vox--2020-09-18--Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is a tragedy. The Supreme Court’s rules made it a political crisis.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death is a tragedy .
Ginsburg was a pioneer , a brilliant jurist , and a moral force .
Losing anyone of her stature , and her talents , is gutting .
But Ginsburg ’ s death is also a political crisis — one she saw coming .
In a final statement , dictated to her granddaughter , Ginsburg said , “ My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.
” Ginsburg ’ s death leaves the Senate in dangerous territory .
McConnell has made his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was about power , not principle , and he has no intention of holding a vacancy open for Joe Biden to fill .
“ President Trump ’ s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate , ” he said in a statement following Ginsburg ’ s death .
Democrats remain livid over the Garland affair , and adding more justices to the Court — an idea known as “ court-packing ” — to balance out McConnell ’ s machinations has gained currency among key Democratic senators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible that a crisis here will be averted by a critical mass of Republicans refusing to vote on a replacement until after the election .
Prior to Ginsburg ’ s death , Sens .
Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) , Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , and Susan Collins ( R-ME ) have said they ’ d follow the Garland rule and hold a vacancy open until after the election .
Now we ’ ll see if they meant it .
Whatever the outcome , the core problem here is the stakes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too damn high .
The Supreme Court isn ’ t merely an undemocratic branch of government but a randomly undemocratic branch of government .
And that randomness , and the stakes of seeing it play out in your side ’ s favor , turn vacancies into crises .
Supreme Court justices serve for life — which , given modern longevity and youthful nominees , can now mean 40 years of decisions — and no one knows when the next seat will open .
President Jimmy Carter served four years and saw no open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served four years and filled two .
Barack Obama served two terms and confirmed two justices .
Thanks to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s blockade of Merrick Garland , Donald Trump has already filled two vacancies , and Ginsburg ’ s death opens a third , raising the possibility that Trump will fill more vacancies in four years than Obama filled in eight .
In practice , the Supreme Court decides how elections are funded , whether abortions are legal , whether millions of people will continue to have health insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its composition as a matter of life and death , that ’ s because it often is .
This is why , in 2016 , McConnell refused to consider any of President Obama ’ s nominees to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia : Keeping a conservative majority on the Court was , for Republicans , worth any amount of damage to the institution , and to American politics more broadly .
These same incentives create extraordinary pressure for justices to stay on the bench long after they might have otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can outlast an ideologically unfriendly administration .
They bias presidents toward nominating the youngest confirmable jurist they can find , rather than the best candidate they can find .
And they turn an institution meant to be insulated from the political system into a threat to the political system , as almost any political cost is worth bearing if it leads to control of the Court .
Rick Perry was right .
We need 18-year Supreme Court terms .
The Supreme Court should reflect the Constitution and the country , not the quirks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single , nonrenewable term would lower the stakes of any individual Supreme Court nomination as well as make the timing of fights more predictable .
An idea like this could have bipartisan support — then-Gov .
Rick Perry proposed 18-year terms in the 2012 campaign , making an argument that I think sounds even more persuasive today : Eighteen-year terms would also ensure the Court keeps closer touch to the country .
Being a Supreme Court justice is a plum job , and it ’ s understandable that few want to give it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examples of justices serving after their faculties began to fail ; Chief Justice William Rehnquist , for instance , missed 44 oral arguments in 2004 and 2005 , after undergoing a tracheotomy to treat thyroid cancer .
Nevertheless , he declined to step down and , shortly thereafter , died in office .
Even in less extreme cases , serving as a Supreme Court justice is the kind of job that pulls you far out of normal human context .
You ’ re one of the most powerful people in the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in only the most rarefied circles .
In an institution like that , more new blood , more often , is probably a good thing .
Implementing term limits for the Supreme Court would be a step toward repairing and normalizing a process that raises the stakes of vacancies beyond what our politics , or the human beings who serve on the Court , can comfortably bear .
It would be one important way we could deescalate the stakes of American politics , and protect the system from total breakdown .

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is a tragedy. Ginsburg was a pioneer, a brilliant jurist, and a moral force. Losing anyone of her stature, and her talents, is gutting. But Ginsburg’s death is also a political crisis — one she saw coming. In a final statement, dictated to her granddaughter, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Ginsburg’s death leaves the Senate in dangerous territory. McConnell has made his position clear. His stance on Garland was about power, not principle, and he has no intention of holding a vacancy open for Joe Biden to fill. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he said in a statement following Ginsburg’s death. Democrats remain livid over the Garland affair, and adding more justices to the Court — an idea known as “court-packing” — to balance out McConnell’s machinations has gained currency among key Democratic senators, and understandably so.
Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court. — Ed Markey (@EdMarkey) September 19, 2020
It’s possible that a crisis here will be averted by a critical mass of Republicans refusing to vote on a replacement until after the election. Prior to Ginsburg’s death, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Susan Collins (R-ME) have said they’d follow the Garland rule and hold a vacancy open until after the election. Now we’ll see if they meant it.
Whatever the outcome, the core problem is the stakes of Supreme Court nominations: They’re too damn high. The Supreme Court isn’t merely an undemocratic branch of government but a randomly undemocratic branch of government. And that randomness, and the stakes of seeing it play out in your side’s favor, turn vacancies into crises.
Supreme Court justices serve for life — which, given modern longevity and youthful nominees, can now mean 40 years of decisions — and no one knows when the next seat will open. President Jimmy Carter served four years and saw no open seats. President George H.W. Bush served four years and filled two. Barack Obama served two terms and confirmed two justices. After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s blockade of the nomination of Merrick Garland, Donald Trump has already filled two vacancies, and Ginsburg’s death opens a third, raising the possibility that Trump will fill more vacancies in four years than Obama filled in eight.
In practice, the Supreme Court decides how elections are funded, whether abortions are legal, whether millions of people will continue to have health insurance — if legislators and activist groups see its composition as a matter of life and death, that’s because it often is. This is why, in 2016, McConnell refused to consider any of President Obama’s nominees to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia: Keeping a conservative majority on the Court was, for Republicans, worth any amount of damage to the institution, and to American politics more broadly.
These same incentives create extraordinary pressure for justices to stay on the bench long after they might have otherwise retired, in the hopes that they can outlast an ideologically unfriendly administration. They bias presidents toward nominating the youngest confirmable jurist they can find, rather than the best candidate they can find. And they turn an institution meant to be insulated from the political system into a threat to the political system, as almost any political cost is worth bearing if it leads to control of the Court.
Rick Perry was right. We need 18-year Supreme Court terms.
The Supreme Court should reflect the Constitution and the country, not the quirks of longevity. Holding justices to a single, nonrenewable term would lower the stakes of any individual Supreme Court nomination as well as make the timing of fights more predictable.
An idea like this could have bipartisan support: Rick Perry proposed 18-year terms in his 2012 Republican presidential bid, making an argument that I think sounds even more persuasive today:
Doing this would move the court closer to the people by ensuring that every President would have the opportunity to replace two Justices per term, and that no court could stretch its ideology over multiple generations. Further, this reform would maintain judicial independence, but instill regularity to the nominations process, discourage Justices from choosing a retirement date based on politics, and will stop the ever-increasing tenure of Justices.
Eighteen-year terms would also ensure the Supreme Court keeps closer touch to the country. A seat on the Court is a plum job, and it’s understandable that few want to give it up. But there are too many examples of justices serving after their faculties began to fail; Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for instance, missed 44 oral arguments in 2004 and 2005, after undergoing a tracheotomy to treat thyroid cancer. Nevertheless, he declined to step down and, shortly thereafter, died in office.
Even in less extreme cases, serving as a Supreme Court justice is the kind of job that pulls you far out of normal human context. You’re one of the most powerful people in the country, surrounded by ritual and deference, traveling in only the most rarefied circles. In an institution like that, more new blood, more often, is probably a good thing.
Implementing term limits for the Supreme Court would be a step toward repairing and normalizing a process that raises the stakes of vacancies beyond what our politics, or the human beings who serve on the Court, can comfortably bear. It would be one important way we could deescalate the stakes of American politics, and protect the system from total breakdown.


vox--2020-09-18--The one thing Democrats can do to stop Trump from replacing Justice Ginsburg

