ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Timothy P. O’Neill: Democrats’ midterm chances are better partly because of one person: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

From the commentary:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the University of Chicago on Sept. 9, 2019.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the University of Chicago on Sept. 9, 2019
Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune/TNS
We are part of The Trust Project.

What a difference six months make. Earlier this year, it was generally conceded that Republicans would sweep to victories in the midterm elections, giving them control of the House and Senate.

WCT.OP.Commentary.jpg
More Commentary:
From the commentary: To be clear, their questions are mainly about determining the best way to deliver care to teens — not about the value of treatment itself.
From the commentary: Businesses are already struggling under the extraordinary cost of doing business in Minnesota.
From the commentary: Today, many Confederate memorials are being curated with markers being erected nearby to tell the story of how the Lost Cause was mythologized. Stone Mountain would certainly need a big marker. Or, a museum.

Yet as of Friday, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight election forecast gives Democrats more than a 2-to-1 probability of maintaining control of the Senate. And it even gives them a puncher’s chance — almost 1 in 3 — of maintaining control of the House, too.

Why the turnaround? Pundits point to falling gas prices and President Joe Biden’s recent legislative victories.

But if the Democrats claim victory in November, the person most responsible will be someone who passed away two years ago — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Here’s why.

ADVERTISEMENT

Last June, the news media reported that the Supreme Court had overruled Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that recognized a constitutional right to abortion. And the vote in the case that brought an end to Roe, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, was not even close: Six out of nine justices ruled to return the issue of abortion to the states.

But the decision was actually more nuanced. The news media largely ignored the concurring opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts. True, Roberts was one of the six justices in the majority because he agreed that the Mississippi abortion restrictions at issue were constitutional. But Roberts specifically refused to join the other five justices who overruled Roe. He contended that stare decisis — the principle that the Supreme Court should not overrule a precedent without very compelling reasons — was an argument in favor of affirming Roe’s half-century-old doctrine. (His reasoning was similar to that found in his 2012 opinion, which provided the deciding vote in the court’s decision to uphold Obamacare.)

So actually, the vote to overrule Roe was only 5-4. And the deciding vote to overrule was cast by the newest member of the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett, of course, was appointed in 2020 to fill the vacancy created by the death of Ginsburg.

The court’s decision to overrule Roe has created a tsunami of support for pro-abortion rights Democrats. This has been evidenced by everything from the Kansas abortion referendum vote and increased Democratic fundraising to the results of House special elections. Clearly, the Dobbs decision has galvanized support for Democrats in the upcoming elections.

More Opinion:
From the commentary: For many, politics is either an aphrodisiac, or a drug. Both are addictive and difficult to break free from.
From the commentary: Lisa Marie's father loved her, so far as he seemingly understood love. He just never appeared to grasp its full meaning.
From the commentary: The most that can be said on this sad anniversary is that the fight for reproductive rights will continue, despite the court's ruling. For another 50 years, if that's what it takes.
From the commentary: Bear in mind that cost pressures on eggs include Russia's war on Ukraine and the drought across much of the U.S. They and the avian flu all continue but the price for eggs has nonetheless started coming down.
From the commentary: The takeaway from this book will be measured not in changed views of the monarchy, or of Harry and Meghan, but only in the bank account balances of the Sussexes, which is the bottom line. Shame on them.
From the commentary: There are ways to provide for the unique challenges facing every generation. That should be true here, as well as in China.
From the commentary: Don’t be surprised if both the House and the Senate flip control in 2024.
From the commentary: Eternal vigilance and the opposition to tyranny are the price free people must pay to maintain their freedom.
From the commentary: To play this game again would be the most fiscally irresponsible and least fiscally conservative thing that Republicans could do. But as history warns us ... they're fiscal fakers.
From the commentary: Does anyone think that the right wing of the right wing of the House of Representatives is going to give the FBI a fair shake?

But consider this. Many liberals were upset when Ginsburg refused to resign during President Barack Obama’s two terms. If she had, Barrett would not have provided the fifth vote to overrule Roe. Instead, Obama’s appointee would almost certainly have provided the fifth vote to affirm Roe. So if Ginsburg had resigned, Roe would still be good law.

But if Ginsburg had resigned, abortion would not be an issue in this year’s campaign. That means the fundraising bump caused by Dobbs would never have happened. That means the increased Democratic voter interest because of abortion would never have materialized. That means that the Republicans would right now probably be predicted to win the Senate and the House.

The law of unintended consequences works in strange ways. In the long run, Ginsburg’s refusal to resign cost Democrats an additional Supreme Court appointment.

ADVERTISEMENT

But in the short run, her decision may result in Democrats keeping control of one or both houses of the legislature in November.

Timothy P. O’Neill is an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law. This commentary is his opinion. Send feedback to: opinion@wctrib.com.

©2022 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, L

______________________________________________________

This story was written by one of our partner news agencies. Forum Communications Company uses content from agencies such as Reuters, Kaiser Health News, Tribune News Service and others to provide a wider range of news to our readers. Learn more about the news services FCC uses here.

Related Topics: COMMENTARY
What To Read Next
Casey is the well-behaved dog that normally stays out of the limelight.
"I experienced two epiphanies a week apart that made me realize that far too many people see their faith lives and the rest of their week as distinctly separate," Devlyn Brooks writes.
Katie Pinke's daughters decided to spend their day off from school working with their heifers.
From the commentary: Yes, there will always be smart tax lawyers and accountants who will be able to manipulate the tax code and minimize their clients’ taxes... where it’s not quite evasion, but not quite fair, either.