By Ada Fisher

It is mind-boggling to hear Hillary Clinton falsely proclaiming that the Republicans want a Trump appointee now on the courts to overturn Obamacare.

Logically, the health care mandate ought to be found unconstitutional as should the way health care is paid for. It strikes me as unfortunate that one of the ways cost to date have been contained through Medicaid and Medicare is by strangling physician reimbursement for services. How ironic in this time of COVID-19 that the people who put their lives on the line daily and are dying providing for necessary services are the ones penalized heavily while suffering financially in doing their jobs against all odds.

The most real issue to be considered by a conservative majority court will again be that of the legality of abortions.

If precedent is followed, it is doubtful whether the allowance for abortions will be overturned. What may happen is such procedures may be allowed as necessary within the purview of medicine, but the government is under no obligation nor are health insurance companies to pay for elective procedures.

Nine justices are also needed to vote on the possibility of election chads or other suspicious activity.  A full court complement of judges is always desired.

An underlying question for the court is one regarding the lack of diversity on the bench. The majority of its members are from the Ivy League educational bastions. If another Catholic is appointed to SCOTUS, a religious majority will truly exist whose inherent teachings are at times at odds with the U.S. Constitution. This issue came to the fore when John F. Kennedy sought the presidency and now raises its head in a different manner.

If a woman is appointed, the makeup of the court will remain three women and six men when the population is approximately 50:50. If a Black person is chosen, though, it might be wonderful to have a Black female voice.

And if qualifications alone are an issue, the reported discrimination against Asian Americans in admission to Ivy League schools and other prestigious universities smacks of discrimination against possibly some of our best judicial minds.

Though it might be nice in the minds of some to cater to the needs for representation from all segments of our population, Aristotle noted, “The law is reason free from passion … Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.”

Ideally in this nation, the law should be equal for all and must be free from bias while following the US Constitution.

The rules of engagement give the President the right to appoint whoever he may like as a justice of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The time frame is of his choosing and should not be based on political considerations, which will not likely happen.

The Senate should judge the appointee based on qualifications and render an opinion of our adherence to the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. The exegesis of the world with a technology that exceeds the concepts in the law says it might also not be unrealistic to seat a philosopher, scientist, engineer or other purveyor of this very real world as well as that which may lie beyond under consideration. There is no law stating that a justice has to be a lawyer and, given the law clerk system of the court, any range of people should be able to competently serve at that level.

The notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the second woman to lie in state at the Capitol Rotunda, thereby following the legacy of the infamous Rosa Parks in 2005. In sitting for just causes, they have stood up for justice and equality at its best.

What the court looks like is a viable consideration in election politics, but such should not hinder moving forward with the process of filling judicial seats once they become vacant.

Salisbury Ada Fisher is a former school board member and former N.C. Republican national committeewoman.