President Barack Obama had the opportunity — or should have — to fill Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s seat in 2016 and give liberals a majority on the Supreme Court for the first time since the Nixon administration .
But he didn ’ t get that opportunity .
Instead , Republicans blocked him under a new stricture they invented , audaciously named the “ Biden rule , ” which decreed that no Supreme Court vacancy that arises in the final year of a president ’ s term may be filled .
The Biden rule got its name from an exaggerated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden , where the future Democratic presidential nominee argued that then-President George H.W .
Bush “ should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed ” if a vacancy arose on the Supreme Court .
The question four years later : Are Republicans serious about their adopted rule ?
Will they risk Biden himself filling the seat left vacant by Ruth Bader Ginsburg if Trump loses in November ?
McConnell ’ s been clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday night , a few hours Ginsberg ’ s death , McConnell said Trump ’ s nominee would get a vote .
Trump is still president for at least a few more months .
Democrats are in the minority in the Senate ( although the Democratic “ minority ” represents 15 million more people than the Republican “ majority ” ) .
These two facts matter because the Constitution gives the president the power to nominate judges and the Senate the power to confirm those judges .
Right now Republicans have a 53-47 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that , unless Democrats can somehow convince four Republican senators to honor the so-called “ Biden rule , ” Ginsburg ’ s seat is being filled by Trump .
But if Democrats win both the presidency and the Congress , they can ensure that the GOP supermajority on the Supreme Court will be short-lived .
They could pack the Court .
The Constitution provides that there must be a Supreme Court , but it does not set the number of justices — that number is set by Congress .
The Judiciary Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and this number vacillated considerably during the nation ’ s first century .
The number of justices briefly grew to 10 during the Lincoln administration , before finally settling at nine under President Ulysses S. Grant .
If Democrats control the White House and the Congress , in other words , they can pass a law adding additional seats to the Supreme Court .
If Biden is president , he could then quickly fill those seats ( with the consent of the Senate ) and give the Court a Democratic majority .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the height of his popularity , President Franklin Roosevelt proposed expanding the size of the Supreme Court to 15 in order to neutralize five reactionary justices who frequently undercut the New Deal .
It did not end well for him .
Many historians cite the court-packing plan as the event that shattered Roosevelt ’ s political coalition and left him unable to pass liberal bills through Congress .
But these are very different times .
In 1937 , when Roosevelt proposed packing the Court , every one of the Court ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there fair and square .
No one was on the Supreme Court because one political party invented a fake rule , applied it harshly to a president they loathed , and then immediately scrapped that rule when it was inconvenient .
Trump ’ s two previous Supreme Court appointees , Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , also share a dubious distinction .
They are the only members of the Supreme Court in history to be nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Trump fills the Ginsburg seat , fully one-third of the Court will be controlled by judges with no democratic legitimacy .
Democrats may also be able to use just the threat of court-packing to convince four Republican senators to hold off on confirming a new justice .
Biden , congressional Democrats , and Democratic candidates for Congress could all pledge that they will pack the Court if Republicans confirm a Ginsburg replacement .
That might be enough to sway a few Republican senators .
As it stands now , even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still control a majority of the Supreme Court .
They have a lot to lose if Democrats successfully pack the Court .
No one should feel confident in this option .
It is overwhelmingly likely that Republicans will confirm a loyal Republican judge to fill Ginsburg ’ s seat , and that they will do so swiftly .
But Democrats still have one tool left in their chest .
And if they don ’ t use it , well , Trumpism is likely to dominate the Supreme Court for decades or more .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Barack Obama had the opportunity — or should have — to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat in 2016 and give liberals a majority on the Supreme Court for the first time since the Nixon administration. But he didn’t get that opportunity. Instead, Republicans blocked him under a new stricture they invented, audaciously named the “Biden rule,” which decreed that no Supreme Court vacancy that arises in the final year of a president’s term may be filled.
The Biden rule got its name from an exaggerated reading of a 1992 speech by then-Sen. Joe Biden, where the future Democratic presidential nominee argued that then-President George H.W. Bush “should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed” if a vacancy arose on the Supreme Court.
The question four years later: Are Republicans serious about their adopted rule? Will they risk Biden himself filling the seat left vacant by Ruth Bader Ginsburg if Trump loses in November? McConnell’s been clear: The answer is no. On Friday night, a few hours after news of Ginsburg’s death, McConnell said Trump’s nominee would get a vote.
Trump is still president for at least a few more months. Democrats are in the minority in the Senate (although the Democratic “minority” represents 15 million more people than the Republican “majority”). These two facts matter because the Constitution gives the president the power to nominate judges and the Senate the power to confirm those judges.
Right now Republicans have a 53-47 vote majority in the Senate. That means that, unless Democrats can somehow convince four Republican senators to honor the so-called “Biden rule,” Ginsburg’s seat is being filled by Trump.
But if Democrats win both the presidency and the Congress, they can ensure that the GOP supermajority on the Supreme Court will be short-lived. They could pack the Court.
Court-packing and the Constitution
The Constitution provides that there must be a Supreme Court, but it does not set the number of justices — that number is set by Congress. The Judiciary Act of 1789 originally established a six-justice Court, and this number vacillated considerably during the nation’s first century. The number of justices briefly grew to 10 during the Lincoln administration, before finally settling at nine under President Ulysses S. Grant.
If Democrats control the White House and the Congress, in other words, they can pass a law adding seats to the Supreme Court. If Biden is president, he could then quickly fill them (with the consent of the Senate). And four new seats could give Court a Democratic-controlled majority, despite another Trump pick.
It’s a risky play. At the height of his popularity, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed expanding the size of the Supreme Court to 15 in order to neutralize five reactionary justices who frequently undercut the New Deal. It did not end well for him. Many historians cite the court-packing plan as the event that shattered Roosevelt’s political coalition and left him unable to pass liberal bills through Congress.
But these are very different times. In 1937, when Roosevelt proposed packing the Court, every one of the Court’s nine justices could claim that they got there fair and square. No one was on the Supreme Court because one political party invented a fake rule, applied it harshly to a president they loathed, and then immediately scrapped that rule when it was inconvenient.
Trump’s two previous Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also share a dubious distinction. They are the only members of the Supreme Court in history to be nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by a bloc of senators who represent less than half of the country. If Trump fills the Ginsburg seat, fully one-third of the Court will be controlled by judges with no democratic legitimacy.
Democrats may also be able to use the threat of court-packing as leverage.
Biden, congressional Democrats, and Democratic candidates for Congress could all pledge that they will pack the Court if Republicans confirm a Ginsburg replacement. That might be enough to convince four Republican senators to hold off on confirming a new justice.
As it stands now, even if Biden fills the seat, Republicans would still control a majority of the Supreme Court. They have a lot to lose if Democrats successfully pack the Court with several new justices.
No one should feel confident in this option. It is overwhelmingly likely that Republicans will confirm a loyal Republican judge to fill Ginsburg’s seat, and that they will do so swiftly. But Democrats still have one tool left in their chest. And if they don’t use it, well, Trumpism is likely to dominate the Supreme Court for decades or more.


