You go, Ma’am!:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 80, vowed in an interview to stay on the Supreme Court as long as her health and intellect remained strong, saying she was fully engaged in her work on what she called “one of the most activist courts in history.”
In wide-ranging remarks in her chambers Friday, the leader of the court’s liberal opposition touched on affirmative action, abortion, and same-sex marriage.
Ginsburg said she had made a mistake in joining a 2009 opinion that laid the groundwork for the court’s decision in June effectively striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The recent decision, she said, was “stunning in terms of activism.”
Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews. Ginsburg has given several this summer, perhaps in reaction to calls from some liberals that she step down in time for President Obama to name her successor…
Her age has required only minor adjustments. “I don’t water ski anymore,” Ginsburg said. “I haven’t gone horseback riding in four years. I haven’t ruled that out entirely. But water skiing, those days are over.”…
ETA: Much as I’d like to “guarantee” another, younger liberal on the bench, I can understand Justic Ginsburg’s determination. As soon as she announces a retirement date, the Opus Dei wing (Roberts, Scalia, Alito & Thomas) will pretend she no longer exists — IRRC, they were pretty rude to Sandra Day O’Connor, who was “on their team” but tragically lacking in the Y-chromosome department. Justice Ginsburg has a good relationship with Scalia, and I think Roberts gives her a little more notice than he does the other liberals just because he’s afraid of granny ladies inherently biased in favor of age & experience. While she feels capable of fighting, Ginsburg quite naturally wants to keep doing so, especially since she expects some very important and fractious litigation next session.
(Besides, if we time things properly, Justice Obama will be taking his seat in 2017… )
MikeJ
I hope Rick Santorum isn’t picking her replacement.
Yatsuno
@MikeJ: Or Aqua Buddha. After Dubya I never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.
Baud
Well, I guess we’ll have to keep electing Democratic presidents.
fka AWS
While I applaud her vim and vigor, I can’t say that I agree with her decision.
OTOH, I do root for injuries wrt other justices who shall remain nameless.
PurpleGirl
@Baud: Every election I use that as a reason to elect a Democrat. I’m surprised at the number of people for whom I have to explain it.
Baud
@PurpleGirl:
I am both never surprised and constantly amazed at the reasons people come up with for not voting for Democrats.
Patricia Kayden
I don’t understand why liberals would want Ginsburg to step down so that President Obama can replace her. She’s a solid liberal Judge. It would be nice if one of the conservative justices had to step down.
Baud
@Patricia Kayden:
People are afraid that a Republican will win in 2016 and then she’ll die.
Poopyman
@fka AWS:
I couldn’t agree more. She should certainly be fully capable of water skiing.
Davebo
Is anyone really concerned that Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum is going to beat the dem nominee in 2016?
Short or re-nominating Al Gore I just don’t see it happening.
Cacti
I don’t applaud Justice Ginsburg’s devotion to her own vanity.
Botsplainer
Oh, good. Another octogenarian hangs on for the purposes of legacy.
This is just swell.
Anne Laurie
@Cacti: As people keep reminding us, President Obama has another three years in office. Justice Ginsburg has at least two more SCOTUS sessions to change her mind, if it looks like his replacement will be a Republican. And in the interim, she’s the most experienced, reliable liberal on the bench.
Cacti
@Davebo:
I’ll vote for her if she’s the nominee, but I don’t have a lot of faith in “her imminence” HRC. Every advantage that she has now, she had back in 2008 and managed to muck it up. Her only electoral successes were for a legacy senate seat in one of the bluest states. She has neither the political chops nor the common touch that her husband had/has.
? Martin
@Cacti: Yes, because what we really need is a supreme court justice who is lacking in self-confidence of his/her understanding of the constitution. That would be much better.
Patricia Kayden
@Baud: Okay. Something must be wrong with me because I don’t see a Republican winning the presidency any time soon. I assume if Secretary Clinton runs, she’s a shoo in (except perhaps against Christie who can’t get by the T’Bag base).
Cacti
@? Martin:
You’re right.
Best to take our chances on the longevity of an octogenarian who’s already had two bouts of cancer.
Baud
@Patricia Kayden:
I would say we’re heavy favorites, but there is risk depending on who the two nominees are.
