Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79. Stephen Breyer is 72. Antonin Scalia is 76. Anthony Kennedy is 74.

[cali]

Roberts, Sotomayoy, Kagan are under 60. Alito and Thomas are 62 and 63 respectively.


It's likely that whoever is President from 2013 to 2017 will have the opportunity to shape the SCOTUS for years to come.

[FSogol]

1. GOTV. We always say it is important. This is why.

[freshwest]

34. It's always been the reason. The GOP focused on this one thing for many years.

[dbackjon]

2. Reason #1 to re-elect President Obama

Hopefully he will actually pick liberal justices with his next appointments, but the won't be reactionary justices like Rmoney would pick.

[seabeyond]

4. i agree. nt

[hifiguy]

9. Absitively and posolutely.

SCOTUS appointments are always at the top of my issue list.

[seabeyond]

3. scalia and thomas though, live unhealthy lives....

about as far as i will go.

[kirby]

10. How do you know?

Certainly Thomas gets plenty of sleep, especially during oral arguments.

[seabeyond]

12. excesses i have read and heard about. the visual....

has a certain amount of fact. it doesnt mean that they are sickly.

[harmonicon]

25. They've both got nothin' on Taft. (nt)

[Surya Gayatri]

31. You're right about Scalia, for sure, seabeyond...

His flushed, splotchy complexion is a testament to over-indulgence and excess.

He's a walking infarction, waiting to happen.

Thomas is getting to an age where his extra pounds will take a greater toll, too.

[JI7]

32. i read an article about him, he smokes a lot, eats lots of carbs, drinks etc

[lapislzi]

33. They are the undead

Probably shouldn't be exposed to direct sunlight.

About as far as I will go either.

[barbtries]

5. i sure as hell hope so.

that place needs a cleaning.

[still_one]

6. Lections do have consequences. \nt

[jwirr]

7. And this is the biggest reason for me to vote for President Obama. This is a lifetime change if we

lose.

[Scuba]

8. Is it consistent with religious values to pray for some of these assholes to die?

[elleng]

22. No, but to retire???

[libinnyandia]

11. A lot of the 3rd party supporters in 2000 didn't seem to think SCOTUS appointees were important.

[NNN0LHI]

16. Lot of those 3rd party voters and sympathizers were fucking Reaganites

[emulatorloo]

20. We had DU'ers claiming that in 2004.

Now apparently we have DU'ers insinuating that Obama will appoint anti-gay bigots in his second term.

[Javaman]

13. scalia will never retire. he would rather drop dead on the bench.

control freaks are like that.

[Bake]

14. From your keyboard to God's ears, my friend ...

Bake

[Gold Metal Flake]

30. And he eventually will and he will be replace.

Motherfucker is not immortal, my brother.

[Bake]

15. These are the most important numbers in this campaign!

People, we need to remember this!!

Bake

[Pab Sungenis]

17. And what assurance do we have

that Obama's next four nominees will be better than his last two?

If he puts another Elena Kagan forward in 2013, I expect the rest of you to join me in raising holy hell since the makeup of the Supreme Court is so important.

[emulatorloo]

19. You act as if Sotomayor and Kagan are Scalia-style reactionary right wingers.

[Pab Sungenis]

21. Kagan: "There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage."

That says it all.

[emulatorloo]

23. No it "doesn't say it all"

It is going to take a Supreme court decision on one of the State anti-marriage equality amendments.

There are several state supreme courts that have ruled them unconstitutional on the the grounds that it is a civil rights issue.

That is the correct framing of the issue. That is how it will come to the Supreme Court.

The notion that Sotomayor and Kagen will overrule a state supreme court on that basis says more about you that anybody else

[cali]

28. Not.

Kagan is a reliable liberal and a reliable supporter of GLBT issues.

You must know jackshit about her.

[Pab Sungenis]

29. I know what she says.

And until she says something else or votes differently all I have to go on regarding marriage is her words.

[Chan790]

26. No, but nobody seems to have any problem with Kagan being an ideologue.

The same as Scalia, Alito and Thomas. If it's wrong to choose ideologues who prioritize political positions and ideology over the law for the GOP...then it's wrong for us. Do I like Kagan's political beliefs? For the most part; she's a bit more moderate to slightly-conservative on some issues than I am. She's every bit as calculating and polemical, a knife-fighter. I like that about her.

Do I have a problem with her being on SCOTUS?

Yes. A Justice's decisions should be consistent within the law, not with their party platform. Shorty votes her ideology. Same as Thomas and Scalia, no matter how twisty the logic of a decision needs to get to fit it within ideology. Ideologues don't belong on SCOTUS. Unfortunately, the great legal minds of our era have no chance to be appointed because they're wild-cards who might not vote the party-line or because they're likely to rock the boat.

I remember when Kagan was nominated and I was questioning why the likes of Larry Lessig or Nadine Strossen are never brought up; vastly-superior legal and constitutional scholars who have made careers of arguing some of the most-important cases to ever go before SCOTUS, truly deep contemplative scholarly thinkers. Thinkers who might not fit into the traditional L/R paradigm and are more likely to break with party-ideology in favor of consistent legal theory and interpretation. You can't tell me that either Kagan or Sotomayor is more qualified than either of them. (I know Lessig advocated for Kagan...but Lessig is more qualified for the job. Substantially so.)

The last great-mind we had appointed to the Supreme Court was Thurgood Marshall. None of today's justices are in that same league. The next appointees need be.

[emulatorloo]

27. Fair enough. Especially re Thurgood Marshall.

[LongTomH]

18. Scalia and Kennedy were among the majority voting for Citizens United

If they retire and are replaced with decent judges, we may, repeat may have a chance at overturning that infamous decision!

[SoCalDem]

24. Since SCOTUS is totally political these days, they should be subject to term limits

and should only be eligible when they are 60. That gives a lifetime of real work that can be scrutinized/vetted/whatever.. mandatory retirement should be 75. Fifteen years spans two presidents (possibly 3) and that should be plenty.