vox--2020-09-18--Two movies that celebrate Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ruth Bader Ginsburg , an associate justice of the Supreme Court since 1993 , has died after a battle with pancreatic cancer .
With her death comes an almost certain firestorm of fights about the future of the Supreme Court , the presidency , and the United States — not to mention the causes she advocated for throughout her career , including gender equality and reproductive rights .
Yet Ginsburg ’ s legacy , whatever it may turn out to be , is also tied up with her late-in-life turn as a pop culture icon .
From the way she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a the pop culture figure known as the “ Notorious RBG , ” the iconography of Ginsburg introduced her to a whole new set of younger admirers .
And that ushered in versions of Ginsburg on screen , too — including two 2018 films , one drama and one documentary , that explored her life , work , and passions for a new generation .
Both are available to stream now .
On the Basis of Sex On the Basis of Sex is an old-fashioned Hollywood drama about Ginsburg ’ s early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife , then law professor , then co-litigator with her husband , Martin Ginsburg , on the 1972 gender rights case Charles E. Moritz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue .
Felicity Jones plays Ginsburg as a brilliant and determined , but very green , young lawyer who ’ s trying to find her own voice .
The movie also doubles as a story about the broader struggle for equal rights for women and men in America , as well as a primer into the way Ginsburg thought , presenting her as a shrewd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout her career .
And though it focuses on Ginsburg ’ s work , it ’ s also a romance between Ruth and Marty ( Armie Hammer ) , which — in a striking reversal of how romantic relationships usually work in movies about someone ’ s career taking off — is affectionate , trusting , mutually supportive , and beneficial to both of them .
( The film takes some liberties with the details of the Ginsburg ’ s story , but by all accounts , its depiction of their relationship is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing flashy or innovative about On the Basis of Sex .
It ’ s the very definition of a workmanlike film .
But it ’ s a satisfying watch nonetheless , and a smart one too .
How to watch it : On the Basis of Sex is available to stream on Showtime for subscribers and on Amazon Prime with the Showtime add-on .
It ’ s also available to digitally purchase on iTunes , Amazon , YouTube , Vudu , and Google Play .
In recent years — in part thanks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an icon , particularly to young , progressive women who see her as a hero .
You can buy a bevy of shirts with RBG ’ s face on it or an action figure , and there ’ s an entire category on Etsy just for “ Notorious RBG mugs.
” Directed by Betsy West and Julie Cohen , the Oscar-nominated RBG is a romping biographical documentary about Ginsburg , outlining her life starting in her youth and chronicling her long and fruitful marriage , her career , and her reputation as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ginsburg herself appears in the film to talk about her life — and to do a mean plank at the gym .
She shows herself to be a sharp assessor of her own career , even if she seems a little baffled by her iconographic status in pop culture .
( In one delightful scene , she watches Kate McKinnon ’ s Saturday Night Live impression of her for the first time and can ’ t stop laughing . )
RBG is more hagiographic in the end than probing ; what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figurine to be sold by the dozens alongside an actual figure of admiration isn ’ t part of the story here .
But RBG ’ s aim is to celebrate its subject more than to explain her , and it does that with cheerful , bold aplomb .
Where to watch it : RBG is streaming on Hulu for subscribers .
It ’ s also available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes , YouTube , Amazon , Google Play , and iTunes .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an associate justice of the Supreme Court since 1993, has died after a battle with pancreatic cancer. With her death comes an almost certain firestorm of fights about the future of the Supreme Court, the presidency, and the United States — not to mention the causes she advocated for throughout her career, including gender equality and reproductive rights.
Yet Ginsburg’s legacy, whatever it may turn out to be, is also tied up with her late-in-life turn as a pop culture icon. From the way she presented herself through fashion to her role as a the pop culture figure known as the “Notorious RBG,” the iconography of Ginsburg introduced her to a whole new set of younger admirers.
And that ushered in versions of Ginsburg on screen, too — including two 2018 films, one drama and one documentary, that explored her life, work, and passions for a new generation. Both are available to stream now.
On the Basis of Sex is an old-fashioned Hollywood drama about Ginsburg’s early years as a young law student and wife, then law professor, then co-litigator with her husband, Martin Ginsburg, on the 1972 gender rights case Charles E. Moritz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Felicity Jones plays Ginsburg as a brilliant and determined, but very green, young lawyer who’s trying to find her own voice.
The movie also doubles as a story about the broader struggle for equal rights for women and men in America, as well as a primer into the way Ginsburg thought, presenting her as a shrewd legal tactician and advocate for progressive causes throughout her career.
And though it focuses on Ginsburg’s work, it’s also a romance between Ruth and Marty (Armie Hammer), which — in a striking reversal of how romantic relationships usually work in movies about someone’s career taking off — is affectionate, trusting, mutually supportive, and beneficial to both of them. (The film takes some liberties with the details of the Ginsburgs’ story, but by all accounts, its depiction of their relationship is absolutely true.)
There’s nothing flashy or innovative about On the Basis of Sex. It’s the very definition of a workmanlike film. But it’s a satisfying watch nonetheless, and a smart one too.
How to watch it: On the Basis of Sex is available to stream on Showtime for subscribers and on Amazon Prime with the Showtime add-on. It’s also available to digitally purchase on iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play.
RBG
In recent years — in part thanks to the internet — Ginsburg became something of an icon, particularly to young, progressive women who see her as a hero. You can buy a bevy of shirts with RBG’s face on it or an action figure, and there’s an entire category on Etsy just for “Notorious RBG mugs.”
Directed by Betsy West and Julie Cohen, the Oscar-nominated RBG is a romping biographical documentary about Ginsburg, outlining her life starting in her youth and chronicling her long and fruitful marriage, her career, and her reputation as a dissenter with a bit of an attitude. Ginsburg herself appears in the film to talk about her life — and to do a mean plank at the gym. She shows herself to be a sharp assessor of her own career, even if she seems a little baffled by her iconographic status in pop culture. (In one delightful scene, she watches Kate McKinnon’s Saturday Night Live impression of her for the first time and can’t stop laughing.)
RBG is more hagiographic in the end than probing; what it means that Ginsburg has become an action figurine to be sold by the dozens alongside an actual figure of admiration isn’t part of the story here. But RBG’s aim is to celebrate its subject more than to explain her, and it does that with cheerful, bold aplomb.
Where to watch it: RBG is streaming on Hulu for subscribers. It’s also available to digitally rent or purchase on iTunes, YouTube, Amazon, Google Play, and iTunes.


vox--2020-09-18--Trump’s shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees, explained

On September 9 — just last week — President Trump unveiled his shortlist of candidates to tap for the Supreme Court should a vacancy open up under his presidency .
With Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death Friday night , he now has that opportunity .
The next Trump Supreme Court pick may well come from a list of 20 names he revealed last week , plus a longer list he had already released .
The Trump White House and his allies in the Senate have spent years preparing for the next Supreme Court vacancy .
Indeed , the judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and highly competent operation in this administration .
Trump has filled the bench with fairly young , impressively credentialed ideologues who will reliably cast very conservative votes if appointed to the Supreme Court , and his Supreme Court shortlist reflects that work .
Half of the names that Trump just announced are people he previously appointed to a lower court , and several more are individuals he ’ s appointed to non-judicial roles .
And it doesn ’ t actually matter all that much which specific name Trump chooses from his list — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off-list .
Though Trump has kept his promise to only name Supreme Court justices from a prereleased list , he frequently adds new names to it .
Neither of Trump ’ s Supreme Court appointees , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , was on the original list Trump first released in 2016 , but were added in subsequent iterations .
What all the names on the list have in common — both old and new — is that they were vetted by Trump ’ s team ( and often by the conservative Federalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reliable conservatives .
That said , there is one important divide among the names on Trump ’ s list .
Some , such as former Solicitor General Paul Clement or Fourth Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing , are solid conservatives who aren ’ t known for over-the-top , Trumpy rhetoric .
Others , such as Sens .
Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) , Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) , and Tom Cotton ( R-AR ) are politicians who spent their time in Congress flaunting their conservative bona fides and enraging Democrats .
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Ho and Kyle Duncan , are sitting judges who take the same trolly approach as Cruz , Hawley , and Cotton , but do so from the bench .
The biggest mystery , in other words , is not what the next potential Trump nominee to the Supreme Court might believe , it ’ s whether Trump would pick someone with a professional demeanor — or choose a professional troll .
Who is on Trump ’ s list ?
The 20-name list Trump released last week augments an existing list of 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most of the names on both lists possess many of the elite credentials one would expect to find in a Supreme Court nominee .
Close to half of the individuals on the new list clerked on the Supreme Court shortly after graduating from law school .
And , though the lists include a few politicians like the three senators mentioned above and Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron , both lists are dominated by sitting judges — including many Trump appointees .
Because so many Trump appointees make the list , many of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop substantial records on the bench .
But several of the names on Trump ’ s new list will raise deep concerns among Democrats .
Judge James Ho , for example , has spent his not even three years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit writing opinions that read like something published by Breitbart .
His very first judicial opinion was a sweeping attack on campaign finance laws — and it included an entirely gratuitous swipe at the Affordable Care Act .
Ho argued that “ if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics , then you should oppose big government in our lives , ” and he cited the Supreme Court ’ s decision largely upholding Obamacare to drive home his point .
Ho has also railed against the “ moral tragedy of abortion ” in an opinion where he accused a fellow federal judge of retaliating “ against people of faith for not only believing in the sanctity of life—but also for wanting to do something about it.
” Ho ’ s Fifth Circuit colleague Kyle Duncan , meanwhile , spent much of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right to vote .
As a judge , he ’ s best known for an opinion where he spent more than 10 pages explaining why he insists on referring to a transgender woman using masculine pronouns .
Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke is a particularly surprising addition to Trump ’ s list because VanDyke ’ s nomination to the federal bench was panned by the American Bar Association due to concerns that VanDyke is too lazy to do the job .
“ Mr .
VanDyke ’ s accomplishments are offset by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrogant , lazy , an ideologue , and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules , ” the ABA explained in a scathing letter deeming him unqualified for the federal bench .
The ABA ’ s investigation found that VanDyke “ lacks humility , has an ‘ entitlement ’ temperament , does not have an open mind , and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.
” It ’ s unclear why Trump loyalists would want to see someone appointed to the Supreme Court who may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do the job well .
That said , VanDyke is an outlier on Trump ’ s list .
For the most part , the nearly four dozen names Trump has suggested as possible Supreme Court nominees are diligent and highly talented lawyers .
They just also happen to be lawyers who are eager to move the law sharply to the right .
The White House ’ s judicial selection process is the most professional operation in the Trump administration To his many critics , “ Donald Trump ” is a name practically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s judicial selection operation is nothing like that .
It is both efficient and highly effective in identifying reliable conservative ideologues with sterling legal resumes .
In less than four years as president , Trump has appointed 201 lawyers to lifetime appointments on the federal bench , including 53 to powerful seats on the United States Courts of Appeal .
By contrast , President Obama appointed only 55 appellate judges during his eight years as president .
One reason for this disparity is that Senate Republicans , led by McConnell , imposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during Obama ’ s final two years in the White House .
That meant that Trump has effectively been able to fill all the appeals court vacancies that arose during his presidency , plus nearly all the vacancies that should have been filled in Obama ’ s last two years in office .
Trump ’ s judges , moreover , are quite young .
“ The average age of circuit judges appointed by President Trump is less than 50 years old , ” the Trump White House bragged in November of 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the average age of President Obama ’ s circuit nominees.
” And a large percentage of them have amassed impressive credentials such as Supreme Court clerkships and other government jobs of great influence .
All of this is a reason for liberals to be more afraid of Trump ’ s judges — and potential justices — than if Trump were picking undistinguished hacks to fill the bench .
Judges of great ability are far more likely to find innovative ways to reshape the law than incompetents and mediocrities .
Moreover , Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federalist Society ’ s brightest minds at the very moment when the judiciary is gaining power relative to the other branches .
As I wrote several months ago in a piece laying out Trump ’ s impact on the bench : If Trump gets to replace a liberal justice , this practice of judicial policymaking will only accelerate .
Environmental regulations are likely to be dismantled en masse .
Voting rights will be hollowed out even more .
Obamacare could be struck down .
And , perhaps most significantly , purely partisan Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court .
Anyone Trump names to the Supreme Court , if Trump ’ s allowed to do so , is likely to push the law relentlessly to the right .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

