Supreme Court Vacancy and the Limits of Compromise

Following the news of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a sense of dread took hold of observers across the political spectrum. During the ever-shortening period after the passing of a justice when partisan political reactions are still thought to be in bad taste, left and right alike worried that a Supreme Court vacancy will only worsen the civil strife and political enmity already at fever pitch in the country. My colleague Mark Wright spoke for us all in this respect when he said, “The Götterdämmerung is upon us.”

David French and Jonah Goldberg were among those on the right who tried to forestall this potential political apocalypse by proposing a compromise that might de-escalate tensions surrounding the Court. A few of my colleagues have responded to these proposals by pointing out the prohibitive difficulties that would be involved in their execution. But there is, nevertheless, a consensus among those on the right that the country would be better off if the Court was less central to political disputes than it currently is. The aim of the French-Goldberg proposals — to drain the Court of some of its political valence — is a noble one.

About the Author

Cameron Hilditch

Cameron Hilditch was a 2020-2021 William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

Following the news of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a sense of dread took hold of observers across the political spectrum. During the ever-shortening period after the passing of a justice when partisan political reactions are still thought to be in bad taste, left and right alike worried that a Supreme Court vacancy will only worsen the civil strife and political enmity already at fever pitch in the country. My colleague Mark Wright spoke for us all in this respect when he said, “The Götterdämmerung is upon us.”

David French and Jonah Goldberg were among those on the right who tried to forestall this potential political apocalypse by proposing a compromise that might de-escalate tensions surrounding the Court. A few of my colleagues have responded to these proposals by pointing out the prohibitive difficulties that would be involved in their execution. But there is, nevertheless, a consensus among those on the right that the country would be better off if the Court was less central to political disputes than it currently is. The aim of the French-Goldberg proposals — to drain the Court of some of its political valence — is a noble one.