I would appreciate Ginsburg more, if...

[Michigander_Life]

...she retires soon. Like, say, tomorrow. We need her replacement to be young and liberal to the core. As much as I appreciate her incredible service to our country, her work will be undermined if her successor is picked by the Republicans. Kennedy needs to step down, too, and let PBO replace him.

[Xipe Totec]

1. You're out of your everlovin' mind

Why don't you ask for Scalia's resignation instead?

[Michigander_Life]

4. What are the chances of that?

Be realistic.

[Xipe Totec]

10. What are the chances of Ginsburg being replaced with a liberal?

Fat chance.

[Michigander_Life]

17. A lot better when we control the presidency and senate

Than when the thugs do. We need to think strategically, for the next half century will depend on who replaces Kennedy and Ginsburg. It is incredibly shortsighted and risky to delay any longer.

[SoCalDem]

24. Which is precisely why we need a complete overhaul of SCOTUS

A country the size of ours should have a 21 justice body..

Cases accepted for considerations should have at least 15 in agreement to accept the case, and a RANDOM 9 selected to sit on the actual case.


Imagine how that one thing would affect our laws.. The most political would choose cases more critically if they thought that someone else would actually be deciding the cases, and a larger body would allow for MANDATORY recusals if ANY family member of a justice has any issue related to a case (Thomas...Alito..Scalia)

and they should no longer be lifetime appointments...10 years is plenty

I would also like to set age limits.. no younger than 60 and no older than 75..

[WI_DEM]

44. FDR couldn't expand the court and no other president will be

get away with doing it either. It's a nice thought but not practical which is why some of these long service liberals should make way for younger blood while we still have a dem president and Senate.

[SoCalDem]

50. Since FDR tried it, a LOT has changed and we have become a much more diverse

and LARGER country.. I really think that if the idea were to be presented properly, both sides could agree, since it would be a moderating effort..and could soothe a lot of ruffled feathers

[Xipe Totec]

61. You don't discard the aces; you discard the douches first.

[Hekate]

63. Nicely punned

[Michigander_Life]

64. Shortsighted

If we could force Scalia and Thomas out during a democratic presidency, we would. But we can't. Ginsburg is going to retire soon either because of age or her serious medical problems. If she times her retirement strategically -- now, while we control the senate and presidency -- she will influence the future of the court for the next half century. If she waits, the risk of a a Scalia 2.0 replacing her dramatically increases.

[lostincalifornia]

5. I agree with you, but the logic of the op is do it while we have a majority

In the senate. Not entirely far fetched

[Michigander_Life]

9. Absolutely.

She's done an incredible service to our country. She has the chance to shape the future court by strategically planning the timing of her retirement.

[Xipe Totec]

14. You need a supermajority

Otherwise it's DOA.

[BootinUp]

19. Yes, I can't imagine who Obama could get through the nomination

that would help our cause right now. We need a big November.

[Michigander_Life]

20. We used the nuclear option before didn't we?

Whatever it takes to secure the courts.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

49. I see where you're comin from, but I'm afraid her replacement's confirmation would carry over to next year; can't risk it.

[pnwmom]

21. I hope he does more than resign. But it's not either/or.

He doesn't care about progressive values.

But since she does, she should show it by resigning while Obama can replace her, instead of taking a chance on their being another Democratic president and -- more unlikely -- another Democratic Senate majority.

[Horse with no Name]

38. No shit and thinking we would get ANYONE that is half as sane as Ginsburg through this Congress is

a crapshoot.

[Aerows]

71. Amen

I'll dance in the streets when that bastard resigns.

[JI7]

2. i wish DU did a better job of getting rid of Trolls

especially openly obvious ones.

[Michigander_Life]

6. Seriously?

You would prefer her to stay on the court and risk getting replaced with another Thomas or Scalia, rather than control the court's future by strategically timing her retirement?

[Swede Atlanta]

12. What is your point?

I don't think the OP was suggesting anything more than the fact Ginsburg is getting up in years and has had several health issues. We have about 2 years left in the BO presidency. We could lose control of the Senate in November. Even if we don't the filibuster is still in place for Supreme Court nominations.

