By Hal Brown
I hate to bring this up on the day when anyone with a conscience is mourning John Lewis but his death at 80 combined with Ruth Bader Ginsburg announcing she is being treated for liver cancer brings this to mind.
Justice Ginsberg, in her announcement about her cancer was quoted as follows: “I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that."
Part of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy, as opposed to the current crop of right wing justices, is that she has kept partisan politics out of her decisions. I hate to say that I hope she doesn’t hold herself to this promise should she become so debilitated that she can no longer devote herself to her responsibilities as a Supreme Court Justice. I want this decision to be political, but still for the greater good.
I am loath to put myself in her place because the ultimate decision is hers. I still have an opinion. It is this: if her cancer and its treatment moves to the point where she has all she can do to stay alive, assuming Trump loses the election, I hope she changes her mind and doesn’t resign no matter what her physical or mental condition is. She is tolerating chemotherapy now but it can become an arduous debilitating experience causing extreme fatigue and loss of appetite.
Even so, I want her to hang on until Jan. 20th. Even on Jan. 19th
Correction : Thanks to commenter jgkojak this should read Jan. 3rd when the new hopefully Democratic Senate is sworn in when McConnell will have no power.
The Senate is divided into three classes for election purposes, and every two years one-third of the Senate is elected or reelected. For this reason, only a third of the senators will take the oath on January 3. Reference
Trump could nominate someone and if the Republicans win the Senate they could approve that person.
I believe that at one level the ethical and moral thing for her to do would be to resign if she could no longer fulfilled her duties. However I think situational ethics applies here.
In situation ethics, right and wrong depend upon the situation.
There are no universal moral rules or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique solution.
Situation ethics rejects 'prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules'. It teaches that ethical decisions should follow flexible guidelines rather than absolute rules, and be taken on a case by case basis.
.So a person who practices situation ethics approaches ethical problems with some general moral principles rather than a rigorous set of ethical laws and is prepared to give up even those principles if doing so will lead to a greater good. Reference
I also hope that the Democrats have the best strategy as possible to keep Trump from putting a far right sycophant on the court should RGB die or resign while he still has time to nominate someone and have them approved by the Senate.