Patricia Kayden
@Davebo: The only viable Repub candidate would probably be Christie. Cruz, Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, etc., are jokers. I guess some boring ex-governor could step forward by 2016 like Romneybot, but I can’t imagine the rabid rightwing base would tolerate that. They want someone who’s out to destroy liberals.
IowaOldLady
I’m chortling away at the idea of Justice Obama. We’d all have to armor up against the exploding heads.
Gretchen
@Cacti: see Anne Laurie’s comment. She’s not risking anything by hanging on another 2 years, and possibly giving Obama a better Congress to approve her successor.
lojasmo
@Cacti:
I agree with this. I supported Obama in the primary mostly because I thought h e could beat McCain, and Clinton could not.
SuzieC
@IowaOldLady:
Love it. And he’d only be in his mid-50s.
Baud
@IowaOldLady:
It’s happened once before. But I doubt we’ll ever see it again. After being President, there isn’t all that much appealing about being a justice.
cathyx
Justice Obama? Please, no.
MikeJ
@? Martin:
Ain’t no such thing. Anybody who makes it to the bench is convinced that he or she is the first person in history to really understand it.
Baud
@MikeJ:
Fixed!
Cacti
@cathyx:
Earl Warren, lionized as the model liberal Chief Justice, was the Republican Attorney General of California, and was primarily known for the push to intern Japanese-Americans during WWII prior to his elevation to SCOTUS.
MikeJ
If she stepped down now Barack could nominate fellow lawyer Michelle.
mai naem
I read this story this AM and thought it was interesting that Ginsburg goes to the NIH for her care. I didn’t realize you could go to the NIH for actual care. I’ve always assumed it was a research org. as in, yes, for trials but not regular care. Whatever.
People keep on talking about Ginsburg being old and having a health history. I don’t think Scalia looks all that healthy, neither does Thomas for his age. Scalia’s hands look like he’s got cardiac issues and Thomas looks at least borderline obese. Black men tend to die earlier statistically(yeah, I know socioeconomics play a part but still.) Anyhow, I wouldn’t be surprised if an MI took either of these two. Also too, Roberts has had his health scares too. BTW, lets not forget that statistically men die younger than women and all the wimmens on the USSC are to the left.
? Martin
@MikeJ: Except that Cacti wants to make sure the liberal ones aren’t convinced of that. Why not just take Scalia’s word that he’s got it right? What’s the harm?
MikeJ
@Baud: I have no argument with your correction.
Cacti
@mai naem:
If I was religious, I would say it was Tony’s deal with the devil that kept him ticking.
He’s 77, fat, and a smoker.
mai naem
@MikeJ: I would love either of the Obamas on the USSC although I wonder if Barack would have to recuse himself from a lot of decisions. I actually think Barack would make an awesome justice and, the cherry on top, would be the right wing brains exploding. Also too, Hilary would have been awesome choice for the court but shes too old to waste on judicial nom. on.
Baud
@Cacti:
If Scalia were to kick it during Obama’s remaining years, you’re looking at a Second Civil War in this country.
ETA: I’m observing, not complaining.
Ted & Hellen
Another sign of our rotting, decrepit empire: Government officials far past their sell date imagine themselves to be immortal, refusing to retire, holding desperately onto power with the last bloody remnants of their yellowed, brittle, nearly dead person fingernails.
Anne Laurie
@MikeJ:
I’m pretty damn sure Michelle doesn’t want it. I think Barack would find the chance irresistable, and he’s certainly got the credentials!
Matt McIrvin
@Baud: In particular, we remember how Clarence Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall. Thurgood Marshall! It’s as if Superman died of old age and Bozo the Clown took his place. Or possibly Lex Luthor.
Mike in NC
“Justice Obama” has a nice ring to it, and it would drive the wingnuts batshit insane. Win-win.
James E. Powell
@IowaOldLady:
I would prefer to see Chief Justice Hillary Clinton, but my political wishes never come true.
Baud
@Matt McIrvin:
Actually, Marshall stepped down for health reasons. Had he waited to die, I think he might of made it to Clinton’s term. One of the great tragedies of the last 40 years.
Cacti
@Baud:
It is somewhat heartening that of the three oldest SCOTUS justices, two are wingers.
MikeJ
@Anne Laurie: http://forum-img.pinside.com/pinball/forum/?bb_attachments=846943&bbat=96752&inline
Baud
@Cacti:
Unfortunately, I think you could say the same thing about the three youngest justices. (Disclaimer: Too lazy to google).
