ruth 1.17

Democrats from Barack Obama on down are on the verge of their biggest defeat ever.

And it all boils down to the health of one Supreme Court Justice.

But now this Justice just disappeared from public and you won’t believe what happened next.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health is one of the biggest – and most impactful – stories in American politics right now.

Many Americans believe it is bigger than the shutdown and bigger than Robert Mueller’s rigged witch hunt.

Ginsberg missed two weeks’ worth of oral arguments after doctors removed cancerous tumors from her lungs.

Now Ginsberg just canceled an appearance in Los Angeles at the Skirball Cultural Center where she was set to attend the celebration of an exhibit of ‘The Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’ that honored her life.

The institution tweeted, “Update: An Evening with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is CANCELED. The Justice regrets that she is unable to visit the Skirball on 1/29. She is curtailing travel and focusing on her work while recuperating from recent surgery. Thank you for your understanding.”

Ginsberg – who claimed this past summer she wanted to serve at least five more years on the court – is entering territory that’s causing panic on the left.

And now academics and Supreme Court observers are wondering if something must be done to ensure Justices do not stay on the court past the time they are fully capable of doing their job.

Of course much of this hysteria stems from the fact that Ginsberg’s health is declining during a time when Donald Trump is President and Republicans control the Senate.

Liberals know that with a healthy-enough margin of Republicans in the Senate, Trump can successfully nominate any pro-life conservative to replace Ginsberg should she step down.

But one idea that University of Chicago law professor Daniel Hemel recently floated was reviving a 1970s  era proposal that allows a panel of 12 judges to force another judge to retire if they feel that judge can no longer perform their duties.

Hemel wrote in Politico, “A third proposal targets the problem of disability more directly. In the 1970s, Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia repeatedly introduced legislation that would have allowed a panel of 12 federal judges to force the retirement of a Supreme Court justice or lower court judge if a majority of the panel concluded he was mentally or physically incapacitated. Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama introduced a constitutional amendment with a similar goal in 1989.”

This idea came on the heels of Ginsberg’s health having revived the debate about a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices.

But no one believes that idea would lead to less contentious battles over Supreme Court nominations.

And a panel of judges declaring a Supreme Court Justice unfit would lead to accusations of a partisan coup.

A majority of Democrat judges could force a Republican appointee to retire and allow a Democrat President and Senate to confirm their successor and swing the court for a generation.

There are many proposals to change how long Supreme Court Justices serve, but the original lifetime appointment that the founders laid out is the option that carries the fewest drawbacks.

We will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story.