"It May Already Be Too Late to Confirm a Replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg" is a silly title that isn't even trying to say what this TNR article is about.

Not long ago, lawprof Erwin Chemerinsky and others were pressuring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to heave herself out of her seat on the Supreme Court to give President Obama the opportunity to replace her, but no point now, according to Simon Lazarus and Tom Donnelly at The New Republic, in a piece with the silly title "It May Already Be Too Late to Confirm a Replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

I'm saying "silly" because the fussy accuracy consciousness of the first half of the title turns into blatant inaccuracy paired with the second half of the title. As long as the United States in its current form, under our Constitution, persists, it's never too late to confirm a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Whenever Justice Ginsburg's seat becomes available, some President will nominate someone who will be confirmed by the Senate.

What it "may" already be too late for is what the Lazarus-Donnelly article means to tell us about, which I don't have to read their article to know. It's too late for President Obama to nominate the kind of Supreme Court Justice he presumably wants — a solid liberal — and to get confirmation from the Senate. The November election is too close, the Democratic Party is at risk of losing the Senate, the spectacle of attempting to confirm a liberal Supreme Court nominee will put Democratic Senate candidates at greater risk, and the GOP Senators will have reason to drag out the confirmation process so that it might not even be successful.

The most interesting point that Lazarus and Donnelly make — not reflected in the silly title or in the idea the silly title is meant to express — is that keeping a left-leaning Justice off the Court is an issue that works for Republican candidates far more that getting a left-leaning Justice onto the Court could work for Democratic candidates.

Most Democratic voters simply don’t see the courts as relevant to the—mainly economic—issues they care about most....

In contrast, Republicans savor high-decibel political fights over the courts. In the short term, they see them as a way of firing up their base and burnishing their brand as defenders of the Constitution and the rule of law....

This asymmetry yields a chronic, structural disadvantage that limits the options available for Democratic and progressive leaders, when battles flare in the ongoing war over the courts. 

This is an amusing concession that liberals need to do their court appointments when elections aren't too close. It's Democrats and not Republicans who want to avoid accountability for judicial appointments.

But Lazarus and Donnelly imagine — or purport to imagine — that "Democrats and progressives" can "transform the politics around the courts" — that is, make voters get excited about putting left-leaning Justices on the Court. Lazarus and Donnelly present a 3-point plan to accomplish this transformation:

1. Make people see that that liberal Supreme Court Justices will help them economically. That sounds really complicated to me. I doubt if the proposition is true, and what's the argument that it is?

Since June 2008, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy has held recurrent hearings designed “to shine a light on how the Supreme Court’s decisions affect Americans’ everyday lives,” showcasing victims of decisions detrimental to employment safeguards, retirement security, consumer protection, health care coverage, and securities fraud protections. And in the wake of the Court’s recent decision in McCutcheon v. F.E.C., which struck down long-established limits on aggregate campaign contributions by wealthy donors, Leahy and Senate Rules Committee Chair Chuck Schumer announced joint efforts to spotlight how “five justices once again have decided to rule on the side of moneyed interests,” beginning with former Justice John Paul Stevens’s high-profile testimony last week before the Senate Rules Committee. Most visibly, Senator Elizabeth Warren, leader of the Democrats’ populist wing, has begun to tie the courts to her larger economic message, warning progressives about “the corporate capture of the federal courts.” These are steps in the right direction, but thus far, these limited probes that have barely registered with the media or the public. 

Patrick Leahy shining a light somehow doesn't get media attention. I'm sure the media would help with the liberal-judge-appointing agenda if they could, so the failure to direct the public's attention to where Patrick Leahy is shining his light is strong evidence that Step 1 doesn't work too well.

2. Democrats and progressives should scare people about the consequences of allowing right-leaning judges to get their hands on left-leaning legislation like the Affordable Care Act. They need to warn people that "radical" theories like federalism, "[o]nce pie-in-the-sky academic musings," now get serious respect from Supreme Court Justices.

Speaking of pie in the sky... picture a liberal political candidate trying to alarm citizens about the idea that the Constitution gives limited enumerated powers to the federal government and reserves power to the states. Speaking of things confined to the academy! You can make intra-law-school folk nod their head at the notion that federalism is dangerous, but in normal political speech, even Democratic Party candidates assure us of their respect for the role of the states in our constitutional scheme.

3. Convince people that left-leaning constitutional interpretation is actually what the Constitution means, not simply what lefties like. Lazarus and Donnelly admit that Democratic politicos "cede the legal high ground to their Republican adversaries." The remedy is supposedly to roll out legal academics to inform the public of the theories that support the results liberals like. Supposedly, Senator Leahy is leading they way by pointing out that the decisions he doesn't like are wrong as a legal matter. And Obama sometimes throws rhetoric into his speeches about "the enduring strength of the Constitution," so there's that. And there are those law professors who've been working for years writing material that "demonstrates that the Constitution’s text and history often point in progressive—not conservative—directions." Roll those guys out. (I'm saying "guys" because Lazarus and Donnelly name 5 law professors and they're all guys, so I thought I'd insert some War-on-Women dissonance.)

Well, left-leaning politicos really should try to do this. They have ceded the high ground to conservatives, but I think the liberal constitutional law material doesn't play very well in common political discourse, and for too long the go-to liberal argument has been law is just politics and it's all about outcomes. If lefties abandon the all-about-politics meme and commit to taking legal arguments seriously and to demonstrating the soundness of their interpretation, they'll be taking quite a risk. As a law professor, I'd love to see it. I'd have some great blogging material.

But, honestly, I think the actual politicians know they can't operate on that level, AKA "the high ground." Still, I'd love the opportunity to poke at them and try to topple them as they posture and pose up there.