Cacti
@Ted & Hellen:
Dios mio, I actually agree with you.
SuzieC
@Baud:
No, Kagan and Sotomayor are 2 of the 3 youngest. Roberts is also among the 3.
burnspbesq
@Baud:
Ya think?
FWIW, after the Repubs managed to keep Liu off the Ninth Circuit, The Artist Formerly Known As Governor Moonbeam put him on the California Supreme Court, so my money is still on him being the next Obama nominee if he gets one. Srinivasan needs a couple of years in AAA (the D.C. Circuit) before he’s ready for the Show.
Baud
@SuzieC:
Oh, good! I thought Sotomayor was older than Alito.
Cacti
@Baud:
Scalito’s a bit older than I thought (63).
Cacti
For everyone’s reference, the ages of the SCOTUS 9 are:
Ginsburg – 80
Scalia – 77
Kennedy – 77
Breyer – 75
Thomas – 65
Alito – 63
Sotomayor – 59
Roberts – 58
Kagan – 53
SuzieC
@Cacti:
And Sotomayor is 59, I think.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Cacti: Earl Warren was also Governor of California prior to being named at Chief Justice, in his last election he received the nomination of both the Republican party and the Democratic Party.
PeakVT
I certainly don’t think Ginsburg should step down now, but she should take a hard look at the political landscape in 2016 and consider what portions of her legacy might be undone if a Repuke is nominated to her seat.
Matt McIrvin
@Cacti: I don’t know, it might be a bad thing, but is this uniquely a sign of modern decrepitude?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices_by_time_in_office
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Graphic_timeline
Oliver Wendell Holmes, William O. Douglas and Hugo Black hung on pretty long. It does appear to me that very long terms in SCOTUS are now more the rule than the exception, but they were never unheard of.
burnspbesq
Thinking longer term, before he leaves office Obama needs to put Andrew Ceresney, the head of the Enforcement Division of the SEC, on the Second Circuit. I worked with Andrew on a project about eight years ago when he was at Debevoise; he might be the smartest person I’ve ever met. He was a superstar at the U.S. Attorney’s office, and he’s going to kick ass at the SEC.
MomSense
Yes!! This has been my dream for some time now!
Matt McIrvin
…one of the longest-service Justices was John Marshall, right at the beginning, and he died at 79.
Baud
@Matt McIrvin:
Supreme Court nominations were for the most part non-political prior to Bork. Scalia was voted on unanimously, I believe, and then the next one up was Bork, and that was a bridge too far for Congress. Kennedy eventually got his spot.
PsiFighter37
@Cacti: Thomas is only 65? That means he was appointed in his mid-40s…damn. We really screwed the pooch not blocking him then.
SuzieC
@PsiFighter37:
We tried, but then there was all that Anita Thomas and high-tech lynching stuff…
Cacti
@Baud:
And did the country ever dodge a bullet but not having him on the SCOTUS bench.
He was to the right of Rehnquist and Scalia, and I doubt he’d have had much difficulty pulling them further in that direction.
lojasmo
@Ted & Hellen:
just like your presence here. chief.
MomSense
@Cacti:
I will only vote for her if she is the nominee because it is insane to vote for a Republican or a 3rd party candidate if it might assist a Republican.
Belafon
And he will be both the most liberal and most conservative justice the court has ever seen. He will have been on the court since 2001, and it was his vote that allowed Bush to lie about going into Iraq and prevented him from adequately responding to Katrina.
fka AWS
Rehnquist was awful as a justice. The man was pure evil in a calm demeanor. one of Nixon’s more odious legacies.
fka AWS
@Belafon: He was worse than Bush! He sold us out!
catclub
@SuzieC: ” And he’d only be in his mid-50s.” Or She, they are both lawyers.
Maybe appoint both of them.
A Humble Lurker
@Ted & Hellen:
I want Scalia and Thomas to quit the court too.
priscianus jr
“Justice Obama will be taking his seat in 2017…”
Bit of trivia. Up to the present time, the only former president to later serve on the Supreme Court was William Howard Taft, who was president from 1909 to 1913 and Chief Justice from 1921 to 1930.
catclub
@PeakVT: I am not sure how unpromising for the GOP the 2016 election would have to be for them to approve ANY nominee from Obama, starting about december 2014. If they think it might be a GOP president in 2017, they will balk.