On September 9 — just last week — President Trump unveiled his shortlist of candidates to tap for the Supreme Court should a vacancy open up under his presidency.
With Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death Friday night, he now has that opportunity.
The next Trump Supreme Court pick may well come from a list of 20 names he revealed last week, plus a longer list he had already released.
The Trump White House and his allies in the Senate have spent years preparing for the next Supreme Court vacancy.
Indeed, the judicial selection process may be the one professional and highly competent operation in this administration. Trump has filled the bench with fairly young, impressively credentialed ideologues who will reliably cast very conservative votes if appointed to the Supreme Court, and his Supreme Court shortlist reflects that work. Half of the names that Trump just announced are people he previously appointed to a lower court, and several more are individuals he’s appointed to non-judicial roles.
And it doesn’t actually matter all that much which specific name Trump chooses from his list — or whether he ultimately decides to go off-list. Though Trump has kept his promise to only name Supreme Court justices from a prereleased list, he frequently adds new names to it. Neither of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, was on the original list Trump first released in 2016, but were added in subsequent iterations.
What all the names on the list have in common — both old and new — is that they were vetted by Trump’s team (and often by the conservative Federalist Society) to ensure that they are reliable conservatives.
That said, there is one important divide among the names on Trump’s list.
Some, such as former Solicitor General Paul Clement or Fourth Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing, are solid conservatives who aren’t known for over-the-top, Trumpy rhetoric. Others, such as Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Tom Cotton (R-AR) are politicians who spent their time in Congress flaunting their conservative bona fides and enraging Democrats. Still others, such as Fifth Circuit Judges James Ho and Kyle Duncan, are sitting judges who take the same trolly approach as Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton, but do so from the bench.
The biggest mystery, in other words, is not what the next potential Trump nominee to the Supreme Court might believe, it’s whether Trump would pick someone with a professional demeanor — or choose a professional troll.
Who is on Trump’s list?
The 20-name list Trump released last week augments an existing list of 25 names that he has released gradually.
Most of the names on both lists possess many of the elite credentials one would expect to find in a Supreme Court nominee. Close to half of the individuals on the new list clerked on the Supreme Court shortly after graduating from law school. And, though the lists include a few politicians like the three senators mentioned above and Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, both lists are dominated by sitting judges — including many Trump appointees.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, of the Seventh Circuit, is a prominent Trump appointee on both lists. She was favored by religious conservatives for Trump’s previous Court pick, perceived as potentially more likely to allow restrictions on abortions than Brett Kavanaugh.
Because so many Trump appointees make the list, many of these judges have not served long enough to develop substantial records on the bench. But several of the names on Trump’s new list will raise deep concerns among Democrats.
Judge James Ho has spent his not even three years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit writing opinions that read like something published by Breitbart. His very first judicial opinion was a sweeping attack on campaign finance laws — and it included an entirely gratuitous swipe at the Affordable Care Act. Ho argued that “if you don’t like big money in politics, then you should oppose big government in our lives,” and he cited the Supreme Court’s decision largely upholding Obamacare to drive home his point.
Ho has also railed against the “moral tragedy of abortion” in an opinion where he accused a fellow federal judge of retaliating “against people of faith for not only believing in the sanctity of life—but also for wanting to do something about it.”
Ho’s Fifth Circuit colleague Kyle Duncan, meanwhile, spent much of his pre-judicial career litigating against LGBTQ rights and the right to vote. As a judge, he’s best known for an opinion where he spent more than 10 pages explaining why he insists on referring to a transgender woman using masculine pronouns.
Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke is a particularly surprising addition to Trump’s list because VanDyke’s nomination to the federal bench was panned by the American Bar Association due to concerns that VanDyke is too lazy to do the job.
“Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules,” the ABA explained in a scathing letter deeming him unqualified for the federal bench. The ABA’s investigation found that VanDyke “lacks humility, has an ‘entitlement’ temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful.”
It’s unclear why Trump loyalists would want to see someone appointed to the Supreme Court who may lack the temperament and the work ethic to do the job well.
That said, VanDyke is an outlier on Trump’s list. For the most part, the nearly four dozen names Trump has suggested as possible Supreme Court nominees are diligent and highly talented lawyers. They just also happen to be lawyers who are eager to move the law sharply to the right.
The White House’s judicial selection process is the most professional operation in the Trump administration
To his many critics, “Donald Trump” is a name practically synonymous with goonish incompetence. But Trump’s judicial selection operation is nothing like that. It is both efficient and highly effective in identifying reliable conservative ideologues with sterling legal resumes.
In less than four years as president, Trump has appointed 201 lawyers to lifetime appointments on the federal bench, including 53 to powerful seats on the United States Courts of Appeal. By contrast, President Obama appointed only 55 appellate judges during his eight years as president.
One reason for this disparity is that Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, imposed a near-total blockade on appeals court confirmations during Obama’s final two years in the White House. That meant that Trump has effectively been able to fill all the appeals court vacancies that arose during his presidency, plus nearly all the vacancies that should have been filled in Obama’s last two years in office.
Trump’s judges, moreover, are quite young. “The average age of circuit judges appointed by President Trump is less than 50 years old,” the Trump White House bragged in November of 2019, “a full 10 years younger than the average age of President Obama’s circuit nominees.” And a large percentage of them have amassed impressive credentials such as Supreme Court clerkships and other government jobs of great influence.
All of this is a reason for liberals to be more afraid of Trump’s judges — and potential justices — than if Trump were picking undistinguished hacks to fill the bench. Judges of great ability are far more likely to find innovative ways to reshape the law than incompetents and mediocrities.
Moreover, Trump is filling the bench with some of the Federalist Society’s brightest minds at the very moment when the judiciary is gaining power relative to the other branches. As I wrote several months ago in a piece laying out Trump’s impact on the bench:
If Trump gets to replace a liberal justice, this practice of judicial policymaking will only accelerate. Environmental regulations are likely to be dismantled en masse. Voting rights will be hollowed out even more. Obamacare could be struck down. And, perhaps most significantly, purely partisan Republican arguments will gain even more purchase in the Supreme Court.
Anyone Trump names to the Supreme Court, if Trump’s allowed to do so, is likely to push the law relentlessly to the right.


vox--2020-09-18--Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court justice and feminist icon, is dead at 87

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at the age of 87 , following complications from pancreatic cancer .
The Supreme Court justice served on the Court since 1993 and was defined by her quiet , almost retreating demeanor , her meticulousness , and her preference for building consensus rather than hewing to one political ideology or another .
The perception of Ginsburg as a dissenting liberal firebrand developed relatively late in her career .
It was facilitated in part by changes in her voice as a Supreme Court justice , but more so by a shifting Court .
In her 80s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avatar , her likeness immortalized on T-shirts and mugs and as an action figure .
But her legacy remains one of advancing civil liberties and equality .
When asked to name which Supreme Court cases did the most harm during her tenure as a justice , Ginsburg listed three : the Court ’ s decision dismantling much of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder ( 2013 ) ; the decision in Rucho v. Common Cause ( 2019 ) , holding that federal courts may do nothing to stop partisan gerrymandering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. FEC ( 2010 ) , which permitted corporations to spend unlimited money to influence elections .

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at the age of 87, following complications from pancreatic cancer. The Supreme Court justice served on the Court since 1993 and was defined by her quiet, almost retreating demeanor, her meticulousness, and her preference for building consensus rather than hewing to one political ideology or another.
The perception of Ginsburg as a dissenting liberal firebrand developed relatively late in her career. It was facilitated in part by changes in her voice as a Supreme Court justice, but more so by a shifting Court.
In her 80s, Ginsburg became a feminist and liberal avatar, her likeness immortalized on T-shirts and mugs and as an action figure.
But her legacy remains one of advancing civil liberties and equality.
When asked to name which Supreme Court cases did the most harm during her tenure as a justice, Ginsburg listed three: the Court’s decision dismantling much of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder (2013); the decision in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), holding that federal courts may do nothing to stop partisan gerrymandering; and the decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which permitted corporations to spend unlimited money to influence elections.


