Concern over Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement may be enough for Dem win in 2020, says liberal pundit

With the 2020 presidential election looming on the horizon, the Democratic Party finds itself divided between younger, radical progressives and older establishment liberals. Just about the only principle which unites Democrats today is their unswerving hatred for President Donald Trump.

Nothing, however, would be a bigger tragedy for Democrats than to see Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replaced by a conservative, and this concern may just be enough to rally the left ahead of Election Day, says one liberal commentator.

Unite the Right

Will the left unite behind whomever happens to win the Democratic primary next year out of an abject fear that Trump could appoint yet another conservative justice? Matt Ford thinks so, and he laid out his case in a convincing op-ed for the ultra-liberal New Republic this week.

Ford argues that Trump owes his 2016 victory to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia, which he says rendered a “psychic shock to the Republican Party.”

“Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, quickly declared that they would not consider whomever Barack Obama named to replace him — and followed through by ignoring nominee Merrick Garland,” writes Ford. “That strategy effectively bound the court’s fate to the outcome of November’s election. Conservatives rose to the challenge, rallying around the Republican candidate despite his flaws.”

Despite the popular liberal narrative concerning the Garland nomination, endorsed here by Ford, the simple truth is that former President Barack Obama’s nominee never stood a chance of passing muster in the Republican-controlled Senate. He simply didn’t have the votes to merit a confirmation hearing.

But Ford may be correct that Scalia’s passing propelled Trump to victory in 2016. At least Sen. Ted Cruz thinks so: “I believe if Justice Scalia had not passed away when he did that there’s a very good possibility Hillary Clinton would be president of the United States right now,” he said in June.

Cruz betrayed Trump at the Republican National Convention, telling conservatives to “vote your conscience,” only to reverse course and endorse the Republican nominee as the general election neared. He explained the 180 degree turn in a September 2016 statement:

For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights—free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment—the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

Facing a divided Republican Party that had all of the hallmarks of the present-day Democratic Party in terms of political fractures, Trump used to threat of a liberal Supreme Court to win over establishment conservatives. “You have no choice,” he told reporters following his primary victory. “You gotta go for Trump. Supreme Court justices.”

Rising to the occasion

Ultimately, Ford notes that “26 percent of Trump voters listed Supreme Court nominations as the most important factor in their decision, compared with 18 percent of Clinton voters.” That small margin could have been the difference between Trump victory or a Hillary Clinton win.

“Will liberals rise to the occasion this time?” Ford asks. With a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the answer seems obvious. But Democrats may face some unexpected setbacks.

“Thanks to Trump’s victory and Kennedy’s retirement, Democrats can’t hope to secure a liberal majority on the court any time soon,” argues Ford. He also insists that, despite all the talk of court-packing and reforming term limits, Democrats have so far failed to articulate to their base why another Trump victory could truly change the composition of the court for generations to come.

“There’s a tangible difference between a 5-4 conservative court and a 6-3 one,” writes Ford. “The court’s liberal wing would then have to persuade two of their colleagues to secure a decision, not just one. And since it only takes the votes of four justices to hear any case, a third justice from Trump would effectively give conservatives full control of the court’s docket.”

With Ginsburg’s persistent health concerns, the future of the high court promises to be as important as any issue for Democrats and Republican in 2020. So far, though, Democrats seemed to be too distracted by Russian agents and impeachment hearings.

“[I]f they don’t make the case to voters now, their next chance will come too late,” Ford contends.