Anne Laurie
@SuzieC: Am I a bad person for imagining Ginsburg calling Scalia and saying “Guess what, Nino? Tony Kennedy’s stepping down, and President Obama’s nominating Anita HIll as his replacement!”
Even if Scalia didn’t stroke out on the spot, I can imagine him calling Clarence and ordering him to stuff Ginny in the Winnebago and set off for a Walmart parking lot in an undisclosed location with no extradiction treaty… and Thomas doing so…
eemom
From copy machine to Supreme Court scholar. Amazing.
Ben
@Baud:
He died January 24, 1993–four days after Clinton was inaugurated. Had he stayed that long recent history would be much different…
TriassicSands
@James E. Powell:
James, if you want your wishes to come true, or even have a remote likelihood of coming true, then you should wish for something that is at least possible.
Groucho48
Any Obama nominee would almost certainly be less liberal than Ginsburg and would have a lot less clout on the Court, being a rookie. She should only consider stepping down if her health took a big downturn or if it looked as though there was a good chance Republicans would win the Presidency in 2016.
Baud
@Groucho48:
Why do you believe Kagan and Sotomayor are less liberal than Ginsburg? Is there an actual analysis to back that up?
I think Breyer is actually the most conservative of the 4 Dems, FWIW.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@PsiFighter37: @SuzieC: The nomination of Bork was a deliberately provocative ideological move, the nomination of Thomas was one of the most cynical political plays in my lifetime; the cynicism of the Palin pick was as thoughtless and superficial as everything else about it. Poppy and Jimmy Bakker were much more conscious of what they were doing than McCain and his crew. You look hard at Poppy it’s a lot easier to see where Junior came from.
kc
@Cacti:
Sweet bleeding Jesus, you’re a douchebag.
Baud
@Ben:
To be fair, he might not have lasted that long had he stayed on the court. Who knows? Can’t change the past anyway.
Geoduck
@priscianus jr: And Taft got the job in part because he had always wanted it far more than he had ever wanted to be president.
fuckwit
Damn straight lady, thanks for speaking truth to power. This court is indeed loaded with right-wing activists. To hear someone that high up, on the court itself, say that out loud, is fucking awesome.
If she’s going to be kicking ass and taking names like this for the rest of her tenure, then by all means, keep it going.
I’m very happy with Obama’s picks so far. In my dreams he gets to nominate another one cut from that bolt of cloth, to replace one of the activists…. and to be mentored by Ginsburg.
? Martin
I would like to point out that Ginsburg and Scalia are personal friends. The most valuable thing Ginsburg can do for the court right now is to convince Scalia to leave. If hanging around for a year or two helps bring that day closer, we should all be for it.
Anne Laurie
@eemom: You want to offer a critique of the substance? Has my lack of a legal education misled me on the facts?
Starfish
I think that the concern with justices or even presidential candidates being too old is a little overblown. People underestimate how long affluent old people live. Bob Dole was “too old” to be President, and yet he is still alive these many years later.
Bobby Thomson
@? Martin:
FTFY.
If she dies during a Democratic administration, it’s clearly the right choice. Unfortunately, statistically speaking, she’s the next to go, but it’s impossible to predict whether there will be a Democratic president then or a Senate that is more or less insane than the one we have now.
Bobby Thomson
@IowaOldLady: Jeff Toobin was recommending that back in 2007.
kc
@Anne Laurie:
Hell no, she’s got nothin’.
A Humble Lurker
@Starfish:
Want to point out he wasn’t President, though. That job robs you of years.
Jay
POTUS on SCOTUS?
I’ve never heard that before.
I’m bullish on Feingold. I know some folks think he’s the politician of the lefty purity police, but Sec’y. Kerry currently has him on an important Africa portfolio, so I think Russ gets on better with the administration than some people think.
Second, Feingold has a very important friend in the Senate-some guy named McCain-who could probably grab more than a few Republican votes for him. Altogether, I don’t think Feingold’d cause a huge fuss in the upper chamber. Could it be? An ideologue who isn’t that hard to confirm? I like the idea.
Anything on Attorney General Harris and her record? She probably replaces Mr. Holder at Justice now that Janet Napolitano has a college job, but what do I know? I like the way she carries herself, and a SCOTUS appointment would be one heck of an apology by POTUS for his ribbing sometime back.
kc
@Anne Laurie:
If a couple of guys were to smooch passionately in front of Scalia, he’d probably have a massive breitbart on the spot.