vox--2020-09-19--What we know about a deadly shooting in Rochester, New York

Two people were killed and at least 16 others injured in a shooting at a party in Rochester , New York , on Saturday morning , according to police reports .
The shooting took place at what authorities described as an “ illegal , unsanctioned house [ party ] ” shortly after midnight , with the attendee count exceeding coronavirus restrictions .
Rochester police responded to the scene .
Authorities reported that there were multiple rounds of gunfire .
So far , no suspects have been identified or taken into custody , and an investigation is underway .
“ 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police chief Mark Simmons said at a press conference Saturday morning .
“ For our community , who is right now going through so much , to have to be dealt [ this ] tragedy needlessly ... it ’ s shameful , and we ’ re going to do everything we can as a department to bring those people involved to justice.
” The shooting comes amid protests in Rochester throughout September over the recently revealed role of police in the death of Daniel Prude in March .
Body camera footage of police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in emotional distress but nonviolent , ultimately led to the firing of the city ’ s police chief , and the resignation of top-ranking police officials .
This is a developing story .
Here ’ s what we know , and don ’ t , so far .
• ABC affiliate WHAM reported that the shooting took place in a residential neighborhood .
• Two people , both approximately between the ages of 18 and 22 , were fatally wounded at the scene .
• 14 others were shot , sustaining non-life-threatening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , two people were reportedly injured while fleeing the scene .
• Police reported the shooter fired “ several dozen ” rounds into the crowd of partygoers .
• The party , according to Simmons , was held in violation of Covid-19 regulations .
“ This is yet another tragedy , ” he said at the Saturday press conference , “ where individuals are having these illegal , unsanctioned house parties taking place on these properties which , number one , is not safe because of Covid , because of the conditions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence and it becomes a recipe for disaster.
” • Simmons described the shooting as “ chaotic , ” with approximately 100 people scattering across the scene by the time police arrived .
One witness described the shooting to WHAM as “ an all-out war zone.
” • Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren released a statement on the shooting , asking the community for “ prayers and support , ” and “ begging everyone to remain calm and exercise deep restraint as RPD investigates what happened here and seeks those responsible.
” • Authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting and the protests .
So far there ’ s no known motive , and it ’ s unclear if more than one perpetrator was involved .
What we don ’ t know • The identity of the shooter • The motivation of the shooter • The names of the victims Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Two people were killed and at least 16 others injured in a shooting at a party in Rochester, New York, on Saturday morning, according to police reports.
The shooting took place at what authorities described as an “illegal, unsanctioned house [party]” shortly after midnight, with the attendee count exceeding coronavirus restrictions. Rochester police responded to the scene. Authorities reported that there were multiple rounds of gunfire. So far, no suspects have been identified or taken into custody, and an investigation is underway.
“16 victims is unheard of,” interim police chief Mark Simmons said at a press conference Saturday morning. “For our community, who is right now going through so much, to have to be dealt [this] tragedy needlessly ... it’s shameful, and we’re going to do everything we can as a department to bring those people involved to justice.”
At about 1230 am 16 people were shot while outside @ a house party on Pennsylvania Ave. 2 victims suffered fatal wounds. In addition to the 16 shot, 2 suffered injuries while attempting to flee the gunfire. — RPD Major Crimes Unit (@RPD_MCU) September 19, 2020
The shooting comes amid protests in Rochester throughout September over the recently revealed role of police in the death of Daniel Prude in March. Body camera footage of police restricting the breathing of Prude, who was in emotional distress but nonviolent, ultimately led to the firing of the city’s police chief, and the resignation of top-ranking police officials.
This is a developing story. Here’s what we know, and don’t, so far.
ABC affiliate WHAM reported that the shooting took place in a residential neighborhood.
Two people, both approximately between the ages of 18 and 22, were fatally wounded at the scene.
14 others were shot, sustaining non-life-threatening injuries — all were hospitalized. Additionally, two people were reportedly injured while fleeing the scene.
Police reported the shooter fired “several dozen” rounds into the crowd of partygoers.
The party, according to Simmons, was held in violation of Covid-19 regulations. “This is yet another tragedy,” he said at the Saturday press conference, “where individuals are having these illegal, unsanctioned house parties taking place on these properties which, number one, is not safe because of Covid, because of the conditions, and then you add in alcohol and violence and it becomes a recipe for disaster.”
Simmons described the shooting as “chaotic,” with approximately 100 people scattering across the scene by the time police arrived. One witness described the shooting to WHAM as “an all-out war zone.”
Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren released a statement on the shooting, asking the community for “prayers and support,” and “begging everyone to remain calm and exercise deep restraint as RPD investigates what happened here and seeks those responsible.”
Authorities have not identified any connection between the shooting and the protests. So far there’s no known motive, and it’s unclear if more than one perpetrator was involved.
What we don’t know


vox--2020-09-19--This theory might explain “Covid toes” and other mysteries of the disease

