"Balance" is a joke — you need to stop lending cover to partisan Republicans. Likewise, the death of the egotistical Ginsburg would be a godsend. People would learn to view the Court as illegitimate, and question why the social mores of AL — pretty much disgusting from the 19th century onward — should enjoy undemocratic weight relative to those of CA. They shouldn't, and we don't have to respect their illegitimate judicial decisions or even share a country with increasingly enfeebled rural whites.
I am sort of inclined to agree that there could be advantages over the longer term of the court temporarily shifting even further to the right with RBG (and/or Breyer, who let's not forget is 81 years old and no spring chicken) getting replaced.
What is set to happen now, with SCOTUS packed with the stolen seat and , is we are likely to get Conservative rulings, but Roberts will be smart about it and go slow and gradual (as he has been doing ever since he got on to the Supreme Court), so as to try to minimize backlash.
For example, rather than overruling Roe v. Wade outright, he will probably pretend to "uphold" it but in actual fact weaken it over a series of successive cases to the extent that it amounts to the same thing as if he would have overturned it.
Death by a thousand cuts, if you will. It is similar to the story about the frog put in boiling water:
There still seems to be a surprising amount of resistance even to basic/obvious and fully constitutional moderate court packing and regulation of the Judiciary (which Congress has for a long time mostly ignored, even though doesn't require anything more than simply passing ordinary legislation as a Judiciary Act). A lot of that I think is because things changed gradually, and people normalized/got used to it.
But with RBG and/or Breyer gone, Roberts would no longer be in control of the pace of "Conservative" activist change. A lot would likely change quickly, which would create larger and more powerful backlash and build up support for court packing and other judicial reforms to the point that they could/would actually get implemented. And assuming they then did actually eventually get implemented and we ended up with a more functional and fair judicial system, then we would all be better off in the long run.
However, the downside of that is particularly in relation to voting rights, though. One could imagine (as mentioned above) a court on which the swing vote is even to the right of Roberts (!!!) overturning the VRA entirely, or endorsing full-on old time voter suppression.
And the problem there is that if people can't vote, then it is not possible to implement any reforms, and you are stuck with no within-the-system remedy.
Poll