Bobby Thomson
@Matt McIrvin: Douglas in particular hung on after he really was incapacitated.
Bobby Thomson
@PsiFighter37: Thank Joe Biden. Without a doubt the nadir of his career.
Tokyokie
@kc: If that’s all it’d take, I’ll happily volunteer, and I’m straight.
? Martin
@Bobby Thomson: Are you expecting Obama to be impeached before 2016, because last I checked, we’ve got a Democratic president for some time to come yet.
Ted & Hellen
@lojasmo:
I feel ya, Sparky.
gene108
I am aghast that Ginnsburg is older than Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia, despite being nominated to the court later than those three.
I’m also butt hurt over the fact Breyer is only a couple of years younger than Kennedy and Scalia, while Thomas is a full decade or more younger than Ginnsburg, Breyer, Kennedy and Scalia.
Clinton really didn’t think through how longevity on the court matters for shaping laws in the future.
fuckwit
@Starfish: Well, Presidents should be in good physical health, and being younger is an advantge. It’s a stressful job, and physical too, lots of travelling, which takes a lot out of you, and all the daily crises, fast-moving emergencies, etc. Look at how people age in it– the before/after pictures of Carter, Clinton, and even Shrub, are notable. But a SCOTUS justice could and probably should go on until they drop. It’s a pretty sedentary job, lots of control over schedules, you choose your work to a large degree rather than the other way around, not too many real emergencies, lots of time to think, and very little (zero?) travel required
MomSense
@Jay:
I don’t consider Feingold to be part of the purity brigade. I used to get frustrated in 2010 when Dems were outraged that Obama extended the Bush tax cuts before the election when it was reported at the time that there were Dem Senators (including Reid and Feingold) who asked the President not to make an issue of it before the election. At the time, the issue of taxes was one that gave Republicans an edge.
Bobby Thomson
@? Martin: Not really. If she dies within a year or two of any presidential election they will Norm Coleman any replacement and run out the clock. Tell me I’m wrong.
Bobby Thomson
@gene108: Clinton didn’t care about that. He just wanted someone who would be confirmed easily by a Republican Senate. Even Hatch liked Breyer. (Yes, his age may have had something to do with it.)
mai naem
Obviously, I hope the next nominee is by a Dem prez and I really really hope it’s an Asian. Preferably an Asian woman but not sure there’s a qualified liberal Asian woman. Kamala Harris, kind of,but she’s an AG not a judge.
MikeJ
Anyone watching the derby at the Clink?
Bostondreams
@Jay:
Taft became a Supreme Court justice after his presidency. Couldn’t see that happening anymore with politics today.
Mnemosyne
@mai naem:
In addition to the aforementioned Goodwin Liu, there’s Harold Koh, though his expertise may technically be in international law. Still, hard to go wrong with a former Dean of Yale Law School.
Shalimar
@Groucho48: By the time anyone can make an estimated guess as to whether Republicans have a good chance of winning the Presidency in 2016, it will be past the point where Obama is getting a nominee through the Senate. It doesn’t matter who he nominates in 2016 and probably 2015 as well, Republican senators aren’t going to let the nominee come up for a vote.
Mnemosyne
@mai naem:
Also, too, I kind of suspect that Harris wants to be the first woman governor of California, so she probably wouldn’t accept a SC nomination.
(At least, I think she would be the first. That’s what I get for not being a California native.)
Bobby Thomson
@Mnemosyne: He’d be great, but it was extremely difficult just to get Professor Koh a confirmation vote for a legal advisor job, and that was when there were more nominal Democrats in the Senate. Not a chance in hell they would allow a SCOTUS confirmation vote because America! Fuck yeah! Plus he’s almost 59.
And there are also the resulting shrieks of DROOOOOOOOOOOOONZ to consider.
MikeJ
@Bobby Thomson:
Sasha is the obvious choice. There’s no law saying you need to graduate law school before joining the court.
Mandalay
@Starfish:
Age isn’t the issue. It’s the brain that comes (and goes) with age. As you approach old age your mental powers diminish. No exceptions.
I’ve never been on the Supreme Court so I’m not truly qualified to judge, but I wonder whether people over 80 – however brilliant they may have been when younger, and however much “wisdom” they have acquired – are truly capable of properly doing the job of being on SCOTUS.
