Strong words.
Indeed, it's more accurate to say I think it's horrible that this particular candidate has replaced Justice Ginsburg. Justice Barrett is eminently unqualified and/or distasteful in all the ways Justice Ginsburg excelled.
Do you mind expanding on this for the benefit of us out-of-towners who don't know her background?
She's only been a judge for 2 years. She's one of President Trump's railroad-through-the-Senate nominees. Normally the process of vetting a judge takes considerable time, so that scholars can research the candidate thoroughly. Normally a judge is in one office for long enough that a different Senate confirms her to the next higher judgeship. She has had only cursory hearings before the McConnell Senate, with the 2018 election replacing only one-third of the senators who previously confirmed her. A key element of her background is her work on the
Bush v. Gore case. It is widely thought that the only reason she was nominated was to rule in favor of Trump in a "contested" election. She has one relevant, short-term qualification, and afterwards she's just an inexperienced, largely unknown judge.
She does have a highly conservative religious background. That's nothing new. Her religion is a source of concern for many, especially her former involvement in a particular sect of Catholicism. As if there were any question where a Trump nominee would stand on questions like abortion and marriage equality, it is widely believed that she will do all in her power to enforce her conservative religious views.
But two aspects of her legal decision-making are especially disturbing. Briefly, she's a Constitutional originalist. This means she interprets the Constitution, as did her mentor Justice Scalia, according to the meaning of the text as it would have been understood in the days when it was written. Originalism raises many questions. But its central tenet is that where the Constitution is specifically silent on some particular question, the Court is not to invent a new right. The right to marriage privacy was considered a "new" right, but the
Roe court was not dominated by Originalists. Justice Scalia's dissent in
Obergefell v. Hodges railed against the "new right" of "gay marriage," which wasn't a right guaranteed in the Constitution. These important rulings will now be almost certainly eroded if not outright overturned, now that the balance of ideology on the Court is shifting toward Originalism.
Justice Barrett's writings as a professor challenge the solidity of
stare decisis, the core value of Common Law which means that issues once settled by a court should remain settled. Justice Gorsuch was content to consider such things as abortion and marriage equality to be "settled" law when asked about them. Justice Barrett likely will not be. And since it takes only four Justices' concurrence to grant certiorari, these cases are likely to be reheard in some form or another.
In what way is it important?
Adjournment does not end the session. Recess does, and it allows the President then to make recess appointments to high offices without the immediate consent of the Senate. Those appointees would then have the plenary power of their offices, rather than the limited power afforded by Congress to acting or temporary appointees. But in the case of a recess appointment, Senate rules are invoked which then require the Senate to take up consideration of those appointments within the next session. This allows Senate Democrats to question them in open hearings. The President's temporary officers face only the scrutiny that ordinary public inquiry affords, and can therefore hide a multitude of sins. Because Sen. Mitch McConnell does not fully trust the President, he prevents the President from forcing exposure on the Senate floor of all that's behind those who are leading the various offices of the executive. Sen. McConnell is an experienced politician; Trump is not. Also, Sen. McConnell is still busy appointing judges to the federal bench. He does not want precious hearing time forcibly taken up by hearings for appointees who probably will not be in office past January 20 anyway.
But neither house of Congress can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. So right now, every day, one senator goes into the chamber and performs the minimal duty required to allow the Senate to be "in session" for that day. Then it is adjourned until the next day. This may be repeated indefinitely.
