaction, like that of countless others, was sadness at the loss of a great justice. I was also troubled that the court may soon be packed with three Trump appointees — appointees who will be more likely to bend to President Trump’s will in the increasingly likely event of a contested election.

But my next reaction was that Justice Ginsburg herself disserved the very interests she fought for. After the 2014 midterm election, it became clear that Democrats would no longer control the Senate. Many of us thought Justice Ginsburg should have resigned and allowed President Barack Obama and a lame-duck Senate to install a young, progressive appointee. Justice Ginsburg was already in her 80s at the time and had been treated for pancreatic cancer.

Her deciding to stay on was an act of, I believe, ego — for which the nation will now pay severely.

Greg Schwed
New York
The writer is a lawyer.

To the Editor:

I am so saddened at the passing of one of the greatest women in history. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave the world many gifts. But years ago, she gave me a personal gift.

In 1972, I had completed my first year at Howard University School of Law. However, my husband’s work required that we relocate to Boston. So I needed to transfer to a law school in that area. One evening, I went to hear Ms. Ginsburg, then a famous feminist lawyer, speak at Rutgers University School of Law.

Afterward, I went up to talk with her about my transfer. She warned me that it was extremely difficult, particularly for the very few women in law schools, to transfer. She explained that most law school transfers were for military members and veterans — practically all men. However, she offered (I did not ask) to write a letter of recommendation for me. What generosity, what incredible magnanimity, for someone she just met.

I was allowed to transfer to Northeastern University School of Law in Boston. Years later I wrote her a heartfelt thank-you, reminding her of what she had done for me, and she responded with characteristic grace and humanity.

She will live forever in my heart for her amazing work, but also for her personal grace and love.

Karen Porter
San Marcos, Texas

To the Editor:

Yes, Mr. McConnell, you are right, there is an obvious difference between the situation in 2016 and the current Supreme Court vacancy. Then there was a Democrat in the White House whom you wanted to block, and now there is a Republican whom you want to support.

Jim Glaser
Nyack, N.Y.

To the Editor:

If the Democrats take control of the White House and both houses of Congress in November, they will have the power to do the one thing that will prevent the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from becoming a national tragedy: pack the Supreme Court.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the court, but leaves it to Congress to determine the number of justices who sit on it. Congress could increase that number from nine to 11 or any number it chooses with a simple majority vote in both the House and the Senate (after it abolishes the antiquated and undemocratic filibuster rule) and the president’s signature.

The Senate could then confirm two or more progressive liberal appointees to balance what will surely by then be three ultra-right-wing justices appointed by the current president. And if the Republicans cry foul, the Democrats should respond with two words: “Merrick Garland.”

Elliott B. Jacobson
Yonkers, N.Y.
The writer is an attorney.

To the Editor:

Most reporting about the possibility that President Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate will confirm a Supreme Court justice before the November election is understandably focused on Republican hypocrisy. After all, in 2016 Mitch McConnell took the exact opposite stance regarding President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Lost in this story line, however, is just how supportive much of the media were for Mr. Obama’s “constitutional duty” to replace Justice Scalia before Election Day in 2016 (“Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court,” editorial, March 17, 2016). Why would that principle hold in 2016, but not 2020?

If the issue is hypocrisy, let’s not forget it was the Democratic-controlled Senate that blew up the filibuster for most judicial nominees in 2013, sidelining any Republican opposition to Mr. Obama’s judgeships for most of his second term — a favor Republicans returned by blocking Judge Garland in 2016, and ending the filibuster for Supreme Court picks in 2017.

When it comes to judicial appointments, the sad fact is both parties have been positioning themselves more on politics than principle for many years.

Stuart Gottlieb
New York
The writer, a former Senate policy adviser and speechwriter, teaches public policy at Columbia University.

To the Editor:

Democrats should call on Republican senators running for re-election to pledge that they will not vote to confirm a justice to the Supreme Court during this session of Congress. Republicans whose return to the Senate is threatened seriously should see that such a commitment would enhance, not diminish, their chances in November. Most likely more undecided voters will be swayed favorably than not by such a promise.

Pledging to oppose any nominee if a vote is held this year would be a rare combination of good sense, good politics and principled leadership. Republicans should jump at the chance.

Jonathan J. Margolis
Brookline, Mass.

To the Editor:

The four-time cancer survivor Ruth Bader Ginsburg held on for as long as her weakened body could last, knowing that Mitch McConnell and his Republican senators would pounce on her death and immediately advance a nominee for her vacant seat. Imagine poor R.B.G. having to concern herself with this while fighting a painful and exhausting battle with a very lethal pancreatic cancer.

Let’s recognize her dying wish and have the decency to wait till the election is over before nominating anyone to fill this brilliant and courageous woman’s vacant seat.

Amy Knitzer
Montclair, N.J.

To the Editor:

Joe Biden should immediately announce Barack Obama as his choice to add a worthy new justice to the Supreme Court and ensure record Democratic turnout in the presidential and Senate elections.

David C. Bloomfield
Brooklyn

To the Editor:

I am beyond shattered by the news of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death — on Rosh Hashana, of all days. This is not a happy new year; it’s a devastating beginning to what is already a horrible year. I am as fearful about this country, which I love, as I have ever been.

My time is toward the end, but I have children and grandchildren and care profoundly about them. I also care about my country. It’s possible that the American era is over.

As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said at the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, when asked about what kind of government had been formed, “a republic, if you can keep it.”

We have not kept it, and I’m afraid it’s over. We had a good ride. Goodbye, America.

Marc Chafetz
Washington

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section A, Page 24 of the New York edition with the headline: A Time to Mourn, and a Time to Worry. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT