
Why two justices could hand Republicans their own ‘Ginsburg moment' next year
That could be the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections if Democrats have any say in the matter.
With next year's congressional elections still on the horizon, the first glimpses of the political dynamics that will shape 2026 are coming into view. Even as Donald Trump and his administration remain this week consumed by an uproar among the MAGA base over the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, issues like inflation and the White House's mass deportation raids continue to retain salience quietly in the background — quietly, but not with diminished importance, as they'll likely remain the top factors driving Americans to the polls.
Then, there's the Supreme Court. It remains a sore point for liberals who watched Republicans lock Barack Obama out of the discussion over a vacant seat in 2016 and then, in 2020, watched Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death just two months before a presidential election notch a second rightward shift for the court in less than a decade.
Justice Clarence Thomas, 77, is the oldest member of the bench. Some conservatives have privately begun to fret that the right-leaning justice or his 75-year-old colleague, Samuel Alito (whose wife hung a symbol honoring the January 6 conspiracy after the attack) could cause another 'Ginsburg moment' by refusing to resign while Republicans control the Senate, allowing one or both seats to fall into liberal hands.
Legal commentators are somewhat torn over whether either will retire this term. Mike Davis, a former Senate GOP staffer on Supreme Court nominations and current 'viceroy' of Trumpworld, wrote that Alito was 'gleefully packing up his chambers' after the 2024 election.
Ed Whelan, the Antonin Scalia chair in constitutional studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, also predicted in 2025 that Alito would retire in 2025, and Thomas in 2026, according to the American Bar Association Journal (ABAJournal).
Others are less certain, and a source close to Alito tried to tamp down on that speculation earlier this year.
"Despite what some people may think, this is a man who has never thought about this job from a political perspective," they told the Wall Street Journal.
"The idea that he's going to retire for political considerations is not consistent with who he is," the source added.
David Lat, who founded his own blog reporting on gossip surrounding the Court and broader legal world, also noted to ABAJournal that both justices have hired full rosters of clerks for the upcoming two terms, the latter of which will end in 2027.
Under Donald Trump's first term, three Supreme Court vacancies were filled by conservative justices. Ginsberg's refusal to retire at multiple points when multiple factors were clear, including how her health challenges were affecting her work and the likelihood that Republicans would bend the rules (or shatter them) to see her seat filled with a conservative, is still looked by many as a failure of not just the justice but those liberals around her who allowed the octogenarian's desire to stay on the job conflict with political realities.
Her defenders insisted that the justice's deliberations about retiring did not factor in politics at all. Critics of the Court see the justices' shroud of apoliticism as an excuse that does not match their rhetoric or actions, either on the bench or in public.
The efforts by Alito's allies to dissuade speculation echoed those same defenses and rang especially hollow for the conservative justice who has shmoozed with a conservative billionaire with cases before the court and who reportedly authored his own blueprint for the eventual overturn of Roe vs Wade as far back as 1985.
Thomas, meanwhile, reportedly sparked fears among conservatives that he would resign from the Court on his own way back in 2000 as he complained about the job's pay. But there's been no such murmuring as of late.
If the claims are true and both justices are set on remaining on the bench, they could put Republicans in an awkward spot.
The GOP's chances of protecting their newly-acquired Senate majority remain strong but have grown noticeably weaker in the past six months. The announced retirement of Thom Tillis in North Carolina puts his purple-seat state decidedly in play. Maine's Susan Collins is up for re-election, as is John Cornyn in Texas; Cornyn faces a hyper-MAGA primary challenger whom the senator has said could give up the seat to Democrats in November of 2026 if his primary challenge is successful.
Rumors also continue to swirl about the possible retirement of Joni Ernst, the senator from Iowa, and her partner in the Senate delegation from the state, Chuck Grassley, is a staggering 91 years old himself.
Several factors could force the Senate back into Democratic hands next year, and if the party's discussions over countering GOP redistricting in Texas by 'going nuclear' and following suit across a range of blue states is any indication, the party's members have learned not to give Republicans an inch and could block any of Trump's SCOTUS nominations going forward.
