Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, January 17, 2019

Y

es — the day we have 
all 
feared 
is 
fast 

approaching. 
With 

health issues including two 
cancerous 
nodules 
recently 

removed from her lungs and 
broken ribs, it seems as if 
the day Justice Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg must step down is 
coming quicker than we had 
hoped. Imagining the court 
without the “Notorious RBG” 
requires a dynamic analysis. 
First, we must assess the effect 
that Ginsburg uniquely has on 
the court, and then measure 
the effect (or damage, as we 
liberals like to call it) another 
Trump nominee would have 
on the rulings of hot-button 
cases such as gun control and 
abortion.

Let’s start with what we 

would be losing if Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg was no longer an 
associate 
justice. 
Justice 

Ginsburg is most famously 
known as a maverick and 
trailblazer for women’s rights. 
As one of the first women on 
the Supreme Court, Ginsburg 
has 
made 
the 
greatest 

contribution of any justice 
towards promoting women’s 
rights. Ginsburg is known as 
“the last vestige of an old guard 
of liberalism,” and is the last 
pillar holding up the fragile 
balance between an oppressive 
court and a fair one.

While Sotomayor, Kagan 

and Breyer remain associate 
justices 
within 
the 
court, 

Ginsburg, 
being 
the 
most 

senior left-leaning justice, has 
had a rich history of finding 
creative new ways to uphold 
the rights of all marginalized 
groups, 
especially 
women. 

Whether it be in creating new 
levels of scrutiny within the 
law to address gender-based 
discrimination in United States 
v. Virginia or protecting the 
rights of intellectually disabled 
individuals in Olmstead v. L.C., 
her legal expertise has created 
liberty and equality under the 
law for all Americans. 

So, 
who 
could 
possibly 

replace RBG? In the midst of 
the Trump presidency, one 

thing that is certain is that 
another staunch conservative 
will be appointed to take the 
position of an open seat on the 
court, as was the case with 
Trump’s 
two 
appointments 

thus far. The additions of 
accused sexual assailant Brett 
Kavanaugh 
and 
National 

Rifle 
Association-endorsed 

Neil Gorsuch have pointed 
the court in a decisively more 
conservative 
direction 
even 

with Ginsburg still there.

The significant ideological 

differences that exist between 
Justice Kavanaugh and his 
predecessor, 
retired 
Justice 

Anthony Kennedy, suggest that 
narrowly made decisions in 
favor of women’s rights such 
as Whole Woman’s Health v. 
Hellerstedt 
and 
Obergefell 

v. Hodges would most likely 
not be upheld had they been 
argued in the SCOTUS of 
2019. Now, if we factor in the 
removal of Justice Ginsburg 
and the addition of another 
fairly 
conservative 
justice, 

the court’s 6-3 conservative 
majority would definitely favor 
a right-wing agenda.

Much of this could be seen as 

just angry words from another 
paranoid liberal. I mean, how 
much has the Citizens United 
v. Federal Election Committee 
ruling 
changed 
the 
way 

you brush your teeth every 
morning? While many people 
do not readily admit to the 
large impact of the Supreme 
Court, just ask yourself — 
how many normal events that 
occur in your day-to-day life 
are affected by an entity of the 
government? As we move closer 
to a “nanny state,” we somehow 
come to find the government in 
every nook and cranny of our 
lives, with the consequences 
of the issues being litigated 
applicable more to young adults 
than ever before.

With 
the 
tremendous 

hyperpartisanship 
in 
both 

houses of Congress creating 
either 
extreme 
policies 
or 

no policies at all, we end up 
relying more on the courts 
to 
rectify 
change 
when 

desperately needed within the 
country. Little did you think 
that the person you are allowed 
to 
marry, 
how 
you 
were 

admitted into college or any 
higher learning institute and, 
of course, how much control 
you have over your body would 
be decided ultimately by the 
Supreme Court.

In a sense, how could you not 

care that Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
may be leaving the Supreme 
Court? The issues listed above 
are just the tip of the iceberg 
when it comes to Supreme 
Court cases that Ginsburg has 
played an integral role on. Call 
this some sort of emotional 
ode to the woman herself, but 
if you are an individual who 
cares about equality, women’s 
rights and expanding the rights 
of the people, there is so much 
to be concerned about with 
this woman leaving because, 
frankly, nobody can do what 
she does.

