On Justice Ginsburg's death and the ramifications thereof

Let me start off by saying that I am saddened by the passing away of Justice Ginsburg at the age of 87 on Friday, September 18th, 2020. To me I hold life as precious, as a gift from God, and therefore, I am always saddened at the loss of human life with condolences for the near and dear ones of the soul who just passed away. Additionally in the case of Justice Ginsburg, she served as a role model for many women and girls from around the country. I don't know who my daughter will look up to as role models but I believe if she learns about Justice Ginsburg, she would be impressed by the late justice's life and legacy. Finally - and this is where it gets complicated - I am also saddened by Justice Ginsburg's passing because the one thing that a country divided down the middle and living in two parallel universes as it were needed less of is an issue that will further polarize the electorate and drive many into their tribal camps even more intensely. I have lived in the U.S. since 2004 and nothing comes close to the rancor that I recall from 2018 during the nomination (and eventual confirmation) of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. I wasn't around during the recount in Florida in 2000 (and the subsequent vote by the S. Ct.) but I was around in 2005 through 2007 during the dark days of the Iraq War. I was also around in 2009 and 2010 during the passage of the Affordable Care Act under President Obama and I was around in 2017 during the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and while the partisan environment during each of these instances was toxic, nothing comes remotely close to what I saw during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. I would pay a significant amount of money to have my country not be as pulled apart as it was during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and therefore, now with Justice Ginsburg's passing, I am additionally concerned at what this vacancy on the Court will do to the country I love and care about. 

Now on to the legacy of Justice Ginsburg. I am not a lawyer although I certainly count myself as an avid follower of all things Supreme Court related and have been one for a number of years. And therefore when I look at Justice Ginsburg's jurisprudence and reflect on it, I have to be candid in admitting that her views were significantly to the left of mine and much more importantly, to the left of the Supreme Court itself, including two other justices appointed by Democratic Presidents, viz. Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. Citing a few cases would make the point. Taking liberally from Oyez (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1717) here is a brief summary of the Bladensburg Cross case. In Bladensburg, Maryland, as part of a memorial park honoring veterans stands a 40-foot tall cross, which is the subject of this litigation. The cross was built in the wake of the first world war and in 1961, the  Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission acquired the cross and the land, along with which came the responsibility to maintain and otherwise care for the cross. In more recent years, In 2012, a group known as the American Humanist Association, a nonprofit organization advocating for separation of church and state, filed the first known complaint against the Cross and argued that the Commission’s display and maintenance of the cross violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause which prevents the government from establishing a religion. The case eventually wound its way to the S. Ct. which in a 7-2 decision decided in favor of the Capital Park and Planning Commission and holding that the Bladensburg Cross does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. There are of course many nuances to that opinion, with several justices writing concurring opinions elaborating on their understanding of the case but suffice for us to note for these purposes that 7 justices of the Court (including Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer) agreed that the cross could stand as is. Justice Breyer's arguments are worth a read:

I have long maintained that there is no single formula for resolving Establishment Clause challenges. The Court must instead consider each case in light of the basic purposes that the Religion Clauses were meant to serve: assuring religious liberty and tolerance for all, avoiding religiously based social conflict, and maintaining that separation of church and state that allows each to flourish in its “separate spher[e].” I agree with the Court that allowing the State of Maryland to display and maintain the Peace Cross poses no threat to those ends. The Court’s opinion eloquently explains why that is so: The Latin cross is uniquely associated with the fallen soldiers of World War I; the organizers of the Peace Cross acted with the undeniably secular motive of commemorating local soldiers; no evidence suggests that they sought to disparage or exclude any religious group; the secular values inscribed on the Cross and its place among other memorials strengthen its message of patriotism and commemoration; and, finally, the Cross has stood on the same land for 94 years, generating no controversy in the community until this lawsuit was filed.....In light of all these circumstances, the Peace Cross cannot reasonably be understood as “a government effort to favor a particular religious sect” or to “promote religion over nonreligion.” And, as the Court explains, ordering its removal or alteration at this late date would signal “a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions.” (Citations omitted) Who were the justices on the losing side of the case? Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.