Official appointment promotes the U.S. Supreme Court to “swing to the right”

On the evening of 26, the U.S. Senate voted to approve conservative judge Amy Kony Barrett as the Supreme Court judge to fill the seat of the late liberal Ruth bud Ginsberg. Barrett was then sworn in. So far, the number of conservative and liberal officials in the Federal Supreme Court has become 6 to 3, and the advantages of conservatives have been further expanded. In the past few weeks, there has been a fierce struggle between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party over the “filling up” of official posts. Analysts believe that it has become a fact that the Federal Supreme Court will continue to “swing to the right” in the future, which will have an important impact on the United States in the near future and in the long run. On the same night, the vote of the whole Senate was 52 in favor and 48 against. No one voted for it, only one Republican voted against it. In the long debate before the vote, the Republicans unanimously praised Barrett’s excellent resume and qualifications, while others focused on questioning her position on issues such as “Obamacare”, and accused Republicans of hastily promoting the official nomination approval process before the polling day of the US election and the new crown epidemic. Barrett has been a judge of the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals of the United States since 2017. She was an assistant to Antonin Scalia, the late prominent conservative of the Federal Supreme Court. Barrett had previously said at a congressional hearing that she believed that the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain its independence, and that the Supreme Court should interpret how the Constitution and other laws of the United States are written. Whether or not officials should be appointed at present is the focus of debate between the two parties. At the beginning of 2016, when the Supreme Court was vacant, then President Barack Obama nominated liberal judge Merrick garland, but Republicans controlling the Senate refused to advance the nomination process on the ground that the United States was entering general election year. This year is also a general election year, with vacancies on the Federal Supreme Court closer to polling day than four years ago, while Republicans are pushing the nomination process fast. People criticized Republicans for double standards in order to seize power. The dispute over “filling the vacancy” in the Federal Supreme Court is also a hot topic in this presidential election. President trump, who is seeking re-election, had a heated debate with the presidential candidate and former US Vice President Biden on this topic in the TV debate. Trump has always regarded the successful nomination of the Supreme Court as a personal landmark achievement. He has previously successfully sent two conservative judges to the Supreme Court. In an interview with reporters, Christopher galdieri, a political science expert at San Anselm college, said that before the election day, the Republicans “went to the next city” in the campaign to fill the vacancies, which helped boost morale. Galdieri also said that despite setbacks, dissatisfaction with Republicans will also boost the campaign’s donation and voting enthusiasm. Analysts believe that Barrett’s new appointment may have an impact on the presidential election. Because of the new crown epidemic, the United States has adjusted the voting rules in many places, many of which involve the issue of postal ballots, which has triggered many lawsuits. Some cases involving key “swing states” have been appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. Polls and studies have found that voters are more likely to use postal ballots than Republican voters. Trump has repeatedly questioned the fairness of the vote mailing and this year’s election, and hinted that the Federal Supreme Court may eventually intervene. Historically, the Supreme Court of the United States has made decisions that affect the results of the U.S. presidential election. In 2000, when the Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush and presidential candidate Gore were locked in the election, Florida, which decided whether they would win or lose, had a vote counting dispute. After the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, conservative officials made a ruling in favor of George W. Bush by virtue of one vote advantage, and George W. Bush won the election. Barrett, 48 years old, is the youngest of nine officials. The other five conservative officials are between 53 and 72 years old. This means that for a long time in the future, the Supreme Court will be firmly dominated by conservatives, which will have a profound impact on the future development of American society. Although conservatives have had a seat in the Supreme Court before, chief executive John Roberts has become more like a “swing vote” and has stood with liberals in several rulings. After Barrett joined the Supreme Court, the influence of conservatives will be stabilized, and Roberts’ role of “swing vote” will be weakened. Liberals worry that, as a result, precedents in areas such as Obamacare, abortion and environmental regulation are more likely to be overturned. People are also trying to find ways to check and balance. Biden recently announced that if he wins, he will order the establishment of a bipartisan committee to propose reforms to the Federal Supreme Court and the federal judicial system. However, when asked by the media whether he supports increasing the number of seats in the Supreme Court, Biden has always refused to make a clear statement. Clay Ramsay, a researcher at the University of Maryland in the United States, analyzes that if people win the White House and the Senate and keep the house of Representatives after this year’s election, they are likely to start the reform process of the Federal Supreme Court; if the White House and the Senate belong to two parties, the Supreme Court will be caught in the middle of the party struggle; if trump is re elected, plus the conservative led Supreme Court, The United States may further tilt to the right, and the “reaction force” encountered may also be stronger, thus aggravating political confrontation and social tearing.