The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sept. 18 has shaken up the 2020 election and is sure to plunge an already dramatic election year into a raging political firestorm. Already dealing with riots, massive forest fires, economic problems and a global pandemic, the United States now faces an election that might actually be the most important in many people’s lifetimes — and not just in the way that the line has been previously employed for the sake of political rhetoric to get voters to the polls.

A conservative replacement will be appointed soon. US President Donald Trump will reportedly nominate a woman to SCOTUS this coming week.

RBG’s Record

Ginsburg took her seat on SCOTUS in 1993 under President Bill Clinton and served there almost three decades. She was often part of the dissenting opinions as conservatives held a 5-4 voting majority for many years, bolstering the image of her as a feisty fighter and underdog.

RBG was a committed progressive who was staunchly in favor of abortion rights and legislating for increased labor protections and rights protections for women and minorities. Her dissenting opinions became well-known for their fiery conviction about gender equality, including landmark rulings on a women’s right to administer estates and get survivor benefits when their husband died.

Cases such as these and more made RBG into a feminist and progressive icon as she rose up the ranks and became prominent in the national eye.

Who Will Trump Pick?

Trump will most likely select Barbara Lagoa or Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant SCOTUS seat. Both picks have various advantages. Both are socially conservative, devout Catholics, but there are some compelling reasons in favor of each from the right-wing perspective.

Barrett works for the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago since being put there by Trump in 2017 and previously clerked for Justice Scalia. She’s a former law professor who is believed to be committed to overturning landmark abortion ruling Roe vs. Wade. 

Lagoa has more judicial experience than Barrett and was put on the 3rd District Court of Appeals by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in 2006. She moved to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th District in 2019 under orders from Trump. Lagoa is conservative, but is not as strongly opinionated on Roe vs. Wade. As a Cuban-American from Miami, however, she could also help solidify Trump’s growing support among Hispanic Americans and help him win the key state of Florida.

Left characterizations of Barrett as a “Catholic extremist” tend to tip the scales in favor of her being chosen by Trump. Furthermore, choosing Barrett would allow Trump to jeopardize much of the media and Democratic party’s emphasis on Biden’s Catholic faith. Is Hunter Biden also a “Catholic extremist” for having a large family? Is Biden a “good Catholic” for being liberal but Barrett is a “bad Catholic”? These are exactly the kind of litmus tests that will further sink the already disastrously falling support for Democrats among Hispanics and other portions of the electorate.

Republicans Want to Fill RBG’s Seat ASAP

Trump is promising that RBG’s seat will be filled quickly, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged to confirm Trump’s appointee, although there’s no guarantee that will happen before election day on November 3. In order to confirm the pick the Republicans would have to be singularly unified without losing more than three party member confirmation votes.

Senators do not like being pressured on SCOTUS appointees and generally like to take their time to make a lifetime appointment to the vitally important court, and there’s a chance that the GOP could lose more votes than it could afford from Senators who are already finishing up their political career anyway, don’t support the pick, and don’t care any longer about the political suicide of not voting to confirm a new conservative justice.

Regardless, progressive fury at the perceived Republican hypocrisy will be intense. President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in the spring of 2016 was declined by the Republican-controlled Congress who insisted that the presidential election must be finished before a SCOTUS nomination could move forward. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch was put in the seat in 2017.

McConnell wouldn’t move forward then on the other party’s pick, but he will now on his own party’s selection.

This should not surprise anyone, particularly as federal politics has slid into an all-out brawl in the past few years and Democratic tactics have become increasingly intense and gloves-off as they seek to oust Trump from office. There is no reason to expect the GOP to play fair or adhere to standards of political civility at this point.

Biden has already emphasized that the nomination should not take place until this presidential election is decided, but has declined to put out a list of who he would potentially nominate were he to become president. It is also possible that Democrats will put through some legislation to make it easier to pass laws in the Senate and allow them to possibly expand the Supreme Court and end the impending Republican power play.

