Politics has a way of turning everything into a blur of soundbites and "gotcha" moments. Honestly, it’s exhausting. If you’ve spent any time on social media lately, you’ve probably seen some fiery debate about whether a Supreme Court justice should be confirmed in an election year. Usually, at the center of that whirlwind is the Ruth Bader Ginsburg comment on Garland nomination from back in 2016.
People love to weaponize these quotes. One side uses them to point out hypocrisy, while the other tries to explain why "this time is different." But if we strip away the partisan yelling, what did RBG actually say about Merrick Garland? And more importantly, why does it still keep popping up in our news feeds nearly a decade later?
That’s Their Job: The Quote That Started It All
The year was 2016. Justice Antonin Scalia had passed away, leaving a massive void on the bench. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a moderate and widely respected judge, to fill the seat. Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, basically decided to shut the whole process down. They argued that because it was an election year, the "people" should decide.
✨ Don't miss: The I-96 Car Accident Problem: Why This Stretch of Michigan Highway Stays Dangerous
Enter Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
During an interview with The New York Times in July 2016, she was asked point-blank about the Senate’s refusal to hold hearings. Her response was classic RBG: "That’s their job." She didn't mince words. She followed it up by saying, "There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year."
It’s a simple argument. You’re elected for four years, not three.
Later that year, speaking to students at Georgetown University Law Center, she doubled down. She mentioned she hoped "cooler heads will prevail" and reminded the room that the power of the presidency doesn't just evaporate once the campaign season starts. For Ginsburg, the constitutional machinery was supposed to keep turning, regardless of the political calendar.
The "Dying Wish" Complication
Fast forward to 2020. This is where things get messy and why the Ruth Bader Ginsburg comment on Garland nomination is often paired with her final statements. Just days before she passed away, Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
Critics were quick to jump on this. They asked how she could say the Senate had a "job" to do in 2016 but then ask them to wait in 2020.
Here is the nuance most people miss. In 2016, the vacancy happened in February—nine months before the election. In 2020, Ginsburg passed away in September, just weeks before the election. To her supporters, the timeline changed the context. To her detractors, it looked like she was moving the goalposts based on who was in the White House.
The reality? Ginsburg was a institutionalist. She believed in the Court's legitimacy. In 2016, she saw a Senate refusing to even look at a nominee. In 2020, she saw a rush to fill a seat while people were already casting ballots. Whether you agree with her or not, her focus was almost always on the perceived "fairness" and stability of the Court as an institution.
Why Garland Was Different for RBG
It’s worth noting that Ginsburg didn’t just support the process of Garland’s nomination; she actually liked the guy. She called him "super bright," "very nice," and "super prepared." She genuinely thought he would be a "great colleague."
- Qualifications over Ideology: Ginsburg often spoke about how Justice Scalia—her polar opposite—was confirmed 98-0. She longed for a return to a time when "well-qualified" was the only metric that mattered.
- The 44 Split: Without a ninth justice, the Court was deadlocked 4-4 on several major cases. This frustrated her. She felt the Court couldn't do its work properly with an even number of justices, leading to "split" decisions that didn't actually settle the law for the country.
- The Precedent Fear: She worried that if the Senate could just "ignore" a nominee, it would fundamentally break how the government works.
The Actionable Reality of Judicial Appointments
So, what can we actually learn from the Ruth Bader Ginsburg comment on Garland nomination today? It’s not just a history lesson. It’s a blueprint for how the "advice and consent" process has mutated.
If you are looking to understand how these appointments affect your life, keep these points in mind:
- Look at the Calendar: The "proximity to an election" is now a flexible political tool. There is no hard law on this; it's all about who has the votes in the Senate.
- Check the "Hold": Senators can use procedural moves to block nominees before they even get a hearing. If you care about a specific issue—like healthcare or privacy—the composition of the Senate is just as important as who is in the White House.
- Read the Opinions, Not Just the Quotes: Ginsburg's legal legacy is in her written opinions on gender equality and civil rights. Her comments on Garland were about the structure of government, but her rulings were about the lives of citizens.
If you want to dive deeper into how the Supreme Court functions, your best move is to track the current "shadow docket." These are emergency rulings made without full oral arguments. It’s where much of the real action happens now, far away from the cameras and the 2016-era soundbites.
Understanding the Ruth Bader Ginsburg comment on Garland nomination requires looking past the 280-character tweets. She was a woman who lived by the book—specifically the Constitution—and her frustration in 2016 was less about party politics and more about a system she felt was grinding to a halt.