Powerful People Don't Live Forever: What's Implied When Influential People Die

When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020, it obviously had significant political implications. It's not like no one mentioned her poor health, but it still came as a surprise. After all, she had missed a Supreme Court argument, which was something she was not known for.

However, there is a much simpler reason why people took such news differently: It reminded us that all these people with political power are actually mortal. They have their own interests, wants, needs, and concerns. They are fallible, and at some point, they will indeed die like the rest of us.

When Justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement, it similarly was awkward, like breaking a string on a guitar. Every time someone rich and powerful dies, there is something awkward about it, whether we like it or not. At its core, mortality reminds us that real power dwells within institutions themselves, and people's ability to believe in them, for better or worse.

That's why, down the ages, dictators want to establish that [italics] they are the institutions. Maybe they'll even claim that God itself speaks through them. Maybe they won't outright deny they are mortal men, but they will exaggerate how profound they are, and heaven forbid one disagrees with them, or the cultural values they try to cram down our collective throat.

Coincidentally, in the modern age, and in a purported democracy, things get more complicated. Politicians and the like may have powerful interests they serve, including their own aggrandizement, but they often must be PR-savvy for the proverbial common man. That is why media manipulation is so important. Again, the idea must be that, sure, this person has some values in common with you, but he or she nevertheless knows better than you, and surely always will. They are experts, you are not.

Now, I am not saying they never do have expert knowledge, or they are never backed by scientific consensus, but let's face it: Often they get things wrong, or are basically blithering idiots, and they dread being called out on it. As a perfectly fair generalized point, consider how President Trump took no responsibility for major problems during his first administration, despite presenting himself as the greatest mind on earth, promising "I alone can fix it" when it comes to the system's problems.

He initially significantly downplayed COVID-19, then, when he finally admitted it was a huge issue, began saying he couldn't have prevented it from getting worse (of course, many of you out there will agree he could have done a much better job, which is partly why Joe Biden got elected.

Now, to be fair, Trump is not alone in "I alone can fix it"-style pronouncements. For example, Democrats might gaslight me into forgetting that Biden claimed ridiculous powers to advance the human species, saying things like "we're going to cure cancer."

Now, obviously, there are already ways of successfully fighting off many cancers, but was Joe Biden really the best candidate for that task? Most certainly not. He was better than Trump, but not nearly the environmental steward that some Dems thought, and this was the same guy who also promised "nothing would fundamentally change" under his watch. Well, how are you going to even do things like "cure cancer" if nothing will fundamentally change? It's a bit of a logical contradiction, I'd say.

And yes, last time I checked, he did not exactly cure cancer.

Still, things will fundamentally change, whether we want them to or not. As we have seen the Supreme Court (and much of the American government) shift further to the right, it's a solid reminder that some people fear change. Embracing regression, they want things to stay frozen in time, or maybe they want to turn the clock back to some mythical, glorious age.

However, those who want things to fundamentally change in progressive ways, and who don't tend to fear people who are different, know that some things can and should be updated. When it comes to the Supreme Court, it is time to establish codes of ethics and have them enforced. Term limits should also be imposed, just as they are on Presidents.

Also, when it comes to Presidents, they too should face new ethics rules and restrictions on power. Maybe instead of two terms, why not just a single term of 6 years? Give them the "one and done" treatment.

Also, in light of all of Trump's indictments and myriad criminal charges, it's definitely a good idea to make it easier to hold Presidents accountable while in office, while simultaneously making it harder for the process to be politicized. Have rules and regulations against partisanship, and against political dynasties, and corporate cash. If nothing else, make it so all politicians must wear the names of their biggest donors on their work uniforms, much as it's the norm for NASCAR drivers.

Basically, there are tons of new changes that people should consider implementing for politicians (and that is, of course, assuming we indeed need these politicians at all anyway).

Regarding the issue of Supreme Court Justice retirement, then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Twitter (now "X"): “It has always been the decision of any Supreme Court Justice if and when they decide to retire, and how they want to announce it, and that remains the case today...”

That should be changed with term limits, and strictly enforced anti-corruption/pro-recusal measures should definitely be a thing. Either that or maybe we just don't need a Supreme Court.

To be fair, The Supreme Court has not always been as terrible as one might possibly imagine, and Justice Ginsburg as evidence of that (at least most of the time).

Justice Ginsburg had been busy defending the law and the constitutional rights of the accused in civil rights cases, opposed Trump's travel ban, and was a defender of abortion rights. Now the Court has played a central role in the impassioned and controversial debate over gerrymandering — and, surprisingly, they have not been quite as far-right on such issues as one might expect.

Still, such power is always a gamble, and certain things (like basic human rights) should never have been up to a vote, from politicians or from the United States Supreme Court. Restrictions on the power of politicians will often translate into freedom from oppressive laws. In an age of book bans and anti-LGBT legislation, it's perhaps more important than ever to block certain rights from being infringed, locally, state-wide, or nationally at the federal level. It's not an entirely radical idea, and it helps assure that real freedom can exist in America; real freedom doesn't just fit on a bumper sticker slogan.