More Possible Choices to Replace Ginsburg

Although reports say Trump has narrowed it down to Barrett or Lagoa, other women on the shortlist include Bridget Bade from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Martha Pacold from the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Sarah Pitlyk from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, deputy White House counsel Kate Todd, Joan Larsen of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Britt Grant of the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Allison Jones Rushing of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

It is always possible that Trump will go with one of these women instead, as he is known for his unpredictability and has already changed his mind on a SCOTUS pick, having previously remarked he’d put Senator Ted Cruz in but recently announcing that it will be a woman instead.

Political Calculus

The Republicans could have held off on naming a replacement in order to further intensify the election and boost evangelical and socially conservative turnout. Making the 2020 election a referendum on Roe vs. Wade and whether the GOP would get the chance to put a conservative on the bench under a re-elected President Trump would have strongly enthused many right-leaning voters.

However, naming a replacement now has several advantages for the GOP. Firstly it can be seen as another feather in Trump’s cap and another win for voters to reflect on when they cast their ballot. Secondly, the Democratic party and left-leaning electoral meltdown that is sure to come as a replacement is named and vetted will likely provide unrest, dramatic rhetoric and behavior that will actually decrease support for the Democrats in crucial swing states and boost Republican voter turnout.

RBG’s reported statement prior to her death that she wishes above all that a replacement not be appointed until a new president is “installed” will further inflame angry progressives and intensify their threats and accusations of rank hypocrisy from Republicans for their previous refusal to allow Garland to proceed forward onto SCOTUS.

Various celebrities and establishment liberal figures have already made outlandish and possibly illegal statements inciting violence and promising that they’ll die before they allow the GOP to put in a replacement for RBG and “burn the entire f–ing thing down,” in the words of TV host Reza Aslan, for example.

What’s Next?

If Trump nominates Barrett the media and national uproar will be considerable. The hearings will be intensely partisan and bitter, but the election would be clearly tipped in Trump’s favor. Even a less contentious pick than Barrett is likely to result in a meltdown by coastal elites and progressives. Look for late night talk shows and other broadcast mediums for coastal folks to go absolutely bonkers, and don’t be surprised to see increased street-level agitation and unrest.

The United States is now in the unenviable position of melting down over race relations and politics with a contentious Supreme Court hearing on the horizon. No matter what happens, the death of RBG is likely to go down as a pivotal point in US history and what comes next is likely to be dramatic on the political and popular level.

Trump got a major boost in 2016 with the chance to fill the Supreme Court with a conservative justice, and his later appointments of Gorsuch to replace Scalia and Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy helped bring many evangelicals and social conservatives over to his side and see him as a winner who gets things done. The death of RBG is likely to be what wins Trump the 2020 election and assists his administration in reshaping the federal bench to become more conservative across the board.

L'articolo RBG’s Death and the 2020 Election proviene da InsideOver.

Malta’s Joseph Muscat thought, on Sunday night, that he was giving the people what they wanted. He was wrong. Battered by a political crisis rooted in the murder of a journalist, the prime minister bowed to public anger, announcing his plan to stand down in January. But for the slain woman’s family, Muscat’s EU counterparts, and – crucially – the maddened Maltese masses, it is not enough. Worried that his continued tenure prevents a truly free investigation into one-time cabinet colleagues, they want him gone now.

For two years, Malta’s political establishment has quaked from the fallout of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder. A renowned investigative journalist, Caruana Galizia had exposed corruption at the highest levels of the Valletta government. Among her scoops was the involvement of Muscat’s chief of staff and tourism minister – Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi – in the ‘Panama Papers’ scandal. Both men deny any involvement in the 2017 car-bombing that claimed the reporter’s life – but last week, as allegations mounted, Schembri and Mizzi resigned.

Three men – two brothers and a third individual – have been charged with the killing, but few believe that they were anything more than hired hit-men. The search for the true mastermind brought police aboard a luxury yacht last month, trying to slip from Maltese water at dawn. Its owner, casino magnate Yorgen Fenech, has since been charged with complicity in the killing, which he denies. Caruana Galizia was reportedly looking into his business affairs when she died.