There is a tinge of age bias in the post but that is partly the point. She is going to retire sometime (and likely sooner rather than later but of course we don't know that for sure) and the poster was just hoping she would give us time to work through the horrible situation in the Senate to get a replacement liberal Associate Justice nominated and confirmed before BO leaves office.

There is no way a nomination would succeed now prior to the election and the next Congress. The pukes would filibuster to prevent the nomination from even coming up for a vote. They can smell blood in the water should they take control of the Senate.

[FSogol]

15. +1 n/t

[pnwmom]

22. The OP isn't a troll. The OP is being realistic -- something a lot of people here can't stand.

If the next Justice is appointed by a Rethug -- or by a Democrat with a Republican majority in the Senate -- we'll be much worse off than we are today.

[Fla Dem]

65. +1000

[jeff47]

77. Realistic would mean knowing what a filibuster is. (nt)

[pnwmom]

84. I know what a filibuster is. And anyone appointed by a Rethug,

including anyone who edged past a Democratic filibuster, is going to be far more conservative than someone Obama could appoint right now. We wouldn't be looking at another Sotomayor or Kagan.

[jeff47]

85. No, there is absolutely no one that Obama could appoint right now.

Because Republicans would filibuster the appointment. Obama would have to appoint a Scalia clone for McConnell to let the appointment through.

[Logical]

57. Where in the hell did you pull that idea from? Weird post! nt

[warrior1]

3. this sound like age bias

[el_bryanto]

8. There's a reason it sounds like that. nt

[pnwmom]

25. She has also had a very serious form of cancer -- pancreatic cancer.

If a Republican is elected President, statistically speaking, she'd be unlikely to survive his term.

[avaistheone1]

7. Love Ginsburg.

I want to stay as long as she can serve.

[Michigander_Life]

11. I love her too.

But what if she stays another year, and the republicans win the senate, then block POTUS from appointing her replacement until disaster in 2016 when a Repiblicsn wins and appoints a new Scalia to replace her.

[NCTraveler]

13. I would appreciate it more if.......

One of the most important and influential persons in the progressive movement would step down. Ohhhh.... Wait.... Never mind.

[Michigander_Life]

23. Don't look at it like that

Look at it like I would appreciate it if one of the most influential progressives asserted her influence by strategically timing her retirement to cement a liberal justice replacement for years to come.

[NCTraveler]

26. You have absolutley no clue if you would get a liberal justice. No clue at all.

You have one now. Your point is clear. Your logic is flawed.

[Michigander_Life]

35. Right

No guarantees.

But realistically, she is most likely going to retire within the next several years. The chances of her replacement being liberal plummet if President Obama's successor is a Republican.

We have far better chances now with a democratic senate and democratic president than with republicans in control.

[pnwmom]

30. She will be influential and important for far longer if she steps down now,

allowing for a replacement who can bring a progressive point of view to the court for decades.

If she allows herself to be replaced by a Conservative, she can quickly watch her most important judicial decisions get tossed in the trash by the new activist conservatives.

[Michigander_Life]

31. Exactly, pnwmom

She has accomplished SO MUCH, it would be such a waste to see her accomplishments wiped away by a Scalia-like replacement.

[pnwmom]

34. They seem to think her accomplishments are set in stone -- so the more, the better.

They don't seem to have a clue about how fluid things have been during the Roberts court.

[Michigander_Life]

39. It literally makes me nauseous to think about her being replaced by a Scalia or Thomas

[NCTraveler]

40. "They don't seem to have a clue about how fluid things have been during the Roberts court."

How many times has the Roberts court overturned previous decisions?

[pnwmom]

47. Justice Ginsburg herself says the Roberts court is the most activist IN HISTORY.

It overturned, with her inadvertent help, the Rights Act of 1965. So she must be aware that if she's replaced by a conservative, all her other work is at risk.



http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/08/24/ginsburg-calls-current-court-one-the-most-activist-history/uM90R1R4Es6u9dlVbziUiO/story.html

WASHINGTON — 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.”

SNIP

If it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history…. This court has overturned more legislation, I think, than any other.

[NCTraveler]

33. I understand your point, it is the logic that is flawed.

You are saying it is best if one of the most influential persons to the left would step down, being replaced by who knows. Hell no. She is clearly extremely competent. What the fuck are you asking an amazingly competent and influential woman to step down for. It is a pretty shitty thought process.