What other kinds of job exist where being over 80 isn’t a consideration?
burnspbesq
@MikeJ:
Looks like a college game. 22 headless chickens. Both sides need to slow down and play football.
Awesome recovery and defensive header by Yedlin right before halftime. That kid’s got a future.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Mnemosyne: she would be the first, yes. I suspect she’s also eyeing Dianne Feinstein, who’s 80 herself.
MikeJ
@burnspbesq: Football won’t really be an American sport until people stop wearing scarves to games in August. If Americans are going to insist on playing a winter game in the summer[1], they need to replace the team scarf with the team double beer hat.
[1] You can’t have jumpers for goalposts if nobody is wearing a jumper.
Groucho48
@Baud:
I’m not saying Kagan and Sotomayor aren’t liberal. But Congress has moved far to the right since they were confirmed. Our best hope is that we have a huge turnout in 2016 and get control of ther House back, or, at least, lose some of the more crazy Tea Party folks.
If Ginsburg resigned tomorrow, we wouldn’t have a replacement for a couple years unless Obama made a deal with Republicans to nominate a moderate.
I really don’t like the thought of a SC with 4 solid conservative votes and only three solid liberal votes. I also think Ginsburg has more influence with Kennedy than either Kagan or Sotomayor.
I can see Republicans stalling any nomination while rushing every ideological court case they possibly can in front of the SC.
ira-NY
There should be a mandatory retirment age.
I would set it at 70. After 70, virtually everyone has lost a few MPH off their mental fastball.
I think Ginsberg should retire.
MikeJ
And that’s what 67,000 happy people looks like.
burnspbesq
@MikeJ:
Crowd shots showing a sold-out 68,000 seat stadium are gonna make a lot of old farts like me, who started playing in the 1960s, cry. Fucking awesome.
ruemara
@burnspbesq: Were you at Debevoise & Plimpton? In the 00’s or the 90’s? Smallish world if you were.
burnspbesq
@ruemara:
Debevoise were counsel to the special committee of the board in the Hilfiger grand jury investigation. I worked for the company’s transfer pricing consultants (we were engaged by Wachtell Lipton). Met a bunch of really impressive lawyers on that project. And nobody got indicted, so mission accomplished.
TCG
Ginsberg isn’t just old. She’s old and was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. They caught is early, but unless somebody thinks she’s got another decade to go, she needs to retire before the end of PBO’s second term. And that’s true even if Hillary is the nominee for 2016. She’s being selfish if she doesn’t.
? Martin
If Obama doesn’t name Glenn Greenwald to replace Ginsburg, then there’s really no reason to keep voting Democratic.
Roger Moore
@Belafon:
FTFY
Dead Ernest
@Mandalay:
Just off the top of my head:
A. Any sort of God, deity (I believe FSM is the only youngster)
B. member of the Rolling Stones.
Roger Moore
@? Martin:
Impeached, yes; convicted, no. I honestly don’t think the House Republicans will be able to restrain themselves through the end of 2014.
Roger Moore
@Mandalay:
I seriously wonder if that isn’t happening to Scalia right now. He really seems to have gone off the deep end.
Roger Moore
@Groucho48:
Unless Harry Reid launched the nuclear option, which is a real possibility. I think Obama would have a better chance of getting his ideological preferences in a nomination if he were replacing Ginsberg than Scalia or Kennedy. Some of the
more moderateless crazy (R)’s in the Senate would be willing to let a moderately liberal justice slide as long as she were replacing another liberal justice. But they’d really flip out if it would tilt the ideological lean of the court, and the only way anything would happen would be eliminating the filibuster.MikeJ
@Roger Moore:
Side effect of too many pubic hairs in his Coke can. Thomas has to do something when he’s just sitting there.
MikeJ
Glad about the outcome of the game, but not great football. Man U v Chelsea tomorrow should be a great early season game.
Scamp Dog
@fuckwit: A two-term president is in for eight years. How many people don’t show signs of aging over an eight year interval, especially if it starts in their 40s or 50s?
eemom
@Anne Laurie:
You mean the “facts” about the dynamic amongst the Justices about which you know absolutely nothing, and are making shit up? No, that’s got nothing to do with the lack of a legal education.