When Fenech went before the courts, he made a shocking accusation. Schembri had conspired in the murder plot, the businessman alleged, requesting immunity from prosecution in return for material evidence. For Muscat, an old school friend of Schembri’s, it was a disastrous development. Even when his former chief of staff was released by police without charge, the prime minister struggled to defend his proximity to those caught up in the case. Some decisions “could have been better made,” he admitted on Sunday, announcing his intention to stand down in the new year.

For Caruana Galizia’s loved ones, it’s a pitiful gesture. A day after Muscat’s declaration, the family launched legal action against the prime minister, demanding he resign immediately and play no further role in the murder probe. “Fenech wasn’t acting alone. The other villains are hiding behind Muscat,” said Mandy Mallia, the slain journalist’s sister, at a raucous demonstration outside government headquarters on Tuesday.

The vitriol of the protesters – some of whom pelted the prime minister with eggs as he arrived – speaks to Muscat’s dizzying fall from grace. Winning two landslide elections in his six-year tenure, he has enjoyed a largely successful premiership outside of the scandal. Malta is Europe’s fastest-growing economy – the island’s GDP leapt 6.8% in 2018 – and has seen significant social reform in recent years.

But the chaotic affair has, in the minds of many, tarnished his reputation beyond recovery. When Schembri was first outed as a beneficiary of secretive Panama shell companies by Caruana Galizia, Muscat defended him. And when Fenech – an alleged associate of Schembri – was revealed to be a suspect in the case, the prime minister still stood by his strategist – even including him in meetings on the investigation.

This apparently laissez-faire approach to alleged wrongdoing is below the prime minister’s position, critics argue. Beseeching Muscat’s MPs to put “national interest” before party loyalty, Opposition Leader Adrian Delia has called on them to “do what [he] didn’t do of his own volition” – immediately withdraw from office.

Delia’s rationale is clear: while Muscat clings to power, can the police probing members of his administration act with absolute liberty? The prime minister is himself free of any alleged connection to the murder – but it’s the principle that counts. For many in the country, the divide between Muscat and those suspected of involvement in the killing is just too narrow to tolerate.

Among EU ranks, there are concerns too. This week, an urgent delegation of MEPs arrived in Malta to examine the island nation’s rule of law. “Not reassured,” was how the mission’s leader described her feelings after meeting with the prime minister and promptly called on him to quit without delay.

For Manfred Weber MEP, a senior member of the group, the apparent lack of political accountability threatened the “entire European project,” he said. A hasty conclusion to the debacle is what the EU wants most. Left unchecked, the culture of impunity that has plagued the Caruana Galizia case could erode the bloc’s rule of law more widely. Free speech, democracy, justice – key pillars of EU doctrine – are all under threat in Malta, observers say.

But Muscat seems unperturbed. He struck a defiant tone on Sunday, saying the affair must not be allowed to “define everything that [Malta] is”. But for those furious citizens out on the streets, not least members of Caruana Galizia’s family, the case is everything to the island nation. Until he’s gone, that cannot change.

L'articolo Malta’s Prime Minister Muscat Says He’ll Resign proviene da InsideOver.

The Hague, August 9. The protesters march silently, a sizzling intensity surrounding them. No beating drums, no blaring megaphones. Just signs. I want to speak, reads a fluttering banner; I am robbed, states another. Police officers flank the noiseless procession – their job is to keep the peace. But should the veiled women stray into a public building – a hospital, say – that dynamic would change. In theory, at least. The Netherlands has joined a growing list of European nations to adopt a so-called ‘burqa ban’ – a law against full face coverings in public spaces. But with police, hospitals, transport providers and politicians vowing to snub the new law, many doubt its purpose and practicality.

For years, a ban on facial coverings had been mooted by the Dutch far-right, but proposals never advanced beyond the political fringe. That changed in 2018, when politicians approved the ‘Partial Ban on Face-Covering Clothing Act’, which came into force on August 1. Any item that obstructs the face – ski masks, full-face helmets, balaclavas and religious garb – are illegal in certain public areas, including hospitals, transport hubs and police stations.