[pnwmom]

43. My logic isn't flawed. The progressive decisions she has participated in aren't set in stone.

If she leaves and is replaced by someone more conservative -- which is sickeningly likely, since the Rethugs may take the Senate, and then the Presidency -- every single one of those decisions you approve of could be overturned.

If she cares more about progressive values than her own career, then she'll leave while Obama still has a chance to appoint a replacement who could fill her progressive shoes for decades.

[NYC Liberal]

16. I agree. This is politics. The "SCOTUS is impartial and above it" nonsense

has to stop. Anyone who thinks Scalia or Thomas aren't waiting for a right-wing president and Senate before they quit are fooling themselves.

You know what - I DO blame justices who don't think about that. It's selfish. They are thinking only of themselves and not about the future of this county and the Constitution. Do I think they're terrible people just as bad as some right-wing justice? NO. But they need to think about what they are doing.

[yeoman6987]

18. I just find that absolutely awful and insulting

She has a little age on her and she needs to retire? We have people who work at my University who are that age and would be mighty insulted if I asked them to retire so we could replacement them with younger and liberal to the core......I think I would be hit over the head quite frankly.

[Swede Atlanta]

27. Yeoman.....we are looking at how we avoid calamity in the future....

I think Ginsburg is the most intelligent and rational Justice on the Court. I agree with nearly every decision she has supported.

But she is getting up in years and has had several health issues. My fear is we go along another year and she has a serious acute health issue that requires her to retire.

We are now well into the 2016 Presidential campaign cycle. The Senate could be controlled by the Republicans. There is a high likelihood they would stop the nomination of anyone who wasn't at least as conservative as Scalia, Thomas and Roberts from even coming up for a vote.

So now we have a 5-3 conservative majority. Even if a Democrat is elected to the White House in 2016 if the Senate were to remain in Republican control we are screwed.

So why not start doing some succession planning. Businesses do this all the time. Give the President time to find the right nominee to replace her and fight through the Senate to win confirmation.

This isn't out of disrespect for her and for her many years of wonderful service. It is about the very future of our country.

[Michigander_Life]

29. Ugh, so shortsighted!

She has the ability to strategically time her retirement to influence the direction of the court for the next half century. She IS aging and DOES have health issues. She is completely competent and likely could continue being a wonderful justice for several more productive years. But at what cost? Is it worth it to risk her replacement being Scalia 2.0 if we lose the presidency in 2016?

I am in no way disparaging her or her abilities. I am encouraging her to be strategic in timing her retirement, in order to influence the future of the court.

[Swede Atlanta]

37. +1

You and I are aligned....

We both think she is the cat's meow, the sunshine in the day, etc. but is smart enough to recognize what is going on in this country.

We are at a point where we already have a 5-4 conservative majority on the Court. Numerous catastrophes could befall us from having the Senate pass to Republican control early next year to even seeing a Republican in the White House and Republican control of both Houses starting in 2017.

Should that happen our country is lost. Decisions like Citizen's United, Hobby Lobby, etc. are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We would see Christian Sharia law imposed. We would see workers rights eliminated. We would see a dismantling of the ACA.

The world would come to a constructive end for those of us that love this country and fear for her future.

[DesertRat]

28. I disagree. I love her

Imo, her written dissenting opinion in the Hobby Lobby case was brilliant. It was very satisfying and thought-provoking. She torn down each part of the argument.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

[pnwmom]

32. And if she dies and her replacement is appointed by a Republican,

we can all watch while every decision she ever participated in -- on the winning side -- gets quickly overturned by the new activist conservatives.

Haven't you been watching? They don't hesitate to overturn decades old decisions, when it suits them. And it will, if they have a 6 - 3 majority.

[NCTraveler]

36. You don't seem to know how the SC works.

"we can all watch while every decision she ever participated in -- on the winning side -- gets quickly overturned by the new activist conservatives."

Can you find the flaw in your argument?

[Swede Atlanta]

52. Please advise us.........

Curious minds want to know, seriously of course

[pnwmom]

58. You are the one who hasn't been paying attention. The Roberts court doesn't respect

Judicial precedent -- they just pay it lip service. Scalia has flip-flopped on his OWN prior decisions, whenever it suits him.