Was my goal in writing this 

piece to scare you? No. Though 
my words may seem to imply the 
potential for a large negative 
shift in a young adult’s life if 
RBG were to retire during the 
Trump presidency, the truth is 
that we all should be realistic 
about the effect this woman 
has had in our lives and on our 
country.

With so much trust based 

in the Supreme Court as the 
arbiter for partisan-poisoned 
politics, there is a lot of 
room for things to go wrong. 
And while I can cite cases 
RBG presided over that may 
not have elicited the best 
result, the resolve and the 
commitment of Ginsburg has 
remained a ray of sunshine 
on dark days. Maybe America 
will see another maverick 
in 
the 
future, 
or 
maybe 

the 
seemingly 
“alt-right” 

conservative ideology of the 
court will be cemented for 
decades to come. Only time 
will tell what lies in the 
future.

What would SCOTUS look like without Justice Ginsburg?

AMBIKA SINHA | COLUMN

Ambika Sinha can be reached at 

ambikavs@umich.edu.

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

FINNTAN STORER

Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN

Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 

AND JOEL DANILEWITZ

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Washington must put country over party to get results
T

his month, Democrats 

officially 
took 
back 

the 
House 
from 

Republicans 
after 

eight years in the 

minority. Powered 

by suburban angst 

over the president, 

Democrats 
come 

to office energized 

to 
oppose 
the 

president 
at 

every 
turn. 
In 

fact, 
Rep. 
Brad 

Sherman, D–Calif., 

introduced articles 

of impeachment against the 

president on the very first day 

of the new Congress. While this 

new development is significant 

given Democratic control of the 

House, Democrats have pledged 

to impeach President Trump 

since he was first elected.

Whatever you may think 

about 
President 
Trump, 

this 
is 
wrong. 
While 
the 

president has certainly been 

controversial, he was chosen 

by the American people to 

serve as our commander in 

chief. Attempting to remove 

the 
president 
before 
his 

term is up is poisonous to 

our 
politics. 
We 
send 
our 

politicians 
to 
Washington, 

D.C. so they can work for us, 

not to play politics. However, 

some Democrats have been 

gleefully anticipating President 

Trump’s 
impeachment 
since 

day one instead of working 

with him. Chief among them 

is newly elected Rep. Rashida 

Tlaib, D–Detroit, who said, 

“We’re gonna go in there and 

we’re 
gonna 
impeach 
the 

motherf-----.” By going on 

profanity-laden rants against 

our president, Rep. Tlaib and 

her cohort have damaged our 

democracy greatly by casting 

aside the results of the 2016 

election in order to satisfy a 

vendetta against the president. 

Washington politicians on both 

sides need to put results over 

politics to move our country 

forward. If we come together 

and achieve bipartisan results, 

America will successfully face 

down the Herculean challenges 

before us.

An excellent place to start 

is 
re-opening 
the 
federal 

government. 
Thanks 
to 

disagreements 
over 
border 

security, the government shut 

down at midnight on Dec. 

22. Despite the great harm 

a government shutdown has 

on 
the 
functioning 
of 
our 

government and our standing 

abroad, 
this 
shutdown 
has 

dragged into 2019 and the 116th 

Congress. This shutdown has 

already had adverse effects 

both nationally and here in 

Michigan. Nationally, 800,000 

federal workers spread over 

nine federal departments are 

going without pay because of 

Washington’s inability to pass 

a spending bill. The 

results of this inability 

to govern are being 

felt here in Michigan. 

The 
National 
Park 

Service 
employees 

who operate Sleeping 

Bear Dunes National 

Lakeshore 
in 

Northern 
Michigan 

are 
not 
working 

because 
of 
the 

shutdown. 
Despite 

the valiant work of volunteers, 

the public is suffering due to 

the absence of park service 

employees. Visitors of that park 

are getting stuck in unplowed 

parking lots and a program that 

brings students to Sleeping Bear 

to learn how to snowshoe has 

been unable to start up. That’s 

a shame, especially considering 

how many Michiganders want 

to enjoy the treasures of our 

beautiful national parks during 

winter. 
Moreover, 
Native 

American tribes in Michigan 

that rely on federal funding for 

essential services are suffering 

as well. In fact, the Sault Ste. 