Back in March , Michigan ’ s Covid-19 cases exploded — leaping from zero to 3,657 in just two weeks .
Detroit ’ s three big automakers closed factories temporarily , and the state ’ s largest health care system warned it was reaching capacity .
In the midst of this crisis , Joseph Roche , an associate professor in the physical therapy program at Wayne State University , had an idea .
From his research into muscular dystrophies , Roche understood that inflammation can do significant damage to the body .
When he read that in severe Covid-19 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tissues and organ failure , he dove into the data as well as older research on SARS .
Initially , it appeared that the virus might cause immune cells to overproduce molecules called cytokines , causing a severe inflammatory response known as a cytokine storm .
But what Roche suspected as he sifted through early case studies was that it wasn ’ t the immune system ’ s cytokines causing so much of the damage but an entirely different pathway in the circulatory system knocked off balance by the virus : bradykinin signaling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two peptides , des-Arg ( 9 ) -bradykinin , abbreviated to DABK , and bradykinin — both part of a system that regulates blood pressure and other functions — were starting a feedback loop of inflammation and tissue injury .
By stopping this reaction , he argued in an open letter to the scientific community in April and in a May paper published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology , doctors could prevent some of Covid-19 ’ s worst effects .
Several months later and 500 miles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Roche ’ s work started feeding the world ’ s second-fastest computer data from about 17,000 genetic samples from 1,300 Covid-19 patients .
The team , based at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee , asked the $ 200 million computer to look for patterns in how Covid-19 was changing genes and impacting different systems in the body .
After almost a week of data crunching , the supercomputer landed on something they found surprising : bradykinins .
“ I was literally at home on a Sunday afternoon looking at different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at me , ” Daniel Jacobson , a computational systems biologist at Oak Ridge , says .
He calls these haywire reactions a “ bradykinin storm , ” and like Roche , believes they may help researchers treat severely ill Covid-19 patients , possibly staving off damage to organ systems or even preventing deaths .
Outside researchers agree : Elements of the supercomputer ’ s analysis have been corroborated since it was published in July , and researchers say it could help lead the way to more effective treatments .
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published on bradykinin signaling since the pandemic began , and what we know about how this compound might be instigating some of the worst Covid-19 damage .
Why bradykinin signaling might be making Covid-19 so much worse How Covid-19 can prompt an inflammatory cascade gets complicated , but Roche and other experts now think bradykinin might be the key to the vascular changes , lung damage , and even neurological symptoms the disease can cause .
The virus usually enters the body through the airways and lands on cells , where a protein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As the virus replicates in the body , it finds other cells that have ACE2 receptors , such as those in the lungs , hearts , intestines , kidneys , and brain .
“ The virus not only uses ACE2 as an entryway into cells but also tells that cell ’ s nucleus to start reducing ACE2 expression , ” Roche says .
This causes an accumulation of an enzyme called DABK , which creates conditions for inflammation .
This is where bradykinin might come in .
When the virus binds with ACE2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bradykinin levels increase—causing an inflammatory cascade .
“ It creates a vicious feedback loop , ” Roche says , amplifying inflammatory processes , including producing more cytokines .
Scientists initially thought that Covid-19 caused the immune system to release an overwhelming flood of cytokines — as often happens in response to a viral infection .
In fact , promising treatments like remdesivir lower cytokine production .
But recent evidence suggests that Covid-19 patients may not have particularly elevated levels of cytokines compared to people critically ill with other respiratory conditions , and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce mortality — suggesting something else is going on .
That something , says Jacobson , might be a bradykinin storm instead .
This hypothesis fits with a surprising number of Covid-19 ’ s bizarre symptoms .
Researchers have observed many vascular symptoms , but previously blamed cytokine storms ’ inflammation or direct damage from the virus .
But bradykinin can impact how your blood coagulates — possibly explaining the strange clotting problems reported in Covid-19 patients and the high percentage of Covid-19 deaths from heart attacks , strokes , and deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bradykinin to accumulate in the cells it has hijacked , it makes your blood vessels permeable , letting your blood leak out .
This could also explain the “ Covid toes , ” that have been linked to blood circulation .
In the lungs , increasing gaps in the cells of blood vessels can spell further damage .
Lungs are covered in capillaries , so these gaps start leaking blood and immune cells into the interior surface of the lungs , potentially providing the reason for Covid-19 patients ’ respiratory distress .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supercomputer analysis , the virus might also increase the natural production of hyaluronic acid—a biopolymer familiar to skincare aficionados , as it can absorb more than 1,000 times its weight in water .
As bradykinin causes blood vessels to leak water into your lungs , it hits the hyaluronic acid in your lungs and forms a hydrogel .
“ It ’ s like trying to breathe through Jell-O , ” Jacobson says .
“ At that point , unfortunately no matter how much oxygen you ’ re pumping through a ventilator , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the hydrogel.
” Bradykinin dysregulation may also be behind the thyroid problems some Covid-19 patients are reporting .
Previous research has found that , in addition to influencing the circulatory system , bradykinin is an important regulator of thyroid hormones .
Ilaria Muller , an endocrinologist at the Fondazione IRCCS Ca ’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico in Milan , and colleagues recently found that many patients who were hospitalized had abnormally low levels of thyroid-stimulating hormones , suggesting thyrotoxicosis and at least temporary thyroid damage .
She says this damage could come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the thyroid ’ s ACE2 receptors or from systemic inflammation .
More surprisingly , bradykinin storms also help offer an explanation for some of Covid-19 ’ s neurological symptoms — from headaches to long-term nerve damage — which in one study afflicted 57 percent of Covid-19 patients .
High levels of bradykinin in particular can cause the blood-brain barrier to break down , potentially allowing the virus into the brain and causing inflammation and damage .
Finally , as Elemental reports , the theory may even explain why men seem to be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some aspects of the RAS systems have receptors on the X chromosome , meaning that women have twice the levels of these stop-gap proteins , possibly giving them extra protection against the virus .
The supercomputer model also found different gene expression patterns in the lavage fluid from the lungs of COVID-19 patients .
This is rare data , in part because getting that fluid can be dangerous to healthcare professionals , who may get infected while taking the samples , so this procedure is no longer carried out .
A clinical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Covid-19 patients ’ lungs would provide a lot of valuable information but is unlikely to happen because of the transmission risk .
When something like a virus tweaks part of the body ’ s intertwined systems , you often end up with rippling consequences—in this case , a dire trend toward inflammation , possibly through both bradykinin pathways and cytokine production .
Essentially , the bradykinin pathway gets off the track—and then it ’ s like a runaway train , potentially causing damage in many locations around your body .
What do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
After finding the potential role of bradykinins in severe Covid-19 in March , Roche went looking for a way to halt this inflammatory cascade .
“ It ’ s like a set of gear wheels—inflammation , injury , inflammation—and you ’ re trying to jam up the wheels , ” he says .
Along with his wife , Renuka Roche , an assistant professor in occupational therapy at Eastern Michigan University , he started to explore potential treatments that were ready to use .
As clinicians trained to pay a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says , “ We know that health care does not end with just saving a person ’ s life.
” Roche says life quality is important too , meaning any intervention that could minimize damage would be a true advancement in the fight against Covid-19 ’ s ravages .
Treatment targeting bradykinin signaling wouldn ’ t have to be perfect to improve lung damage and long-term outcomes .
“ If you ’ re able to even dampen the cycle by 50 percent , that means that much tissue may be spared , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Roches found a medication called icatibant that is both known to be safe and inhibits bradykinin signaling .
It was already approved by the FDA , with the added benefit of an expired patent , meaning generic versions could be made much more affordably .
They reached out to the Canadian and Indian governments about starting rapid research on icatibant in late March , wrote an open letter to the scientific community in April , and published a paper on their hypothesis in May .
At the same time , Frank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialist at Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands , was reaching similar conclusions .
He knew that ACE2 is an important part of the RAS , and in April , hypothesized that a dysregulated bradykinin system was causing blood vessels to leak into Covid-19 patients ’ lungs .
More recently , “ We published data in patients with icatibant targeting bradykinin in Covid-19 as a treatment , ” van de Veerdonk wrote Vox in an email .
While not a controlled clinical trial , van de Veerdonk published a study where nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matched to similar Covid-19 patients who were not ; the patients who ’ d received icatibant needed less supplemental oxygen and experienced no adverse effects from the drug .
In the US , Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative has started a clinical trial of five potential treatments , including icatibant .
( They are still currently enrolling patients . )
“ The safety of the drug is well understood , and it ’ s fast-acting , ” says Paul Henderson , director of collaboration at Quantum Leap .
In general , he says bradykinin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of most of the inflammatory response , including cytokines .
If proven effective , he says , these treatments will probably also be useful for influenza and other diseases that cause acute respiratory distress .
Henderson doesn ’ t discount cytokines ’ inflammatory impact altogether but suggests that interventions targeting cytokines may have been “ taking out too little of all the processes going on to have much impact.
” Imagine how much easier it is to dam a river at its headwater than closer to its mouth—similarly , interventions further “ upstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger impact .
In some ways , this work could be as important as finding a vaccine .
“ Reducing the burden on the health care system and preventing the very sickest from dying is really important , ” Henderson says .
Lo and behold , at the end of August , a clinical trial in Spain on vitamin D found that it significantly reduced the need for ICU treatment in Covid-19 patients .
But he also cautions that , like with cancer , there is unlikely to be one “ magic bullet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more likely a combination therapy , including anti-inflammatory medications and antivirals , will be necessary .
“ You ’ ll likely need different interventions in different stages of infection , ” he says .
“ It is extremely complicated.
” Nevertheless , since Jacobson ’ s paper came out , his hypotheses have been supported by other research .
For example , vitamin D is known to regulate RAS , and vitamin D deficiencies have been associated with severe cases of Covid-19 .
This fits with a part of the supercomputer analysis that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down more vitamin D. Lo and behold , at the end of August , a clinical trial in Spain on vitamin D found that it significantly reduced the need for ICU treatment in Covid-19 patients .
Similarly , another analysis , run by the World Health Organization , which incorporates seven different clinical trials , found that corticosteroids , which inhibit a protein activated by the bradykinin receptor , reduced the risk of Covid-19 death — fitting the computer model ’ s prediction neatly .
Bradykinin storms may also have implications for long-haul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Covid patient groups to gather data .
“ We ’ re looking at the top 100 symptoms and trying to map them to this mechanism , ” he says , adding that several of his fellow researchers are long-haulers .
He says one of the next questions they hope to address is whether bradykinin dysfunction continues even after the virus has cleared , if the virus itself is persisting in different organ systems or some combination of both .
When new information raises more questions The notion of bradykinin storms are appealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would explain so many of Covid-19 ’ s inscrutable impacts .
Joshua Zimmerberg , a biophysical virologist at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health , who was not involved in any of the bradykinin research , says the evidence is now compelling .
“ When you have independent confirmation , when people come to the same conclusion for different reasons—that ’ s very good evidence.
” But he warns against raising hopes for immediate treatments .
“ We all crave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflammation is really complicated .
There are still a lot of inflammatory diseases without good treatments.
” Dampening bradykinin production too much , or at the wrong time—for example , early in the infection , when the natural inflammation cycle is needed to fight the virus—might actually be harmful .
Roche says the next steps are for large-scale randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials on potential drugs that inhibit bradykinin .
“ The hypothesis , [ Jacobson ’ s ] gene expression data , [ van de Veerdonk ’ s ] small-scale case series—these won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says .
Data is needed to add drugs to doctors ’ arsenal against the pandemic .
But he ’ s gracious about more widespread attention only being directed toward bradykinin now , after he ’ s spent months trying to raise its profile .
“ The pandemic has exposed key weaknesses in health care itself , ” he says .
“ We need to empower ourselves with as much knowledge as we can , so we can serve our patients and protect ourselves.
” Lois Parshley is a freelance investigative journalist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ loisparshley .