[BootinUp]

60. I have.

And I have never imagined a worse Supreme Court than what we have. It was the Bush v, Gore decision that really made me realize that ignoring politics was not a good idea. I think it woke a lot of other people up too. Sadly it takes time to turn the ship around. It had to get worse before it could get better.

I still think it wouldn't help for Ginsburg to step down. We need to focus on November.

[DesertRat]

54. She doesn't need to retire tomorrow, imo. nt

[Michigander_Life]

56. If her medical issues force her retirement early next year

But the senate has changed hands in the mid terms, her replacement will be guaranteed to be center right. And THAT is an avoidable tragedy.

[WI_DEM]

41. A lot of folks don't seem to get your point, but I do

Ginsburg is 81 years old. There is a better than even chance that the Senate will go to the GOP this year. At the end of this term she should put in her resignation and allow the president to nominate her successor while the Dems still have the Senate. I actually think she should have done this a couple of years ago when we had an even bigger majority. I think she is a great justice but we need to get as strong a liberal as we can. Obama did well with his previous two picks.

[Demit]

46. There's no need to call people dummies. That's alertable.

I'm not going to alert on you. But I am calling you out for it. Make your point without insulting people.

Edited to add: That was quick. Good thing you thought better of it.

[WI_DEM]

48. Don't lecture

"Good thing you thought better of it" Yeah and I didn't need you to tell me.

[Pathwalker]

42. Do you honestly think a Supreme Court nominee could even be

confirmed today? The Nuclear Option doesn't cover them.

[Michigander_Life]

45. They have the option of voting nuclear again, but including supreme nominations, I think

[Pathwalker]

53. I fear the reaction by the right would be explosive.

They have already been violent, and are growing more so, this would only make it worse. Personally, I consider Justice Ginsberg a national treasure.

[Michigander_Life]

55. I would rather deal with their reaction than with Ginsburg's replacement being Scalia-like

She is a national treasure. She has the power to shape the future of the court by strategically timing her retirement, which due to age and serious cancer, is quickly coming. If she had many more years left, I would beg her to stay. But she doesn't. It's awful but it's reality.

[truedelphi]

51. Obama's two choices for SCOTUS are both Pro-corporate-controlled women.

Not holding my breath that we get the nation back from the One Percent any time soon, or even in my lifetime.

[pnwmom]

59. We're still better off than if they're all in the Scalia/Alito camp. n/t

[truedelphi]

67. How would we be better off? Being sick from fracking and from GMO's and yeah great,

Abortions would be available while young women get seriously sick from all this putridity. So yeah for abortion! And the LBGT crowd can marry while they fight off cancer and other illnesses from fracking.

Watch "Gaslands" and then get back to me, okay?

If we' re all unable to eat any food, and unable to breath the air or water, and the crops we grow are contaminated, will we be celebrating?

For instance, this bit of good news just in, with regards to how the NY State of Appeals Court found in favor of towns and cities stopping drilling and fracking from negatively impacting the area.

URL for news about the ban to frack being A-okay with NY court system:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/30/3454580/new-york-towns-can-ban-fracking/

The above is great news... but what will happen if this then ends up in front of SCOTUS. SCOTUS loves those big corporations. But I am pretty sure how the SCOTUS crowd will view a town or city's right to stop fracking within their city limits. The SCOTUS crowd loves to promote the Corporate World.

If we're all unable to eat any food, and unable to breath the air or water, and the GM pillage of our health, and the fracking pillage of our health continues unabated, it is game over, folks.

And one other horrendous issue - the super grab of all the water. So we can have abortions YIPPEE! and we can attend the LBGT crowd's marriages. But we are screwed in every other way on account of accepting fascism.

[Hekate]

62. Great way to thank the woman for her courageous service. Why not "pray" for Scalito to suddenly need

... more time with their families instead?

[pnwmom]

66. Why not do both? But I'd be happy if Scalito just disappeared completely.

If you know what I mean . . . .

[Hekate]

68. oh hell yes

[pnwmom]

70. You got it. n/t

[Aerows]

74. I'll prepare a box of tissues

that neither of us will need.

