Meanwhile, the Senate just voted to confirm Trump’s third nominee to the Supreme Court. The vote was almost entirely along party lines, with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) crossing over to vote with all 47 members of the Senate Democratic caucus.
Yet, while pro-Barrett senators control a majority of the Senate, they represent nowhere near a majority of the entire nation. Indeed, the senators who voted against Barrett represent 13,524,906 more people than the senators who voted for her. (I derived this figure using 2019 census estimates of each state’s population. You can check my work using this spreadsheet.)
These two numbers — 2,865,075 and 13,524,906 — should inform how we view the actions Barrett will take now that she is one of the nine most powerful judges in the country. Barrett owes her new job to two of our Constitution’s anti-democratic pathologies.
If every American’s vote counted equally in a presidential election, Hillary Clinton would be president right now and Barrett would still be a law professor at Notre Dame. And if the Senate did not give Wyoming the same number of senators as California — despite the fact that California has more than 68 times as many people as Wyoming — Barrett would not have been confirmed.
All of which makes judicial reform to restore something more like majority rule all the more justifiable.
At least this process produces justices of the utmost integrity and highest levels of intellectual distinction.
I'd (rightly) get in a lot of trouble if I misrepresented source material that way in an article. But this guy isn't just some columnist, he's determining *what the law should be*! For 330 million people! It's breathtaking intellectual laziness and irresponsibility.— David Fickling (@davidfickling) October 27, 2020
The first thing Justice Barrett did was to participate in a campaign event at the White House for the president, eight days before an election that he has explicitly said he expects will turn on her vote.— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 27, 2020