Back in March, Michigan’s Covid-19 cases exploded — leaping from zero to 3,657 in just two weeks. Detroit’s three big automakers closed factories temporarily, and the state’s largest health care system warned it was reaching capacity.
In the midst of this crisis, Joseph Roche, an associate professor in the physical therapy program at Wayne State University, had an idea.
From his research into muscular dystrophies, Roche understood that inflammation can do significant damage to the body. When he read that in severe Covid-19 cases, runaway inflammation was causing damage to tissues and organ failure, he dove into the data as well as older research on SARS.
Initially, it appeared that the virus might cause immune cells to overproduce molecules called cytokines, causing a severe inflammatory response known as a cytokine storm. But what Roche suspected as he sifted through early case studies was that it wasn’t the immune system’s cytokines causing so much of the damage but an entirely different pathway in the circulatory system knocked off balance by the virus: bradykinin signaling.
He believed that an accumulation of two peptides, des-Arg(9)-bradykinin, abbreviated to DABK, and bradykinin — both part of a system that regulates blood pressure and other functions — were starting a feedback loop of inflammation and tissue injury. By stopping this reaction, he argued in an open letter to the scientific community in April and in a May paper published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology, doctors could prevent some of Covid-19’s worst effects.
Several months later and 500 miles away, a group of researchers unaware of Roche’s work started feeding the world’s second-fastest computer data from about 17,000 genetic samples from 1,300 Covid-19 patients. The team, based at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, asked the $200 million computer to look for patterns in how Covid-19 was changing genes and impacting different systems in the body.
After almost a week of data crunching, the supercomputer landed on something they found surprising: bradykinins. “I was literally at home on a Sunday afternoon looking at different visualizations, and it just jumped out at me,” Daniel Jacobson, a computational systems biologist at Oak Ridge, says.
He calls these haywire reactions a “bradykinin storm,” and like Roche, believes they may help researchers treat severely ill Covid-19 patients, possibly staving off damage to organ systems or even preventing deaths. Outside researchers agree: Elements of the supercomputer’s analysis have been corroborated since it was published in July, and researchers say it could help lead the way to more effective treatments.
Here’s a deep dive into what has been published on bradykinin signaling since the pandemic began, and what we know about how this compound might be instigating some of the worst Covid-19 damage.
Why bradykinin signaling might be making Covid-19 so much worse
How Covid-19 can prompt an inflammatory cascade gets complicated, but Roche and other experts now think bradykinin might be the key to the vascular changes, lung damage, and even neurological symptoms the disease can cause.
The virus usually enters the body through the airways and lands on cells, where a protein called ACE2 functions as a doorway. As the virus replicates in the body, it finds other cells that have ACE2 receptors, such as those in the lungs, hearts, intestines, kidneys, and brain.
“The virus not only uses ACE2 as an entryway into cells but also tells that cell’s nucleus to start reducing ACE2 expression,” Roche says. This causes an accumulation of an enzyme called DABK, which creates conditions for inflammation.
This is where bradykinin might come in. When the virus binds with ACE2 receptors, DABK piles up, and bradykinin levels increase—causing an inflammatory cascade. “It creates a vicious feedback loop,” Roche says, amplifying inflammatory processes, including producing more cytokines.
Scientists initially thought that Covid-19 caused the immune system to release an overwhelming flood of cytokines — as often happens in response to a viral infection. In fact, promising treatments like remdesivir lower cytokine production. But recent evidence suggests that Covid-19 patients may not have particularly elevated levels of cytokines compared to people critically ill with other respiratory conditions, and other interventions attempting to lower cytokine production failed to reduce mortality — suggesting something else is going on.
That something, says Jacobson, might be a bradykinin storm instead. This hypothesis fits with a surprising number of Covid-19’s bizarre symptoms.
Researchers have observed many vascular symptoms, but previously blamed cytokine storms’ inflammation or direct damage from the virus. But bradykinin can impact how your blood coagulates — possibly explaining the strange clotting problems reported in Covid-19 patients and the high percentage of Covid-19 deaths from heart attacks, strokes, and deep vein thrombosis. As the virus causes bradykinin to accumulate in the cells it has hijacked, it makes your blood vessels permeable, letting your blood leak out. This could also explain the “Covid toes,” that have been linked to blood circulation.
In the lungs, increasing gaps in the cells of blood vessels can spell further damage. Lungs are covered in capillaries, so these gaps start leaking blood and immune cells into the interior surface of the lungs, potentially providing the reason for Covid-19 patients’ respiratory distress.
To make things worse, according to the supercomputer analysis, the virus might also increase the natural production of hyaluronic acid—a biopolymer familiar to skincare aficionados, as it can absorb more than 1,000 times its weight in water. As bradykinin causes blood vessels to leak water into your lungs, it hits the hyaluronic acid in your lungs and forms a hydrogel. “It’s like trying to breathe through Jell-O,” Jacobson says. “At that point, unfortunately no matter how much oxygen you’re pumping through a ventilator, you can’t get a gas exchange through the hydrogel.”
Bradykinin dysregulation may also be behind the thyroid problems some Covid-19 patients are reporting. Previous research has found that, in addition to influencing the circulatory system, bradykinin is an important regulator of thyroid hormones.
Ilaria Muller, an endocrinologist at the Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico in Milan, and colleagues recently found that many patients who were hospitalized had abnormally low levels of thyroid-stimulating hormones, suggesting thyrotoxicosis and at least temporary thyroid damage. She says this damage could come from direct damage from the virus through the thyroid’s ACE2 receptors or from systemic inflammation.
More surprisingly, bradykinin storms also help offer an explanation for some of Covid-19’s neurological symptoms — from headaches to long-term nerve damage — which in one study afflicted 57 percent of Covid-19 patients. High levels of bradykinin in particular can cause the blood-brain barrier to break down, potentially allowing the virus into the brain and causing inflammation and damage.
Finally, as Elemental reports, the theory may even explain why men seem to be more likely to have worse cases of Covid-19. Some aspects of the RAS systems have receptors on the X chromosome, meaning that women have twice the levels of these stop-gap proteins, possibly giving them extra protection against the virus.
The supercomputer model also found different gene expression patterns in the lavage fluid from the lungs of COVID-19 patients. This is rare data, in part because getting that fluid can be dangerous to healthcare professionals, who may get infected while taking the samples, so this procedure is no longer carried out. A clinical trial measuring actual bradykinin levels in samples from Covid-19 patients’ lungs would provide a lot of valuable information but is unlikely to happen because of the transmission risk.
When something like a virus tweaks part of the body’s intertwined systems, you often end up with rippling consequences—in this case, a dire trend toward inflammation, possibly through both bradykinin pathways and cytokine production. Essentially, the bradykinin pathway gets off the track—and then it’s like a runaway train, potentially causing damage in many locations around your body.
What do bradykinin storms mean for possible Covid-19 treatments?
After finding the potential role of bradykinins in severe Covid-19 in March, Roche went looking for a way to halt this inflammatory cascade. “It’s like a set of gear wheels—inflammation, injury, inflammation—and you’re trying to jam up the wheels,” he says. Along with his wife, Renuka Roche, an assistant professor in occupational therapy at Eastern Michigan University, he started to explore potential treatments that were ready to use.
As clinicians trained to pay a lot of attention to recovery through rehabilitation, he says, “We know that health care does not end with just saving a person’s life.” Roche says life quality is important too, meaning any intervention that could minimize damage would be a true advancement in the fight against Covid-19’s ravages.
Treatment targeting bradykinin signaling wouldn’t have to be perfect to improve lung damage and long-term outcomes. “If you’re able to even dampen the cycle by 50 percent, that means that much tissue may be spared,” Roche says.
In the medical literature, the Roches found a medication called icatibant that is both known to be safe and inhibits bradykinin signaling. It was already approved by the FDA, with the added benefit of an expired patent, meaning generic versions could be made much more affordably. They reached out to the Canadian and Indian governments about starting rapid research on icatibant in late March, wrote an open letter to the scientific community in April, and published a paper on their hypothesis in May.
At the same time, Frank van de Veerdonk, an infectious disease specialist at Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, was reaching similar conclusions. He knew that ACE2 is an important part of the RAS, and in April, hypothesized that a dysregulated bradykinin system was causing blood vessels to leak into Covid-19 patients’ lungs.
More recently, “We published data in patients with icatibant targeting bradykinin in Covid-19 as a treatment,” van de Veerdonk wrote Vox in an email. While not a controlled clinical trial, van de Veerdonk published a study where nine hospitalized patients were treated with icatibant and matched to similar Covid-19 patients who were not; the patients who’d received icatibant needed less supplemental oxygen and experienced no adverse effects from the drug.
In the US, Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative has started a clinical trial of five potential treatments, including icatibant. (They are still currently enrolling patients.) “The safety of the drug is well understood, and it’s fast-acting,” says Paul Henderson, director of collaboration at Quantum Leap.
In general, he says bradykinin receptors are interesting because they are upstream of most of the inflammatory response, including cytokines. If proven effective, he says, these treatments will probably also be useful for influenza and other diseases that cause acute respiratory distress.
Henderson doesn’t discount cytokines’ inflammatory impact altogether but suggests that interventions targeting cytokines may have been “taking out too little of all the processes going on to have much impact.” Imagine how much easier it is to dam a river at its headwater than closer to its mouth—similarly, interventions further “upstream” in biological pathways could have a larger impact.
In some ways, this work could be as important as finding a vaccine. “Reducing the burden on the health care system and preventing the very sickest from dying is really important,” Henderson says.
Lo and behold, at the end of August, a clinical trial in Spain on vitamin D found that it significantly reduced the need for ICU treatment in Covid-19 patients.
But he also cautions that, like with cancer, there is unlikely to be one “magic bullet drug.” Instead, it’s more likely a combination therapy, including anti-inflammatory medications and antivirals, will be necessary. “You’ll likely need different interventions in different stages of infection,” he says. “It is extremely complicated.”
Nevertheless, since Jacobson’s paper came out, his hypotheses have been supported by other research. For example, vitamin D is known to regulate RAS, and vitamin D deficiencies have been associated with severe cases of Covid-19.
This fits with a part of the supercomputer analysis that suggested the virus activates genes that break down more vitamin D. Lo and behold, at the end of August, a clinical trial in Spain on vitamin D found that it significantly reduced the need for ICU treatment in Covid-19 patients.
Similarly, another analysis, run by the World Health Organization, which incorporates seven different clinical trials, found that corticosteroids, which inhibit a protein activated by the bradykinin receptor, reduced the risk of Covid-19 death — fitting the computer model’s prediction neatly.
Bradykinin storms may also have implications for long-haul Covid-19 patients. Jacobson is now collaborating with Covid patient groups to gather data. “We’re looking at the top 100 symptoms and trying to map them to this mechanism,” he says, adding that several of his fellow researchers are long-haulers.
He says one of the next questions they hope to address is whether bradykinin dysfunction continues even after the virus has cleared, if the virus itself is persisting in different organ systems or some combination of both.
When new information raises more questions
The notion of bradykinin storms are appealing because they offer a tantalizingly unified theory that would explain so many of Covid-19’s inscrutable impacts. Joshua Zimmerberg, a biophysical virologist at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health, who was not involved in any of the bradykinin research, says the evidence is now compelling. “When you have independent confirmation, when people come to the same conclusion for different reasons—that’s very good evidence.”
But he warns against raising hopes for immediate treatments. “We all crave simple pathways and simple ideas, but inflammation is really complicated. There are still a lot of inflammatory diseases without good treatments.” Dampening bradykinin production too much, or at the wrong time—for example, early in the infection, when the natural inflammation cycle is needed to fight the virus—might actually be harmful.
Roche says the next steps are for large-scale randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials on potential drugs that inhibit bradykinin. “The hypothesis, [Jacobson’s] gene expression data, [van de Veerdonk’s] small-scale case series—these won’t move the needle,” he says. Data is needed to add drugs to doctors’ arsenal against the pandemic. But he’s gracious about more widespread attention only being directed toward bradykinin now, after he’s spent months trying to raise its profile.
“The pandemic has exposed key weaknesses in health care itself,” he says. “We need to empower ourselves with as much knowledge as we can, so we can serve our patients and protect ourselves.”
Lois Parshley is a freelance investigative journalist. Follow her Covid-19 reporting on Twitter @loisparshley.


