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