Anya
I love and admire Justice Ginsburg tremendously but her stay is a huge risk when you consider the general stupidity of the American electorate.
Gian
late to the thread, but I’d love to see the first lady on the supreme court.
she does have a decent legal education…
and to be selfish, I’d love to see the politics play out. That and in a fight I’d take her over any of the right wingers, those arms…
srv
Shit, my uncle is a FDJ, and he’s 90. Ruth has at least another decade in her.
karen
You really think that Obama will be able to appoint someone to replace Ginsburg if she was to retire? Really?
Look at all the trouble he’s been having just to fill Cabinet positions!
My guess is that the debt ceiling and the government shutdown will be the GOP threat if Obama nominates someone left of Hitler.
xenos
I am surprised that the vituperative vipers here want Scalia and Thomas to spontaneously drop dead. It would be much better for them to be impeached and convicted, suffer humiliation and rejection, and then drop dead.
You really have to set proper goals if you want to achieve something worthwhile.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@xenos: If you’re going to use alliteration, you should at least call them “vicious venal vituperative vipers”
Hal
I’m holding out for a conservative to retire. If it appears Hillary will win, maybe one of them will give up and just say forget about it, and resign by 2016.
Also, I’ve noticed some comments regarding how far to the right Congress has drifted, but SC Justices are approved by the Senate. There is still some sanity there that could prevail. Whatever the case, I say Ginsburg might as well stay on until after the 2014 Midterm elections. If Dems pick up seats, then retire. Of course if Dems lose seats, we’re screwed. Ok, so maybe she should retire. Oh hell, I don’t know.
Groucho48
@Roger Moore:
Having Ginsburg step down now so that Obama can replace her with a young, solid liberal, through passage of the nuclear option in the Senate, is pinning your hopes on an awfully thin Reid.
Really, all you folks saying Ginsburg should step down now so we can just replace her with a young liberal are delusional if you think there is any chance of a liberal getting pass the Senate. Every Rep up for election in 2014 would have to oppose it for fear of being Tea Bagged.
Not to mention, whoever he nominated, a good chunk of the left would oppose because the person isn’t the right sex or nationality, or made a couple decisions that were absolute proof that the nominee is even worse than Scalia.
Not to mention she is obviously getting pissed off at some of the recent court decisions and isn’t afraid to use her position to comment. She is one of the few liberals that actually has enough of a pulpit that the MSM can’t completely ignore her.
LB
@Baud: They were very much political. Look at Nixon’s nominees, for example. The difference was that there was more deference to the President. But then again Clinton’s liberals were confirmed when Republicans controlled the Senate.
pattonbt
@Patricia Kayden: My take is I always think the Presidency is easily winnable by the Republicans (or Democrats). The Presidential election is a dog and pony vote, most presenatble candidate generally wins. I have no idea who the Dem candidate will be, but don’t be sure it’s a lock because the Reps look crazy. If the D’s put up a dud, the R’s will win.
If the hate for R’s was as deep and wide as we believed it to be, the House would be flipping this election cycle and the D’s would not be in a position to lose the Senate.
Don’t get cocky.
Fake Irishman
@IowaOldLady:
Doesn’t Anne mean when Justice Obama takes HER seat in 2017?
AxelFoley
@cathyx:
Why am I not surprised by this troll’s reaction? LOL
Full Metal Wingnut
Justice
Full Metal Wingnut
Justice Ginsburg is my hero. Also, we should enjoy her tenure. Obama has a decent track record thus far re SCOTUS. But we’re not going to see someone like Ginsburg again I fear.
PopeRatzo
Here’s hoping she waits until there is a liberal in the White House.
One can dream…
PopeRatzo
@AxelFoley: I’d be willing to have a Justice Obama, as long as it wasn’t Barack.
El Cid
@MikeJ:
I wish this could be made a believable rumor so as to enjoy the NeoConfederate TeaBircher heads explode.
cmorenc
@Patricia Kayden:
A specific, concrete historical example should help correct your lack of understanding of this matter:
– Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was appointed to the court by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967, was forced by rapidly declining health at age 83 to step down from the court in October 1991 during the Presidency of George H. Bush, just over a year before the 1992 election in which Bush lost to Clinton. WHO DID BUSH GET TO NOMINATE AS HIS REPLACEMENT? Clarence Thomas, who was shamefully unworthy to occupy a seat at ANY level in the federal courts, let alone as the direct replacement to the specific seat held by Thurgood Marshall. BTW: Marshall, before becoming a Justice, was a civil right lawyer who successfully strategized, litigated, and argued the seminal segregation cases which culminated in the overruling of Plessy v Ferguson in Brown v Board of Education.
