Steve Jobs and Politics
Apple's co-founder and Visionary-in-Chief, Steve Jobs,
yesterday from complications of pancreatic cancer.
He was 56 and worth an estimated $8 billion. Unlike Bill Gates, with whom he is often compared,
he was a creative genius without parallel. Gates was a clever and very lucky businessman (almost
as an afterthought, IBM came to him when it was looking for an operating system for its new personal
computer in the early 1980s, and he quickly bought one from a small Seattle company and sold it to IBM
as MS-DOS, which later led to Windows). But Jobs was involved in every aspect of Apple's business,
which ultimately transformed the computer, music, and telecommunications industries.
Obituaries of Jobs can be probably be found in every newspaper in the country.
So what does this have to do with politics and especially the 2012 elections? In two words:
pancreatic cancer. It is a deadly disease. Survival rates depend of the type of cancer and how
early it is detected, but even if it has not spread, the 5-year survival rate is on the order of
20%. Being one of the most famous and beloved people in the world and with $8 billion in the bank,
Jobs could have been treated by any cancer specialist in the world and no doubt he had the best.
But it didn't help.
Have any other famous people had pancreatic cancer? Yes. Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (78) was diagnosed with it in 2009 and treated for it. She had previously been
treated for colon cancer in 1999 and it is not known if the pancreatic cancer was a secondary
tumor resulting from the earlier colon cancer or a new spontaneous mutation. Now possibly Ginsburg
is in perfect health and will retire at 90, like John Paul Stevens did last year, but the odds
are strongly against it.
Obviously this is premature, but some speculation about what Ginsburg's death or retirement early
next year could do to the elections is nevertheless in order. It could radically change the situation
and as the court's most liberal member, she is no doubt keenly aware of this. Suppose she were to
announce her retirement as of June 2012 for reasons of health, just as Steve Jobs did shortly before
his death. President Obama would quickly nominate a successor and we would see the mother of all
confirmation fights in the Senate as the Republicans would filibuster any nominee in order to
keep the slot open for a potential Republican President in January 2013. If they could replace the
court's leading liberal with a conservative, that would cement the conservative majority for years
to come as the next oldest justice, Antonin Scalia, is a mere stripling at 75.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote in many cases, is also 75.
Even if she is healthy, Ginsburg, knowing all this, might decide to resign next year just to
change the focus of the presidential election from the economy to the Supreme Court. Then the
main issue could easily become: "Who do you want to fill Ginsburg's seat?" The candidates would
be endlessly asked about their choices. If Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee, he will be under pressure
from the tea party and evangelicals to name someone who is against abortion and gay marriage. But
naming a few potential candidates who are very conservative on those issues won't help him with the
moderates and independents he badly needs to win. His best bet would be to say: "I dunno. Haven't
thought about it too much. I'll let you know in January." But that hardly shows him to be a strong
leader, especially if Obama has made one or two choices by then and fought vigorously for their
On top of this, if Obama were to name one or two people to the court and have the Republicans
filibuster them because they didn't like the nominee's ideology, what would happen if a President Romney were
to nominate a conservative? Might the Senate Democrats then simply filibuster all his choices on the grounds
"well, you guys did the same thing last year." It could get dicey.
The Republicans could then use the 'nuclear option.'
That would work like this.
Some Republican senator would object, saying: "Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional
because the Senate has a constitutional duty to approve or reject all judicial
The Senate parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, would then be consulted, but his opinion
doesn't really matter. Ultimately the President of the Senate (the Vice President of
the United States) makes the ruling and if he (or unlikely she) were a Republican, he would sustain
the objection. If some Democrat complained about his ruling, as would certainly be the case,
the full Senate would then vote to sustain or overturn the ruling by simple majority vote,
with no filibuster possible. Once such a precedent had been set, no more judicial
filibusters would be possible in the future.
But so far this is just speculation. Ginsburg has not announced any new health problems and has not
indicated any plans to retire shortly. But it could happen. Stay tuned.
Palin Will Not Run for President
Sarah Palin has
she is not going to be a candidate for President in 2012. This statement may disappoint her fans
but surprises no serious observer of the political scene because it is far too late to mount a
campaign now. If she has wanted to run, she should have started 6 months ago. With New Jersey governor
Chris Christie out as well, the Republican field is now set and the nominee will be either Mitt Romney
or Rick Perry, probably the former.
If you like this Website, tell your friends. You can also share by clicking this button
-- The Votemaster
Your donation is greatly appreciated. It will buy ads to publicize the site.