Legislators deny that the new rules have a racial dimension, but there’s little doubt of the intended target – veil-wearing Muslim women. The phrase ‘burqa ban’ has become synonymous with the restrictions, though it is in fact the niqab – a less obscuring garment – that is invariably seen on European streets. Wearers of the banned attire will be given the chance to remove the offending item, the law states, or face a fine of up to €415.

But Dutch Muslims needn’t worry too much, it seems. Unanimous in their rejection of the new rules, medical and transport groups have said they won’t uphold the ban. “It is not the job of the hospital,” read a pithy statement from the country’s medical association; “…the law is unworkable,” stressed a railway spokesman. Lack of resources will likely hinder police enforcement also, said Rotterdam’s mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb, adding that his city “has bigger problems – murder, drugs, the undermining of society”.

Such definitive opposition hasn’t dampened the spirits of the ban’s most forthright proponent, Geert Wilders. First floating the idea in 2005, Wilders’ far-right ‘Party for Freedom’ has long championed the restriction on facial veils. “The next step [is] to make sure that the headscarf could be banned in the Netherlands as well,” he said as the new rules took effect, quashing any notion of the law’s religious neutrality.

Wilders is of a political ilk that now dominate European policy making. As the mid-decade migrant crisis drove a growth of nationalist populism, centrists across the continent – desperate to remain relevant – shifted rightward. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland have all adopted burqa bans in some form or another. Even in the United Kingdom, where calls for action have been resisted, support for face-cover regulation hovers around the 50% mark.

In common with many of its ban-embracing neighbours, the Netherlands has relatively few niqab-clad citizens. While precise figures aren’t available, Dutch academics estimate that no more than 400 women wear the full veil. Those who do aren’t the victims of familial subjugation or misogyny, research suggests, as is often inferred by advocates of the ban. Rather than freeing the women of conservative Islam’s supposed strictures, the law infringes on their personal liberties, says Dutch anthropologist Annelies Moors.

Thus the movement against facial coverings appears to be largely symbolic. Fearing the wrath of an increasingly right-leaning electorate, Dutch politicians have alighted on the burqa ban as a way of burnishing their anti-immigration credentials. That’s according to critics of the regulation, who believe it is more surface than substance. But for niqab wearers, the real-world consequences could be devastating. With their garb forbidden in police stations and hospitals, their ability to seek help when it’s most desperately needed is, theoretically, in jeopardy.

Then there’s the threat of violence. While official police enforcement is unlikely, the prospect of vigilantism can’t be overlooked. Technically a crime, niqab-wearers run the risk of a citizen’s arrest, which would allow for their physical detainment until authorities arrive. Though no such incidents have been reported, threats involving the action are not uncommon, especially online. Coupled with the new restrictions on transport, veiled women are feeling “a chilling effect on their freedom of movement,” notes Tom Zwart, professor of cross-cultural law at Utrecht University.

But amid the adversity, a remarkable stirring of solidarity can be observed, says Zwart. Expressing their support, men and women of all backgrounds joined the Hague protesters – and a new group, ‘burqa buddies’, has emerged to protect those affected by the law. Enlisting the help of regular citizens, organisers hope to safeguard niqab wearers by pairing them with local volunteers. Two weeks since its launch, nearly 6,000 people have joined.

It’s a positive step, say opponents of the ban, but still the risk of criminality hangs above the women. And with the new law going unenforced, some worry politicians may double-down with even more restrictive legislation. This would be good news for the ban’s proponents, who say it promotes security and gender equality.

These are welcome advances, if ever they materialise, but their price – personal liberty and community cohesion – is simply too great for many. This costly trade-off helped confine the burqa ban to the Dutch political fringe for years. It’s out in the open now, and only time will tell the true consequences.

L'articolo The Dutch “Burqa Ban” Could Have Huge Consequences proviene da InsideOver.