At age eighty-something, Justice Ginsburg’s determination to stay on to do good work on the court is far more likely to result in systematic dismantlement of her life’s work if a Republican President gets to name her replacement because her health declines too forbiddingly for her to continue on the court.
cmorenc
@Anne Laurie:
SO WAS JUSTICE THURGOOD MARSHALL. And because he had to step down in his 80s due to rapidly declining health a year from the end of George H. Bush’s presidency, who replaced him? CLARENCE FUCKING THOMAS.
Cris (without an H)
I don’t know. Willard could do it, so as long as Christie faces a similarly weak & wacky a primary field, he should be able to slide through to the general.
The Lodger
@priscianus jr: Slightly OT, but does anyone know if Taft was heavier than Chris Christie?
Groucho48
Rather than clamor for Ginsburg to step down, wouldn’t it be better to expend that effort to make sure a Republican doesn’t get elected in 2016? If a Republican DOES win in 2016, he’ll probably get to nominate several SC justices as well as nominate several more to fill the newly expanded DC Circuit Court.
To call for Ginsburg to step down because we are afraid the Republicans might win in 2016 is about as good example of left wing defeatism as I can think of. We need her right where she is.
KCIvey
@Cacti, plugging those into Randall Munroe’s actuary.py, we get:
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
From your lips to God’s ears, AL, and on a direct line…
Full Metal Wingnut
@cmorenc: The big difference being that there wasn’t much Marshall could do about it. His last chance to step down before his health problems got really bad and be replaced by someone not a rightwing nutso was 1980, before Reagan took office. Before Bush, it was Reagan, and I’m sure Marshall was greatly put off by Bork shit (if not by the other shit Reagan had pulled up to that point). There is no Reagan in office today. Ginsburg has the opportunity. She’s the most solid liberal on the Court since Marshall, and I would think she’d have learned from history. One has to think that we’re not going to see another Ginsburg for a good while. I don’t think Obama is going to go to bat for a liberal’s liberal to be on the Court, nor do I think it’s necessarily feasible during this Congress (or any future Congress during the rest of Obama’s term). Therefore, even squeezing out another 2, hell, even 5-6 years is absolutely not worth it if she ends up being replaced with a Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas.
You could definitely examine whether Marshall’s presence on the court throughout the 80s was important. No reason for anyone to think Carter was going to lose before at least I’d argue mid to late 1979 (and polls showed Carter ahead for much of 1980). So I lay no blame at Marshall’s feet. The gods are cruel-if Marshall had only been able to hang on another year and a half, no one would know Clarence Thomas’s name (or maybe he would’ve been a Bush II appointee).
Scalia, of course is the one being (ideologically) responsible here. He’s also at an age where he should start thinking about retirement, but he’ll never leave SCOTUS while a Democrat is in office.
Full Metal Wingnut
@Full Metal Wingnut: I will also add that Supreme Court appointments were a completely different ballgame before Bork. It wasn’t unusual for a President to appoint a justice of an opposing ideology (Hoover appoint Cardozo, after all) although that wasn’t so common anymore by the late 20th century.
Confirmations were not formalities, of course, nor should they have been (that would be Congress abdicated their Article I responsibilities). But there was an unspoken agreement/assumption that the President would appoint people likeminded to himself and his party, but not woefully underqualified or extremist justices. There were no litmus tests as we know them now, or hiding one’s background or dodging questions.
Of course, people say that Bork was railroaded and smeared. Congress was just doing it’s job of course, as they should have. And I will also say that Reagan basically gave Democrats the middle finger by nominating Bork. He violated the longstanding assumption that Presidents, while they would of course nominate people from their team, would not nominated looney tunes, and nominated someone who was batshit crazy. And then he and the Republicans, when Bork was shot down, had the balls to say that the Democrats were out of line when it was really his side that fired the first shot.
Even if it were a good idea for Marshall to have stepped down during the Carter Administration (which is not an argument any reasonable person makes) he had every reason to believe pre-Bork that the confirmation process would not be a shitshow and the President would not nominate lunatics to replace him.