In the end, the same shaky apoliticism that the justices cling to when facing any criticism from Congress or the Executive Branch could swing back to help the left, after causing so much damage at the end of the Obama era. It would be up to Democrats in the Senate to decide whether they are truly willing to take a page from the GOP's playbook.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Top medical body concerned over RFK Jr's reported plans to cut preventive health panel
A top US medical body has expressed 'deep concern' to Robert F Kennedy Jr over news reports that the health secretary plans to overhaul a panel that determines which preventive health measures including cancer screenings should be covered by insurance companies. The letter from the the American Medical Association comes after the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Kennedy plans to overhaul the 40-year old US Preventive Services Task Force because he regards them as too 'woke', according to sources familiar with the matter. During his second term, Donald Trump has frequently raged against organizations and government departments that he considers too liberal – often without any evidence. The US president, and his cabinet members such as Kennedy, have also overseen huge cuts and job losses across the US government. The taskforce is made up of a 16-member panel appointed by health and human services secretaries to serve four-year terms. In addition to cancer screenings, the taskforce issues recommendations for a variety of other screenings including osteoporosis, intimate partner violence, HIV prevention, as well as depression in children. Writing in its letter to Kennedy on Sunday, the AMA defended the panel, saying: 'As you know, USPSTF plays a critical, non-partisan role in guiding physicians' efforts to prevent disease and improve the health of patients by helping to ensure access to evidence-based clinical preventive services.' 'As such, we urge you to retain the previously appointed members of the USPSTF and commit to the long-standing process of regular meetings to ensure their important work can be continued without disruption,' it added. Citing Kennedy's own slogan of 'Making America healthy again,' the AMA went on to say: 'USPSTF members have been selected through an open, public nomination process and are nationally recognized experts in primary care, prevention and evidence-based medicine. They serve on a volunteer basis, dedicating their time to help reduce disease and improve the health of all Americans – a mission well-aligned with the Make America Healthy Again initiative.' According to the Affordable Care Act, public and private insurance companies must cover any services recommended by the Preventive Services Task Force without cost sharing. In a statement to MedPage Today, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon did not confirm the reports, instead saying: 'No final decision has been made on how the USPSTF can better support HHS' mandate to Make America Healthy Again.' Reports of Kennedy's alleged decision to overhaul the taskforce come after the American Conservative published an essay earlier this month that described the taskforce as advocating for 'leftwing ideological orthodoxy'. It went on to accuse the panel of being 'packed with Biden administration appointees devoted to the ideological capture of medicine', warning that the 'continued occupation of an important advisory body in HHS – one that has the capacity to force private health insurers to cover services and procedures – by leftwing activists would be a grave oversight by the Trump administration'. In response to the essay, 104 health organizations, including the American Medical Association, issued a separate letter to multiple congressional health committees in which they urged the committees to 'protect the integrity' of the taskforce. 'The loss of trustworthiness in the rigorous and nonpartisan work of the Task Force would devastate patients, hospital systems, and payers as misinformation creates barriers to accessing lifesaving and cost effective care,' the organizations said. In June, Kennedy removed all 17 members of a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel of vaccine experts. Writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he accused the committee of having too many conflicts of interest. Kennedy's decision to overhaul the immunization panel was met with widespread criticism from health experts, with the American Public Health Association executive director Georges Benjamin calling the ouster 'a coup'. 'It's not how democracies work. It's not good for the health of the nation,' Benjamin said.


Daily Record
34 minutes ago
- Daily Record
John Swinney says an SNP majority at Holyrood is needed for a second independence referendum
EXCLUSIVE: The First Minister has laid out his plan to secure another referendum after the first vote in 2014. John Swinney has declared the SNP will need to win a Holyrood majority next year to secure a second independence referendum. In a major shift, the First Minister has moved away from Nicola Sturgeon's position of claiming a majority of SNP and Green MSPs is enough for indyref2. He will table a motion to his party's conference arguing that the SNP winning outright is the mechanism for triggering another referendum. Sturgeon's SNP fell short of winning on their own in 2021, but she demanded indyref2 after her party and the pro-independence Greens won a majority of MSPs. Westminster knocked back her call and the Supreme Court later ruled that indyref2 is outwith Holyrood's powers. Swinney will now go back to the approach of former SNP First Minister Alex Salmond fourteen years ago. Salmond secured an outright majority for the SNP at the 2011 Holyrood election, a result that led to a joint agreement with the UK Government on a referendum. In his column for the Daily Record, Swinney wrote: 'For us to achieve that independence, the first step is to secure a legal referendum recognised by all. In 2011 we secured that reliable and dependable route when the SNP achieved a majority of seats at Holyrood. 'That is the only mechanism that has been proven to deliver such a vote - so that is what we need to deliver again. 'That is why I have submitted a motion to the SNP conference proposing that we work to deliver a majority of SNP MSPs in the Scottish Parliament to secure that referendum on Independence. 'The SNP has high ambitions for Scotland, and we must be bold to deliver on those ambitions. We must be ready to follow the path which we know can lead us to an independent state.' Swinney has been under pressure to produce a route map and strategy for delivering independence. Senior activists believe the Supreme Court decision created a vacuum that the Scottish Government has struggled to fill. A senior SNP source said the Government still believed an SNP/Green majority 'should' be enough for indyref2, but the experience of the past four years showed 'this is not going to happen'. The insider claimed the new position is a 'pragmatic' change based on an outcome the pro-UK parties could not ignore. Swinney's Record column also underlines his personal commitment to a referendum as the route to independence. Some independence activists believe an SNP majority at either Holyrood or Westminster is enough to deliver independence without another vote. The source said Swinney is firmly of the view there must be a referendum. Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said: "At last year's election the SNP took an all mighty beating because people were tired of them obsessing over one issue. It seems like John Swinney is a glutton for punishment. "Perhaps rather than focusing on what the SNP membership cares about, he should focus on what the country needs. The health service and the state of our schools has been neglected for too long because all the SNP care about is breaking up the UK." Scottish Tory Deputy Leader Rachael Hamilton said: ' John Swinney is like a broken record on this divisive issue. He should stop trying to placate the fanatics in his own party and accept the fact that most Scots firmly rejected the SNP 's plans to break up the UK and have no desire to revisit them. 'Instead, he should be trying to repair the immense damage his party's policies have inflicted on Scotland's economy and essential services such as our schools and NHS.'


Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Jacinta Price reveals the little-known truth about the term 'First Nations' before being told off by Penny Wong
Indigenous senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price declared that 'First Nations' is not even an Australian term before being told off by Penny Wong in parliament. The firebrand Coalition politician was at the centre of a fiery row in the Senate after One Nation senators including Pauline Hanson turned their backs on the acknowledgement of country at the start of parliament last week. Senator Price objected to the ceremonies as a person of Indigenous heritage, claiming they did little to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians and were a form of 'political point-scoring'. It prompted Wong to urge the Coalition to 'respect' parliamentary traditions. 'I would hope that the Opposition would reflect on the words of their own leader in relation to Welcomes to Country,' the Labor Senate leader told the chamber. 'Decency and respect cost us nothing, but it goes a long way to building a sense of unity.' Before being told off by Wong, Senator Price also launched a blistering attack on the term 'First Nations'. 'First Nations isn't even Australian terminology, for crying out loud! It's been adopted from Canada, from America. It's just reinvention, which is actually belittling and watering down traditional culture and what it's really about. She also doubled down on her stance about Welcome to Country. 'Senator Hanson is correct to say that Welcome to Country is not traditional culture. It isn't. And what we do need to recognise is - and it is important for all of us, as leaders of this nation, to recognise - the reinvention of culture, which diminishes traditional culture. 'For those who still live close to traditional culture, within cultural confines, their day-to-day lives are dictated by it. 'They speak their language. They are often spoken about in very romanticised terms. And the use of acknowledgements really does absolutely nothing to improve their lives and has done nothing to improve their lives. 'To be quite honest, as a woman of Indigenous heritage but, first and foremost, as an Australian, I am absolutely done with the virtue signalling that takes place. I am of the belief that it is not necessary to have an acknowledgement, because we are all Australians. 'Every single one of us - including the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri - is Australian. We are here to serve all Australians equally in this country, not to praise or acknowledge one group above others. 'Truly, I don't think you really want to acknowledge my existence because of my indigeneity more than anybody else's. I am equal to you and to everybody else here and to everybody in this country. 'But we can ignore traditional culture in this chamber because there are elements of it in every single one of you across from here ignore, because it's detrimental to the most remote and marginalised communities. 'But if you speak up against it, if you mention it, you're painted as a racist or somebody who is a 'coconut', or somebody who is a traitor. 'Imagine if we treated every single racial group in this manner in this country. It's horrendous.' Senator Price didn't mince her words on what she thought of the politicisation of Indigenous Australians due to their racial heritage. 'I'm sick of death of it as a woman, mother, soon to be grandmother and as an Australian of proud heritage, whether it's my convict ancestors or it's my Warlpiri ancestors, I'm proud of it all and we should all be,' she said. Price was quickly inundated with widespread support. 'Thank you for speaking up for ALL Australians, Jacinta,' conservative political lobbyist group Advance Australia posted. A man added: 'Well said, we are all Australian irrespective of skin pigmentation, heritage, race or whether you believe in a deity or you don't. I hope this is replayed many, many times.' Another commented: 'Here's hoping that one day we can all be proud Australians and recognise past heritages and be thankful we live in an amazing country.' The speech also reignited calls for Price to lead the Coalition. 'Future Prime Minister of Australia,' one Aussie commented. The senator's fiery speech came after Opposition Senate Leader Michaelia Cash leapt to her defence and accused Wong of having 'sought to dismiss' Price's objection to the ceremonies. 'I will stand by and respect Senator Nampijinpa Price, who every day has lived and breathed reconciliation in this country - her father is white, her mother is black,' Cash said. 'Please don't ever come into this place again and pontificate to us like you've just done.'