logo
Why two justices could hand Republicans their own ‘Ginsburg moment' next year

Why two justices could hand Republicans their own ‘Ginsburg moment' next year

Yahoo6 days ago
Are conservatives headed for their own 'Ginsburg moment'?
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.
The Justices of the Supreme Coury (AFP via Getty Images)
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.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivers remarks at the Georgetown Law Center on September 12, 2019, in Washington, DC (Getty Images)
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New Hampshire Secretary of State details answers to Trump voter registration inquiry
New Hampshire Secretary of State details answers to Trump voter registration inquiry

Yahoo

time4 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

New Hampshire Secretary of State details answers to Trump voter registration inquiry

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan on Friday released an eight-page letter with detailed responses to the Trump administration's 15 questions about the state's voter registration process, including why the state rejected the request to disclose the statewide voter list. 'New Hampshire law authorizes the Secretary of State to release the statewide voter registration list in limited circumstances not applicable here,' Scanlan wrote. The Trump administration is seeking millions of names from targeted states ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Scanlan explained that state law permits his office to, 'upon request, provide a political party, political committee, or candidate for county, state, or federal office, 'a list of the name, domicile address, mailing address, town or city, voter history, and party affiliation, if any, of every registered voter in the state.'' Scanlan told Trump administration officials they were free to go community by community to get voter lists from each clerk or supervisors of the checklist, and he shared a website link to city and town clerk contacts. Before answering the Trump administration's questions, Scanlan provided three paragraphs of 'prefatory remarks' as a primer on what information he could or couldn't share. 'Regardless of the fact that election systems and assets are critical infrastructure, divulging any cybersecurity information could harm the integrity of the systems. Therefore, our responses to questions regarding database infrastructure may be limited depending on the nature of the question,' Scanlan wrote. Scanlan's letter also included a sample voter registration form and Memorandum of Understanding for Help America Vote Act implementation and enhanced data exchange for database accuracy. Trump's inquiry Questions from the Trump administration ranged from basic information for how voter registration works in New Hampshire to specific ways in which the information is confirmed, shared and managed. Here are some examples of the questions: * Describe how the statewide voter registration list is coordinated with the databases of other state agencies. And provide the name of each state database used for coordination and describe the procedures used for the coordination as well as how often the databases are coordinated with the statewide voter registration list. * Describe the process by which registrants who are ineligible to vote due to non-citizenship are identified and removed from the statewide voter registration list. * Describe the state's requirement for an individual to vote if the individual registered to vote by mail and has not previously voted in an election for federal office in the state. * Describe the verification process that election officials perform to verify the required information supplied by the registrant. And describe what happens to the registration application if the information cannot be verified. * Describe the process by which deceased registrants are identified and removed from the statewide voter registration list. Other questions asked for how the state handles voters convicted of a felony, duplicate voter registrations, security measures and how the state removes registered voters who have moved to another state. Scanlan's answers The Secretary of State's Office outlined the step-by-step processes that are used in each aspect of voter registration, providing detail at the state level all the way down to how communities manage their checklists. In terms of New Hampshire's citizen requirement, he described the new law that went into effect this year. 'The statute lays out several types of acceptable documents to prove citizenship: 'the applicant's birth certificate, passport, naturalization papers if the applicant is a naturalized citizen, or any other reasonable documentation which indicates the applicant is a United States citizen,'' Scanlan wrote. For voters who have died, Scanlan described how the communities across the state remove voters from the rolls if they died here or elsewhere. The process involves comparing official death records and how municipal clerks receive official notice of a voter's death and then remove the names locally. Most of Scanlan's answers read like a textbook or quoted New Hampshire law directly. He provided each specific statute number, leaving it up to federal officials to read further on their own. He also provided contact information for the Division of Motor Vehicles and website links for further information. To read Scanlan's letter, visit dpierce@

Donald Trump Repeats False Claim Beyoncé Was Paid $11 Million To Endorse Kamala Harris; Calls To Prosecute Singer, Oprah & Al Sharpton
Donald Trump Repeats False Claim Beyoncé Was Paid $11 Million To Endorse Kamala Harris; Calls To Prosecute Singer, Oprah & Al Sharpton

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Donald Trump Repeats False Claim Beyoncé Was Paid $11 Million To Endorse Kamala Harris; Calls To Prosecute Singer, Oprah & Al Sharpton

On Saturday, Donald Trump repeated false claims that Beyoncé was paid $11 million to endorse Kamala Harris on the campaign trail in October of last year. The Truth Social post comes as the president faces scrutiny from his own base over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Taking to his social media platform yesterday, the GOP leader wrote, 'I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats, after the Presidential Election, and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note, and left the stage to a booing and angry audience!), Three Million Dollars for 'expenses,' to Oprah, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars to very low rated TV 'anchor,' Al Sharpton (a total lightweight!), and others to be named for doing, absolutely NOTHING! These ridiculous fees were incorrectly stated in the books and records. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out! Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter.' More from Deadline Beyoncé Reunites Destiny's Child For Final 'Cowboy Carter' Tour Stop In Vegas Stephen Colbert Praises 'South Park's Naked AI Trump PSA: "An Important Message Of Hope" Donald Trump Denies Being Briefed That His Name Appeared In Jeffrey Epstein Files, Despite Wall Street Journal Report That He Was Informed Trump is referring to the 35-time Grammy-winning artist's appearance at a rally in Houston, where the singer took to the stage to endorse the vice president and call for unity. 'It's time to sing a new song, a song that began 248 years ago. The old notes of downfall, discord, despair no longer resonate. Our generations of loved ones before us are whispering a prophecy, a quest, a calling, an anthem. Our moment right now — it's time for America to sing a new song. Our voices sing a chorus of unity. They sing a song of dignity and opportunity,' she said to the crowd. Federal campaign spending records show a $165,000 payment made from the Democratic presidential candidate's organization to Beyoncé's production company, per CNN, with 'campaign event production' listed as the reasoning for the expenditure. Last year, senior spokesperson for the Harris campaign Adrienne Elrod told Deadline that the campaign did not pay any celebrity endorsers but was required by campaign finance law to cover costs associated with holding such events, per Federal Election Commission rules. This accounts for the $1 million the Harris campaign spent on Oprah's Harpo Productions, as the famed TV personality endorsed her at a Michigan-held 'Unite for America' event in September 2024. The baseless allegation was fact-checked by websites and PolitiFact last year, though Trump repeated his sentiments about Beyoncé, Oprah and Al Sharpton back in February. Trump has also previously harped on the matter in a post made back in May, where he named other influential Harris endorsers like Bruce Springsteen and Bono, calling for a 'major investigation.' There's also no evidence to suggest such expenses were incorrectly categorized, and though Trump maintained payment for endorsement is illegal, there's actually no FEC law that prohibits such campaigns for paying for endorsements, though they must disclose such expenditures. Best of Deadline Celebs Supporting Zohran Mamdani In New York's Mayoral Race: From Ramy Youssef To Cynthia Nixon The Fox News To White House Pipeline: TV Personalities Who Joined The Trump Administration Celebrities Voting And Encouraging Voting In The 2024 Election

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store