Marie 
Tribe 
of 
Chippewa 

Indians is losing $100,000 a day 

from the federal government 

for essential services such as 

health clinics.

The nation that defeated 

fascism 
during 
World 
War 

II 
and 
sent 
astronauts 
to 

the moon should be able to 

pass a spending bill to keep 

our national parks open and 

maintain 
health 
clinics 
for 

Native American tribes. House 

Democrats 
ought 
to 
work 

with President Trump to fund 

border security and re-open the 

federal government. President 

Trump has asked Congress 

for more than $5 billion for 

border security while House 

Democrats are unwilling to 

make the investment in border 

security. Speaker Nancy Pelosi 

has refused to compromise on 

this issue, stating, “We can go 

through the back and forth. No. 

How many more times can we 

say no? Nothing for the wall.”

While Pelosi uses rhetoric 

about the wall to fire up the 

Democratic base, the money 

Trump is asking for is sorely 

needed. Though we have made 

progress in securing the border, 

our porous Southern border 

puts our national security at 

risk. Drug cartels that control 

large 
swaths 
around 
our 

Southern 
border 
ship 
their 

poison into the United States, 

fueling the opioid crisis that 

takes 130 American lives every 

day. Given that 90 to 94 percent 

of heroin in the U.S. pours in 

from Mexico, American lives 

depend on our ability to secure 

our border. Beyond drug cartels 

shipping deadly drugs into the 

U.S., murderous gangs such 

as MS-13 also take advantage 

of 
our 
leniency 
on 
border 

security. Just last week, three 

undocumented 
immigrants 

connected to MS-13 stabbed 

a high school student outside 

of a fast-food restaurant in 

New York. This heinous attack 

illustrates 
that 
our 
porous 

border allows gang members 

and other threats to public 

safety to cross into our country 

unencumbered. By approving 

full funding for border security, 

House Democrats would help 

secure the border by hiring 

more 
Border 
Patrol 
agents, 

purchasing updated technology 

and building physical barriers 

where needed. Following our 

actions to secure the border, 

we can take action to protect 

Deferred Action for Childhood 

Arrivals recipients and reform 

our deeply flawed immigration 

system. In securing the border 

and reforming our immigration 

system, we will ensure our 

national security is protected 

and continue our tradition as a 

nation of immigrants.

After passing a spending bill 

that secures our border, we can 

keep the bipartisan momentum 

going on other key issues. While 

campaigning 
for 
president, 

President Trump rattled many 

Republicans with his calls for 

$1 trillion in infrastructure 

spending, government action on 

outrageously high prescription 

drug prices, campaign finance 

reform 
and 
renegotiated 

trade deals. After winning the 

presidency on these unorthodox 

ideas for a Republican candidate, 

progress on these issues has 

largely 
stalled. 
Instead 
of 

calling for his impeachment, 

Democrats should work with 

President 
Trump 
on 
these 

bipartisan issues and deliver 

for 
the 
American 
people. 

By working together on our 

greatest issues, we can restore 

faith in our broken political 

system and ensure our nation’s 

best days remain ahead of us.

Dylan Berger can be reached at 

dylberge@umich.edu

REED ROSENBACHER | COLUMN

W

atching 
sports 

has become one of 
the 
least 
relevant 

parts of professional sports 
fandom. 
That 
may 
sound 

like a controversial and even 
nonsensical statement but upon 
closer examination it makes 
perfect sense. Fans are no longer 
driven to sports because of their 
dedication to a hometown team 
but 
rather 
to 
personalities, 

long-term storylines and the 
drama 
embedded 
in 
every 

sports league.

The NBA is the shining 

example of this burgeoning 
brand of fandom. Fans are 
addicted to following players 
and 
their 
carefully 
crafted 

images. For young fans, this 
transition away from hometown 
solidarity seems obvious. Why 
spend your entire life following 
a team solely because they 
are from your city when you 
can pick a star player whose 
personality 
speaks 
to 
you? 

