She is only one really bad day for Joe Biden away from being the leader of the free world.
On that day, she will be the most powerful woman in the world.
Until then, I’m sure there’s a ribbon cutting ceremony somewhere. 
The next most powerful woman in the world is, by definition, not the world’s most powerful woman today.
Just to make it clear - the sequence goes:
useless; Boris Johnson; completely useless; Liz Truss
Liz Truss gets lost trying to leave room in leadership launch event - YouTube
The general view in the Liz Truss thread seems to be that she is a weathervane (who changes her views depending on which way the wind is blowing), so I don’t see how you can call her the world’s most powerful woman.
What about social influencers? I don’t follow them at all so I don’t know.
Wasn’t Winston Churchill the first PM during the late queen’s reign? Quite the drop from him to Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
On a Very Special episode of Quantum Leap!
Winnie was almost Biden’s age when George VI died, and had already been in talks to retire because of health. Three weeks after the Coronation he had his most severe stroke. He should have quit but Anthony Eden was even sicker. The stroke and his paralysis was hushed up and he kept going.
Nevertheless, he suffered from vascular dementia because of the long series of strokes.
Churchill would also experience the temporary dysphasia in the 30 minutes to an hour afterward that is characteristic of TIA’s, but the language center of his brain was spared permanent damage until his last major stroke in 1953.
With amphetamines and carefully scripted speeches, therefore, Churchill was able, at least from a verbal aspect, to hide the neurological damage and the cognitive decline that those closest to him were aware was progressing rapidly.
But the signs were everywhere in retrospect. Churchill’s speeches and governing were rooted in the first and second world wars. He was glaringly oblivious to post World-War-II politics, issues, and legislation.
He was literally in the-all-too-common vascular dementia time warp of the past and increasingly unaware of the present and had no concept of the future.
Yes, he was Winston Fucking Churchill. He still shouldn’t have been in office.
If a Conservative leaves the Supreme Court and is replaced by a liberal, a case could be made for Amy Coney Barrett, as she would have the power to swing very consequential Supreme court decisions.
But as things stand, she’s basically only going to join decisions that would go the same way regardless of how she votes.
I did not say she was the most powerful woman in the world today, the first 11 words on my post is the disclaimer.
My thinking was, if Barrett voted the way Pelosi would, it could default to a 4-4 starting point with Roberts then playing swing vote; but, since Barrett votes the way Barrett does, things play out differently.
Mary Marvel.
You only have power if you’re a swing voter. Someone who votes the party line is just following the marching orders of someone else.
Putting the Supreme Court on an even footing doesn’t turn Barrett into the one who decides things, it just makes her a woman. The one who decides things is the one who can choose which side to be on.
Huh, I hadn’t realized that Angela Merkel had retired.
Maybe I’ve missed something; can’t she in effect follow her own, uh, marching orders?
If you have a million people who all say and do the same things for, purportedly, the same reasons then how do you know which one is the one doing it because of coincidental convergence of beliefs versus conformity to the group’s ideas?
If she’s voting as part of a block and doesn’t separate from the block then she’s powerful only in terms of adding to the numbers of the block. It’s like saying that the 2 millionth soldier in the Chinese army is the strongest soldier in the world, because he’s the one that put the size of the group one bigger over the competition who was at 1,999,999.
Of course she can. In fact, in close decisions in the last term, Barrett voted against the conservastive majority 16% of the time.
Republican appointees have never been as much in lockstep as the left claims. Clarence Thomas, the Justice liberals love to hate, voted against the majority in split decisions 44% of the time - almost as much as Stephen Breyer.
In terms of voting with the majorithy when the cases aren’t 9-0 or 8-0, the most reliable person is Brett Kavanaugh, who voted with the majority 95% of the time. Next was Barrett and Roberts at 84%, Gorsuch at 82%, Alito at 70%, then Thomas at 66%.
It’s very common for justices left and right to vote against their fellow liberals/conservatives on various issues.
My wife.
Oh, you meant powerful over everyone…never mind.
In other words, Amy Coney Barrett is just as hypothetically powerful a woman as is Kamala Harris; the former if there is a change in a Supreme Court seat and the latter if she inherits the presidency.
Voting with the majority is different than voting with the block. They’re different metrics.