Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died.

[FromEden]

A legend. RIP. Can we kiss goodbye to abortion in the US now? Will we see further attacks on women's rights if the Republicans get to appoint a replacement? Scary times.

[bellinisurge]

Just woke up to the news - @Helmetbymidnight has expressed my second thought. My first being Ah Shit.

[talesofginza]

Bad news indeed. Even before this happened, I had a bad feeling that we would be getting 4 more years of Trump.

My hope is that by having to fight a repeal of Roe vs Wade, liberal feminists will no longer have the time and patience to coddle the trans activists (I can imagine it now... "This pro-choice rally is transphobic!").

[PepeLePew]

I agree, LouHotel. I have a random entanglement through work with a bunch of very conservative Catholic republicans who have been horrified by Trump throughout. They seem him as brash, embarrassing and lacking in morality. But they would vote for him again if it meant they could suppress Roe v Wade and get other crazy “bioethic” (their phrase) laws through the Supreme Court.

[TeddyDahlia]

Trump will not be able to get a replacement nominated and confirmed before the election. Even an expedited process would take too long.

What this does mean is that the Supreme Court become (even more of) a political issue in play at the election; Trump can use the possibility of losing the opportunity to replace Ginsburg as a means of galvanising Republican voters to turn out and vote.

In terms of whether it would be the end of Roe v Wade if Ginsburg were to be replaced with a Republican - probably not. For one thing, the Supreme Court is already majority Republican, so it isn’t Ginsburg who held the line for democrats. It would obviously be very concerning from a left wing point of view to have her replaced by a Republican - particularly one chosen by Trump. But it’s unlikely to be the tipping point for Roe v Wade.

But even more importantly, the Supreme Court doesn’t actually strictly split down Republican / Democrat lines. The more relevant split is Institutionalist / Radical. Those justices who are institutionalists will almost always vote to uphold decisions which have gone before, and will rely heavily on precedent. The current head of the Supreme Court, John G Roberts is a Republican and an institutionalist, which means he would be most likely to uphold Roe v Wade on the basis of it being settled precedent. It is therefore not at all guaranteed, or even likely, that a majority Republican SC would overturn Roe v Wade.

Interestingly, that’s why you sometimes see Sonia Sotomayor voting in favour of upholding precedent even when it doesn’t seem consistent with her political stance; she recognises the value in the Supreme Court upholding the decisions of more liberal benches of the past, and so she is a staunch institutionalist in order to strengthen that position in the hope that her Republican colleagues will do the same.

[viques]

Such sad news to wake up to.

The women of the US have lost a powerful champion. Their rights will be trampled into the dust .

[jennywasafriendofmrbrightside]

I'm British, and this one really hurts.

What a truly incredible woman she was, she deserved better 😔

[BovaryX]

@TeddyDahlia

Trump will not be able to get a replacement nominated and confirmed before the election. Even an expedited process would take too long.

What this does mean is that the Supreme Court become (even more of) a political issue in play at the election; Trump can use the possibility of losing the opportunity to replace Ginsburg as a means of galvanising Republican voters to turn out and vote.

In terms of whether it would be the end of Roe v Wade if Ginsburg were to be replaced with a Republican - probably not. For one thing, the Supreme Court is already majority Republican, so it isn’t Ginsburg who held the line for democrats. It would obviously be very concerning from a left wing point of view to have her replaced by a Republican - particularly one chosen by Trump. But it’s unlikely to be the tipping point for Roe v Wade.

But even more importantly, the Supreme Court doesn’t actually strictly split down Republican / Democrat lines. The more relevant split is Institutionalist / Radical. Those justices who are institutionalists will almost always vote to uphold decisions which have gone before, and will rely heavily on precedent. The current head of the Supreme Court, John G Roberts is a Republican and an institutionalist, which means he would be most likely to uphold Roe v Wade on the basis of it being settled precedent. It is therefore not at all guaranteed, or even likely, that a majority Republican SC would overturn Roe v Wade.

Interestingly, that’s why you sometimes see Sonia Sotomayor voting in favour of upholding precedent even when it doesn’t seem consistent with her political stance; she recognises the value in the Supreme Court upholding the decisions of more liberal benches of the past, and so she is a staunch institutionalist in order to strengthen that position in the hope that her Republican colleagues will do the same.

Teddy
Superb analysis, particularly re the Institutionalists/Radical split rather than Republican/Democrat. Just when the US election looked like it couldn't get more interesting, I wonder what calculations Mitch McConnell is making...

[MichelleofzeResistance]

Don’t underestimate how important abortion is in the US to feminists. They will fight.

This is my one comfort at a time when things for women just seem to be getting worse and worse.

This is going to cause an international, massive surge of very angry female people who do the fight again for women's rights, and based on previous law and experience of what happened with those laws in place, this time fight for much stronger, pervasive and permanent change instead of a veneer of 'it's all better now' over the top. We're seeing this with gay rights, with BAME rights, the veneer is coming away and it's apparent how shallow and superficial change really way.

