Last week, I discussed how I believe Rush Limbaugh was right in saying that Attorney General Eric Holder's resignation is not in any way a simple bon voyage. Rather, it is a deliberate ploy to maneuver him into an even greater place of influence, possibly even the Supreme Court.
The most obvious replacement on the Supreme Court is liberal-leaning Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton with a 96-3 Senate vote, something she admits today would never happen because of her liberal voting record and her connection with the American Civil Liberties Union. Indeed, she is hailed as the Supreme Court's liberal leader, even hugging President Barack Obama before the nation as if he were her own son.
I know that Ginsburg has said repeatedly that she will not retire, but then again, not exactly. She gave a rare interview to Elle magazine right before Holder resigned, in which she stated: "Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. (The Senate Democrats) took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they're misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam ... I think I'll recognize when the time comes that I can't any longer. But now I can."
The key phrases in her words are "at this very day" and "any time this year." What about in 2015 or 2016?
Remember, as the Los Angeles Times recently noted, that early in her career, Ginsburg explained that her goal was to match the service of her hero, Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who served for 22 years on the court and retired when he was 82. This fall, she begins her 22nd year on the high court, and she turns 82 in March.
As the Times explained, she "faces a decision that may be the most consequential of her career: Should she retire when the term ends in June so President Obama can name her successor?"
University of California, Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky advocated Ginsburg's retirement last March, when he wrote, "The best way for her to advance all the things she has spent her life working for is to ensure that a Democratic president picks her successor."
If Obama and Ginsburg don't deal with her replacement during his reign, they run the risk of a Republican's becoming president in January 2017 and her seat's being given to a staunch conservative. That could lean the court even further right and secure a landslide of conservative rulings in the future, including overturning landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade.
A liberal resignation gave way to a conservative post back in 1991, when an ailing 82-year-old Justice Thurgood Marshall left and Clarence Thomas was appointed. Then there was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired at 75 in 2005, only to see her seat go to more conservative Samuel A. Alito Jr.
More than ever before, liberals don't want to risk conservative domination in the Supreme Court. They also don't want to gamble or give away their Democratic-heavy arena in which to appoint their next liberal SCOTUS Yoda. I realize the Republicans could block a liberal nominee even if the Democrats ruled the White House and Senate, but libs won't relinquish their chance to try.
Are we so naive to believe that Obama isn't eyeing his Cabinet chess pieces to accommodate this next high court move? Did Holder just randomly choose to step away from finishing a hallmark African-American duo's political fight and legacy in Washington? If you believe that, I have a London bridge to sell you in Lake Havasu City, Arizona!
Limbaugh was right when he explained, "It would be much easier for Eric Holder to make the jump from private-sector law firm rainmaker after six years at (the Department of Justice) to the Supreme Court than from DOJ straight to the Supreme Court."
The effects of such a disastrous SCOTUS appointment would anchor a sweeping legacy of Obama's secular progressive agenda.
For anyone who would consider it, I defer to the wisdom of former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano, who explained Holder's faithfulness to the Constitution this way: "Every time that Barack Obama has bent, broken, avoided or evaded the Constitution or federal law, Eric Holder has been at his side, cheering him on, providing intellectual cover and purporting to give him legal advice authorizing what the president wanted to do."
Napolitano added: "From allowing the president to kill Americans, from allowing the president to spy on Americans, from personally authorizing the invasion of privacy of our colleague James Rosen, from seizing property from people who weren't even charged with crimes -- Eric Holder has been behind all of it. He is probably the least faithful to the Constitution of any (attorney general) in modern times, and he doesn't regret any of it."
Join the conversation as a VIP Member