Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are making a big issue out of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "legacy" on the court and how appointing a conservative justice could be destroying that legacy. They are taking the position that anyone replacing Ginsburg should be cut from the same political cloth as Ginsburg as though that seat is somehow sacrosanct as a tribute to Ginsburg.
So, let's look at the appointment of Ginsburg herself. Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993. She was appointed by Bill Clinton to replace the retiring Byron White. While White was a Democrat, he was very much a social conservative. He was a dissenter in Roe vs Wade and opposed Constitutional rights for homosexuals. Yet the liberal Ginsburg was approved by the Senate by a vote of 96-3. There was no concern that the legacy of Byron White would be destroyed by her confirmation. There was no concern that his seat was sacrosanct and needed to be preserved in principle. And she subsequently fought hard for both abortion rights and the rights of the LGBT community.
So, let's look at the appointment of Ginsburg herself. Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993. She was appointed by Bill Clinton to replace the retiring Byron White. While White was a Democrat, he was very much a social conservative. He was a dissenter in Roe vs Wade and opposed Constitutional rights for homosexuals. Yet the liberal Ginsburg was approved by the Senate by a vote of 96-3. There was no concern that the legacy of Byron White would be destroyed by her confirmation. There was no concern that his seat was sacrosanct and needed to be preserved in principle. And she subsequently fought hard for both abortion rights and the rights of the LGBT community.