[Michigander_Life]

69. I hope Scalia and Thomas die from diarrhea induced dehydration

But Ginsburg has the power in her hands. My hopes don't mean shit.

[Aerows]

73. I rarely agree with you

and probably won't again, but in this matter? Fuck Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

72. Fuck your ageism. Go tell Scalia and Kennedy to fucking retire!

[Michigander_Life]

76. Tell me how you really feel

[customerserviceguy]

75. Not gonna make any difference

We don't have enough votes in the Senate to stop a fillibuster that would last until the next Congress is seated. And if things don't swing our way soon, it will get even more difficult to get an Obama nominee through.

However, take heart, Hillary will have at least four years to appoint Ginsburg's replacement. She may well appoint a corporatist, but any of her nominees would have to pass the women's rights litmus test.

[jeff47]

78. That's a monumentally dumb idea.

Filibuster. You might wanna bother looking up what that is.

There is absolutely zero possibility of getting someone as liberal as Ginsburg through the Senate.

[Michigander_Life]

79. Nuclear option. We have used it before, we can use it again -- and apply it to the supreme nom.

[jeff47]

80. Will never pass.

There's a reason Democrats stopped at that line. They do not have the votes to cross it.

This is a really, really, really dumb idea.

[Michigander_Life]

83. Smarter than letting a Republican president or senate control through nominations

[jeff47]

86. Yes. Because you are replacing a liberal with a moderate Republican.

The only people who can possibly get through the Senate right now are going to be to the right of Kennedy.

[tritsofme]

88. I disagree with that reasoning completely.

The reason Democrats stopped at that line was because they had no reason to cross it, there was no SCOTUS nominee before them.

Why make the jump, when it might be a Republican majority faced with the bad PR of touching the button in the future?

However Reid's willingness to touch the nuclear button over lower court and executive nominees sets a precedent as such that neither party's majority leader will tolerate a future SCOTUS filibuster, and that they would be free to act as Reid did.

The ability of the minority to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee is a mere formality in today's Senate, and I think everyone is acting accordingly. Press releases from the minority leader's office (whoever that may be) notwithstanding.

[BootinUp]

89. Seems more like, the Dems have drawn a line they can't cross to me. nt

[tritsofme]

91. Do you really think Harry Reid would allow minority Republicans to defeat an Obama SCOTUS nominee?

I don't.

I think Harry has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb, and that he will frame any future vacancy by indicating his willingness to go nuclear again.

[Michigander_Life]

92. They can, and SHOULD if that's what it takes to secure the court!

[jeff47]

90. You make the jump because there's no benefit to leaving it.

Republicans will eliminate the filibuster on SCOTUS nominations the moment a Republican nominee is in danger of being filibustered.

OTOH, there's plenty of Democratic Senators who keep believing that they will someday use the filibuster for good. Just ignore that they never have, but they're sure that someday they'll be Mr. Smith.

[tritsofme]

93. Democrats would immeditately eliminate it as well.

And Reid has demonstrated he has the votes to do so, something that was a question to the very end for Republicans in 2005.

But I am sure what it actually came down to for Reid was PR, he was able to portray his move as more moderate and limited by being able to say the filibuster was preserved for SCOTUS nominees, even though this is truly a formality.

So why not leave the potential for Republicans to share in the bad PR, and make the confirmation process for that theoretical Republican nominee that we feel is worth filibustering even more complicated?

[jeff47]

94. No, he demonstrated he did not have the votes to do so.

Otherwise, he would not have stopped below the SCOTUS.

[CrispyQ]

81. What about Breyer? Shouldn't he retire too?

He's only five years younger than Ginsburg & statistically, men don't live as long as women.

I see you left your post where you smeared a long time DUer. You're really making points.

[Michigander_Life]

82. He will need to consider his retirement options soon, certainly.

But as far as I know, he doesn't have the same incredibly serious and pressing health concerns.

[tritsofme]

87. This summer could be Obama's last opportunity to fill a SCOTUS vacancy.

If Republicans control the Senate next year, there is no guarantee they will not attempt to hold open any vacancy until Obama is out out of the White House.

It is a real risk that Ginsberg must weigh.