The SCOTUS may swing right, but is that right?

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg shows us everything that is wrong with the Supreme Court.

Those on the left are wailing and gnashing their teeth. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez suggests leftists, "Let this moment radicalize you." (Is their something more radical than nationwide domestic terrorism?) Elected representatives on the left -- who demanded Merrick Garland receive a hearing in 2016 -- are demanding that no hearings be held for a Trump appointee. Even Ginsberg herself supported a hearing for Garland in 2016, but her last "fervent wish" was that a new president be "installed" before her replacement is named.

Those on the right are not absolved from the political tainting of the branch of government that is intended to be the most apolitical. How many conservative friends do you hear saying, "The balance of the Court just swung back in our favor." I've said it myself. We too view the Court through a political prism that our Founders expected, and tried to prevent.

Ultimately, Supreme Court nominations end up becoming the equivalent of two children fighting over which is going to get their way. The left fights for abortion like it's the most important "right" on earth. The right fights for gun rights which, well, are a right.

Abortion is the cause that democrats use to say dumb things like, "A Roman Catholic should not be a Supreme Court Justice." Or as Sen. Kamala Harris put it during Judge Amy Coney Barrett's hearing for a seat on a federal district bench, "The dogma runs strong within you."

Could you imagine what would have happened if a republican senator would have said, "You're qualified, Judge Ginsberg, but you're too much of a Jew for my taste." And yet, the religious animosity of the left goes virtually unchecked.

It's interesting that democrats so staunchly oppose a Catholic being confirmed as a justice. After all, they are a party that wants to make a Roman Catholic the most powerful person on planet earth. And they are certainly more than content with the person third in line for that seat being a Roman Catholic. Yet they blast a Roman Catholic who may be appointed to the Court. Leftist hypocrisy has become exhausting.

Further, democrat "leadership" is telling us that if a potential justice has any doubts whatsoever about Roe v. Wade, they're not qualified for a spot on the bench. However, no such litmus test is required for a potential justice who opposes D.C. v. Heller.

And so here we are. Each side expects that justices not interpret the Constitution (as is their ONLY mandate) but rather take their side of important political issues. The politicization of the SCOTUS, and the resulting damage to our Founding documents and our society is a tremendous scourge on a country that already has more than its fair share of scourges these days.

The passing of Justice Ginsberg does nothing but highlight the problems with the SCOTUS. She asked with her dying breath that a new justice not be appointed until a new president is "installed." Make no mistake. Supreme Court justices spend their lives choosing their words extremely carefully. For Ginsberg to have used the word "installed," is borderline horrifying. We don't "install" presidents. We elect them. They take office rightfully after the American people have spoken at the ballot box. (Or mailbox as the case may be.) Kings and dictators are "installed." Presidents of the United States are not.

Further, why does she want the process to wait until after the election and a new president taking office? Simple. President Trump does not hold the same political ideology as Justice Ginsberg did. She wanted a democrat president to appoint another leftist justice, in an effort to swing the Court toward her own ideology.

It's sad that a Supreme Court justice who is lying in State and being revered as a national matriarch was -- I'm going to say it -- a political hack. If her last words are true (and dying declarations are admissible in court) she demonstrated that she never belonged on the Court in the first place.

Our Founders believed that justices receiving lifetime appointments would prevent the Court from becoming politicized. They were right about their fear. They were wrong about the solution. Of course, any time an appointment is made by a political partisan, one can only expect that they would choose a political partisan. Such has been the case for most of the life of the Supreme Court to this point.

Except not really. Republican appointee, Chief Justice John Roberts, is very much a swing vote. He voted in favor of the fine Obamacare levied for not purchasing health insurance -- accepting the idea that it was a tax and not a fine. Justice Clarence Thomas, also a republican appointee, has proven to be the strictest "originalist" on the Court. His only clear devotion is to the document he swore to protect and defend.

Many republicans -- including myself -- don't like the Chief Justice. Decisions like the one I cited are the reason why. Chief Justice Roberts doesn't take our political side; nor do we view him as making strictly Constitutional decisions. I am still at a loss as to how he can properly defend his ACA vote constitutionally.

However, for me to criticize the Chief Justice for not deciding cases the way I would as a conservative makes me part of the problem. In all honesty, it makes me no better than Justice Ginsberg. The only difference being that my opinion does not change the face of the entire country.

It's unlikely that I'll drift far from my constitutional conservative approach to politics. It's unlikely that the hardcore leftists and extreme right wingers will vary from theirs. And so it's unlikely that the criteria for choosing justices will change. Their Roe decision will be protected. And God willing, my Heller will too.

As for justice Ginsberg, I wish her a blissful eternal rest. I pray for her family and all who love her. But I hope her view of the high court will encourage us all to do better.

-- Jason Fornwalt, ToL Times editor/staff writer