LETTER: Ginsburg’s replacement
To the editor:
Ernest Evans asserts that the “very survival of America” is represented by what he views as a cliff-hanger decision as to whether or not to confirm a replacement Supreme Court justice before election day. He recommends a “consensus nominee” who would serve for one year and then step down. His rationale for this, as a Democrat, is that this severely “polarized nation” could not tolerate the confirmation of someone that inevitably would be labeled as illegitimate or unqualified (as the Democrats and liberal press attempted with justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.)
It seems impossible that we would see more “hyper-partisanship” on display than what we have now. Sen. Chuck Schumer suggests that Republicans are insensitive to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s last wishes to not have a replacement justice until after the election, and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi threatens that she could impeach President Trump any day of the week.
It is indeed doubtful that the “crisis in race relations,” the rioting, looting and burning and attacks on police in some cities will be impacted by whomever is confirmed. Considering that the two parties cannot see their way clear to agree on economic aid to businesses and the unemployed adversely impacted by COVID-19, it appears that too many politicians care little about the people that vote them into office. Consequently, the recommendation for compromise in choosing Ginsburg’s replacement seems unlikely and naïve.