Why spend years hoping that a 
historically crummy team will 
become good when you can 
follow players and storylines?

In addition to a dedication 

to superstar players, NBA fans 
also have a passion for following 
the overarching narratives in 
the league. For example, at the 
end of December, Zach Lowe 
— widely considered to be the 
NBA’s most prominent writer 
— declared that “Anthony Davis 
trade talk is the biggest story 
in the NBA.” That’s right — the 
biggest story in the NBA has 
nothing to do with how a team 
is playing but rather where a 
player might play in the future.

The best part about the 

Anthony Davis drama is how 
convoluted 
the 
situation 
is 

and 
how 
feverishly 
NBA 

fans are following it. Stick 
with me through the minute 
details 
because 
they 
really 

help to display absurdity of 
new fandom. Davis is 25 years 
old and widely believed to be a 
top-five player in the NBA but 
is playing for the historically 
and currently forgettable New 

Orleans 
Pelicans. 
In 
short, 

Davis has the opportunity to 
sign a contract extension with 
the Pelicans this summer. If he 
signs the extension, he will stay 
with the Pelicans. If he doesn’t, 
he will spend one more season 
with the Pelicans and then he 
will leave. Well, the Pelicans 
aren’t stupid — if Davis leaves in 
two years, then the Pelicans will 
be left with nothing. However, 
if the Pelicans trade Davis, they 
can get a lot of good players in 
return.

But who will the Pelicans 

trade Davis to? If Davis doesn’t 
want to play for the Pelicans, 
where does he want to play? 
These are the million dollar 
questions that every NBA fan 
is trying to answer. Fans and 
journalists alike are picking up 
on all the smallest details such 
as the fact that Davis and LeBron 
James have the same agent 
and that James, who recently 
became an Los Angeles Laker, 
got dinner with Davis in LA. 
In essence, fans are predicting 
what players will want to do 
in two years, following details 
such as who’s getting dinner 
with whom. This can help fans 
make clear predictions what a 
player’s eventual decision may 
be.

Tracking 
dinner 
plans 

and the social implications of 
those plans sounds much more 
like an article out of People 
magazine than it does an article 
from ESPN. The gossip- and 
drama-filled narrative that is 
Anthony Davis’s future is not an 
anomaly. Other popular recent 

storylines include a player’s 
mom 
installing 
cameras 
in 

his house, superstars Kevin 
Durant and Draymond Green 
yelling at each other and former 
teammates calling each other 
“cupcakes.”

This new wave of fandom 

is not some kind of fluke 
— it has clear roots in new 
communications technology. In 
the past, fans could only watch 
the locally broadcasted games 
and 
highlights 
were 
rarely 

displayed on television. Simply 
put, there was no way to live 
in Ann Arbor, watch Anthony 
Davis play in New Orleans and 
learn about his dinner plans. 
Social media and the internet 
have made it extremely easy 
to share highlight clips, watch 
games from across the country 
and follow every decision a 
player makes.

What’s 
more 
fascinating 

to me is how this shift in 
fandom 
is 
discussed. 
Most 

of the discussion, somewhat 
unsurprisingly, is about how fans 
are choosing to watch highlights 
and follow gossip instead of 
watching games and why that 
is costing broadcasters money. 
The more interesting storyline 
is this: A shift away from the 
X’s and O’s of sports seems like 
an incredible opportunity for 
leagues like the NBA to appeal 
to a new set of fans. Instead of 
selling high-flying dunks, the 
NBA can sell America’s favorite 
things: reality TV and gossip. 
How the NBA will go about 
attracting people to juicy gossip 
— instead of actual basketball 
games — remains an unanswered 
question.

So, here is my appeal to anyone 

who watches reality TV and says 
they hate sports: the next time 
you inevitably get thrown into 
a sports conversation, try to ask 
about the drama and the rumors 
and see how things go.

Why all gossip lovers should love the NBA

Reed Rosenbacher can be reached 

at rrosenb@umich.edu. 
 

DYLAN BERGER | COLUMN

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. 
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to 

tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

Fans are addicted 
to following players 
and their carefully 

crafted images

DYLAN
BERGER

Instead of calling 
for impeachment, 

Democrats 

should work with 
President Trump 

