Justice Ginsburg: “There are Some Things I Would Like to Change, one is the Electoral College”

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a solid member of the left, and can be depended on to rule as such. At the age of 83, she might now wish she had retired a year or so ago so Barack Obama could have nominated her successor. This likely would have resulted in her being replaced by another liberal justice. As it stands, should she retire or pass away over the next four or possibly eight years, Donald Trump will nominate her replacement, something she surely does not want.

True to her leftist political philosophy, she is no supporter of the Electoral College.

“There are some things I would like to change, one is the Electoral College,” she said late Monday at Stanford Law School in California, according to CNN.

“But that would require a constitutional amendment, and amending our Constitution is powerfully hard to do,” she added.

The Constitution is deliberately difficult to amend, specifically to ensure the continuation of the form of government envisioned by the founders.

Ginsburg’s remarks follow President Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court’s vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch sits on Colorado’s 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

This is no coincidence. Judge Gorsuch is a conservative with views very similar to those of the late Justice Scalia. Hence, like Scalia, he could be expected to oppose Justice Ginsburg. Had the election been decided based on the national popular vote, Hillary Clinton would have been named president, and Justice Ginsburg would be much more likely to be welcoming a new justice to the court with views similar to hers.

It is a bit concerning that, “Trump also reportedly told congressional leaders he was considering eliminating the Electoral College late last month.” That seems like a unusual comment to be made by a man who won the election because of the Electoral College. Then again, “He has since repeatedly insisted voter fraud helped Clinton beat him in last year’s popular vote.”

It is unlikely that any effort to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College is going anywhere.

For one thing, there have only been five times in our nation’s history that the winner of the popular vote did not become president. Four of those times it was the candidate who got the majority of the electoral votes, but not the majority of the popular vote who became president. The one other time, neither candidate achieved a majority of electoral votes and the selection of the president was made by the House of Representatives. So what happened in 2016 is very rare.

The other reason the Electoral College is likely to remain is that any constitutional amendment would require an affirmative vote by a majority of the very states it would tend to disenfranchise. So it’s not likely to happen.

What is likely to happen is that one or two liberal justices will need to be replaced while Mr. Trump is president. If Mr. Trump remains true to his commitments on judicial appointments, and if Justice Ginsburg remains on the bench, she might start getting very lonely.

Source: The Hill