It's scary to think it may take years, but people like RBG have left their mark. I think we're going to end in seeing a women's rights movement that make the previous historical ones look mild, because it's going to end up affecting all women, not just the ones with a feminist interest.

[MichelleofzeResistance]

*How shallow and superficial change really was

[FromEden]

I think we're going to end in seeing a women's rights movement that make the previous historical ones look mild, because it's going to end up affecting all women, not just the ones with a feminist interest

I agree. Im hoping it won't come to that but if they want millions of pissed of women taking to the streets, well thats how they get it.

[FromEden]

*pissed off women whoops

[titchy]

Thank you @TeddyDahlia - really interesting (and slightly hopeful) analysis.

[CaraDuneRedux]

RIP Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a truly amazing woman and intellectual giant.

I agree with Teddy's excellent analysis (and also think that the process can be delayed just long enough such that Trump can't get anyone in place before the election).

However, I'm not actually particularly sanguine about the election. Biden is underperforming in some of the crucial swing states, particularly Florida. I think he's going to be Hillary mark 2. The Democrats seem to be making a similar mistake to the Labour party, in assuming that what the party's inner faithful want is what the voting public at large want. They lurch between (by American standards) far left in the form of Sanders, and (as perceived by the public outside of Washington policy wonk circles) elitist establishment place holders - Clinton, then Biden. What they don't seem to be able to find is a middle-of-the-road Democrat who can convince the public that she or he stands for fairness, compassion, justice (all the good Democrat values) coupled with a fairly light hand when it comes to bureaucracy, a sound economic policy and a fairly non-interventionist foreign policy ("red tape", taxation and foreign wars being the big bogey men for the voting public, and the places where the Republicans are really able to score hits in campaigning).

[FromEden]

Yes Biden is terrible and I'm starting to think the dems don't want to win at all. Again. Even "hard left" Bernie would get more votes but maybe that's just my state.

I dont have a vote as a non american here but its just all so infuriating. on the plus side, I can leave if it gets too bad.

[persistentwoman]

An incredible woman - and yes, my heart goes out to all our American sisters for their loss of a giant in our lifetime

[BenoneBeauty]

RIP RBG - a true icon, who fought staunchly until the end.

I worry for the future - I think Trump will win another 4 years regardless but this now gives him absolute control and likely he'll change the law so that he can go for a third term. God help us all.

[TeddyDahlia]

I worry for the future - I think Trump will win another 4 years regardless but this now gives him absolute control and likely he'll change the law so that he can go for a third term. God help us all.

It does’t - please be reassured. I share your anxiety about another 4 years of Trump, but another Republican justice wouldn’t give him absolute control. The rule of two terms is protected by the constitution. The Supreme Court cannot change the constitution. Only a majority vote of two thirds of both houses can do that.

That means that even if Trump does win a second term, the Republicans would have to have a majority of two thirds of both the House of Congress and the House of Representatives to change the constitution. That is not going to happen. And even if it did, all of those Republicans would need to vote in favour of changing the constitution. That is very unlikely because many Republicans don’t like Trump, and many Republicans might like Trump fine but are hugely protective of the constitution and wouldn’t vote to change it on the whim of a single president - even a Republican one.

[fatblackcatspaw]

from guardian obit 'From 1972, too, she began a close relationship with the American Civil Liberties Union, and co-founded its Women’s Rights Project. Within two years she had taken part in more than 300 gender-related cases. Her secretary persuaded her to use the word “gender” rather than the word “sex” as she felt it was less confusing to middle-aged male judges.' hummmm

[BenoneBeauty]

Thank goodness for that @TeddyDahlia!

[CaveMum]

Such sad news.

If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend the documentary “RBG” on Netflix, which was made about 3 years ago. Trailer here:

There’s also a pretty good film about her life called “On the Basis of Sex” starring Felicity Jones.

[MichelleofzeResistance]

Please do draw the parallels with Naziism, I would be interested.

Is there any interest amongst GC women in cancelling anyone, de platforming them or book burning?

Death threats or rape threats for sharing an opinion or trying to hold a public meeting?

Blockading or harassing people trying to meet to discuss the law?

What you call 'hate' is female people saying that biology is a real issue for females, and to put this aside for the sake of male people means excluding females from services, language and spaces that they need. There's no desire to limit other people gaining their own spaces and meeting their own needs. Merely a request that the rights gained are not ones removed from others to their detriment and inequality.

How in your view does this express a fascist political view?

[Gwynfluff]

Very sad

[TeddyDahlia]

RBG said that her most fervent wish was to not be replaced until a new President was installed. Let’s hope enough Americans fight the fight to make that wish come true.

[boatyardblues]

Thanks for the heads up about the RBG documentary on Netflix. I watched it earlier and felt doubly saddened that the US has lost such a formidable advocate for women’s equality. It was also great to see that she was a role model for so many young people.