vox--2020-09-18--What a SCOTUS vacancy means for Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act is coming before the Supreme Court in November — and this time , with no Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg there to protect the law .
Ginsburg , who was appointed to the Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and served until her death on Friday , voted to uphold the law in 2012 .
Along with the three other liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts , she saved Obamacare then from a legal challenge that would have invalidated the law entirely .
But now another challenge , a sequel of sorts to that 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court without Ginsburg on it .
A consortium of Republican-led states have sued again to overturn the ACA completely .
In 2012 , Roberts sided with the liberal justices including Ginsburg and ruled that the law ’ s individual mandate penalty could stand because it was a legitimate use of Congress ’ s taxing power .
Now , because a GOP-controlled Congress repealed the penalty in their 2017 tax law , the Republican states argue Roberts ’ s rationale from 2012 no longer applies and the ACA must fall .
It was assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Obamacare would probably be safe because the same five votes that preserved it in 2012 were still on the bench .
But now , with Ginsburg ’ s death , that is no longer true .
There is a lot of uncertainty about what happens next , but the bottom line is this : The ACA is much more at risk of being overturned today than it was the day before .
“ It ’ s a much more significant possibility than it was , ” Nicholas Bagley , a University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration , told me .
“ I ’ m much more worried about the ACA than I was two hours ago.
” The consequences of the Court overturning Obamacare would be severe : The Medicaid expansion and the insurance marketplaces that cover 25 million people would be nullified , the protections for people with preexisting conditions would be voided .
Overnight , the US health care system would be thrown into chaos .
However , that worst-case scenario is not a given even after Ginsburg ’ s passing .
There are matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case that could still save the ACA .
First , the procedure : Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is promising to hold a vote on President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to replace Ginsburg , but he hasn ’ t set a timeline for that vote .
Bagley told me that convention dictates justices should not rule on cases they did not hear the oral arguments for .
The Senate holding its hearings and voting on a Court nominee before November 10 , the scheduled date for the ACA arguments , seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new justice won ’ t be confirmed before oral arguments , the current Court has two choices .
One , they could choose to postpone oral arguments .
But that would require five votes , and such a consensus could be difficult to come by on a closely divided Court , with nobody certain how the incoming justice will rule .
The other option is to hear the case as scheduled and have eight justices decide the outcome .
If there was a 4-4 tie , the decision of the lower courts would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means a federal district court judge would be asked to decide what other parts of the law must also fall if the mandate is overturned .
Those could include the law ’ s rules banning insurers from denying people coverage or charging them higher premiums because of their medical history .
So the litigation would , in a certain sense , start over , and the same case would likely end up back before the Supreme Court in another year or two .
However , some of the legal experts I spoke with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November and Obamacare ultimately upheld even without Ginsburg on the bench .
Why ?
As Bagley put it : “ This lawsuit is profoundly dumb , and that matters a lot.
” That is not a partisan position either .
Jonathan Adler , a libertarian law professor at Case Western Reserve University , told me in 2018 he thought the Republican states ’ argument was “ absurd.
” The case turns on the complicated legal concept of “ severability ” : If one provision in a law is invalidated by a court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without it ?
Texas is arguing that the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare that if it is unconstitutional , then the rest of the law is too .
Courts usually decide that question by looking at Congress ’ s intent — and that ’ s where the conservative case falls apart .
It is actually quite simple , legal scholars say : Congress passed a law , the tax legislation , repealing the individual mandate and leaving the insurance protections in place .
So , clearly , Congress intended in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while keeping the ACA ’ s insurance reforms .
That is exactly what the tax law they just passed does .
Adler told me Friday night that he thought there were still five or six votes on the Supreme Court who would rule that even if the mandate is now unconstitutional , the rest of the law is severable from it and should therefore be upheld .
Justice Brett Kavanaugh is believed to be sympathetic to that argument , based on some recent decisions , though that remains to be seen .
Nevertheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Supreme Court “ shouldn ’ t affect the outcome ” of the ACA case .
That could very well end up being true .
Legal experts have long been dubious about the merits of the lawsuit .
But right now , in the hours after the world learned Ginsburg had died , the future looks a little less certain .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as @ @ @ @ @

The Affordable Care Act is coming before the Supreme Court in November — and this time, with no Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg there to protect the law.
Ginsburg, who was appointed to the Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and served until her death on Friday, voted to uphold the law in 2012. Along with the three other liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts, she saved Obamacare then from a legal challenge that would have invalidated the law entirely.
But now another challenge, a sequel of sorts to that 2012 case, will be heard by a Court without Ginsburg on it. A consortium of Republican-led states have sued again to overturn the ACA completely. In 2012, Roberts sided with the liberal justices including Ginsburg and ruled that the law’s individual mandate penalty could stand because it was a legitimate use of Congress’s taxing power. Now, because a GOP-controlled Congress repealed the penalty in their 2017 tax law, the Republican states argue Roberts’s rationale from 2012 no longer applies and the ACA must fall.
It was assumed in Washington, up until Friday, that Obamacare would probably be safe because the same five votes that preserved it in 2012 were still on the bench. But now, with Ginsburg’s death, that is no longer true. There is a lot of uncertainty about what happens next, but the bottom line is this: The ACA is much more at risk of being overturned today than it was the day before.
“It’s a much more significant possibility than it was,” Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor who worked in the Obama administration, told me. “I’m much more worried about the ACA than I was two hours ago.”
The consequences of the Court overturning Obamacare would be severe: The Medicaid expansion and the insurance marketplaces that cover 25 million people would be nullified, the protections for people with preexisting conditions would be voided. Overnight, the US health care system would be thrown into chaos.
However, that worst-case scenario is not a given even after Ginsburg’s passing. There are matters of court procedure and the substance of the case that could still save the ACA.
First, the procedure: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is promising to hold a vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg, but he hasn’t set a timeline for that vote. Bagley told me that convention dictates justices should not rule on cases they did not hear the oral arguments for. The Senate holding its hearings and voting on a Court nominee before November 10, the scheduled date for the ACA arguments, seems unlikely if not impossible.
If a new justice won’t be confirmed before oral arguments, the current Court has two choices. One, they could choose to postpone oral arguments. But that would require five votes, and such a consensus could be difficult to come by on a closely divided Court, with nobody certain how the incoming justice will rule.
The other option is to hear the case as scheduled and have eight justices decide the outcome. If there was a 4-4 tie, the decision of the lower courts would hold. In this case, that means a federal district court judge would be asked to decide what other parts of the law must also fall if the mandate is overturned. Those could include the law’s rules banning insurers from denying people coverage or charging them higher premiums because of their medical history.
So the litigation would, in a certain sense, start over, and the same case would likely end up back before the Supreme Court in another year or two.
However, some of the legal experts I spoke with believe the lawsuit will still be heard in November and Obamacare ultimately upheld even without Ginsburg on the bench.
Why? As Bagley put it: “This lawsuit is profoundly dumb, and that matters a lot.”
That is not a partisan position either. Jonathan Adler, a libertarian law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told me in 2018 he thought the Republican states’ argument was “absurd.”
The case turns on the complicated legal concept of “severability”: If one provision in a law is invalidated by a court, can the rest of it stand without it? Texas is arguing that the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare that if it is unconstitutional, then the rest of the law is too.
Courts usually decide that question by looking at Congress’s intent — and that’s where the conservative case falls apart.
It is actually quite simple, legal scholars say: Congress passed a law, the tax legislation, repealing the individual mandate and leaving the insurance protections in place. So, clearly, Congress intended in the tax bill to eliminate the mandate penalty while keeping the ACA’s insurance reforms. That is exactly what the tax law they just passed does.
Adler told me Friday night that he thought there were still five or six votes on the Supreme Court who would rule that even if the mandate is now unconstitutional, the rest of the law is severable from it and should therefore be upheld. Justice Brett Kavanaugh is believed to be sympathetic to that argument, based on some recent decisions, though that remains to be seen.
Nevertheless, Adler said, a new vacancy on the Supreme Court “shouldn’t affect the outcome” of the ACA case.
That could very well end up being true. Legal experts have long been dubious about the merits of the lawsuit. But right now, in the hours after the world learned Ginsburg had died, the future looks a little less certain.