Why didn't the liberal justices retire from the Supreme Court during Obama's 2 terms?

[liquid diamond]

Ginsburg has had serious health problems since the Bush administration, but she survived both of his terms. I applaud her for that. However, she should have retired when a democrat won the presidency. Breyer and Souter are almost 80, so they should have considered resigning during Obama's terms as well. Unfortunately, Obama will be replaced by a right wing sack of shit that will stack the courts with conservatives if any of the liberal justices die or are unable to perform their duties due to health problems.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. Or first. Hubris.

[liquid diamond]

9. That thought crossed my mind

Part of me believes they are proud and not in a good way.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Souter retired in 2009...

...replaced by Sonia Sotomayor.

[liquid diamond]

10. Thank you for the correction.

[MFM008]

3. David Souter retired

Sotomayor new.
Kagan new.
Breyer and Ginseng had better live.

[PearliePoo2]

4. Yeah, wouldn't that have been sweet. Now we have a catastrophe

Maybe no one thought it possible that a Winger could be POTUS?

[TexasTowelie]

5. I know things look dire,

but as long as none of the liberal justices die within the first three years of a Trump administration then we got things covered. The Republicans set the precedent of not confirming President Obama's pick during the fourth year of his second term so the Democrats will be justified in saying that any selection should wait until after the election. Quite frankly, the Democrats should only give two years for President Trump's nominees considering the likelihood that he will select someone that has no qualifications whatsoever.

[CincyDem]

33. I'm sorry TT, didn't you read the fine print on that precedent...

..."only to be used by a Republican majority when there's a Democrat in the WH"

More seriously, if McConnell is still majority leader in October 2020 and vacancy opens up, he's going to be racing to fill it before election day. His defense "Our President is president until he's not...and until he's not we need to afford him all the authority of the office".

ya know - just like they did for BHO.

[TexasTowelie]

34. Actually the fine print says

that as long as the Republican majority exists in the Senate that the president can make a nomination on January 19 of 2021 and it will get fast-track approval.

That's in the 2 point print written in invisible ink. Get with the program!

[putitinD]

6. because we would have 3 empty seats on the SC now. because they would never get confirmed so long

as Obama is President.

[liquid diamond]

11. Just how far can congress keep

that shit up? Let's say the fuhrer picks a Supreme Court Justice in his first year as president. Can democrats play the same game and block that nominee during his whole presidency?

[putitinD]

14. no, the Democrats would fold like an acordian and give the fuhrer anyone he chooses.

[ucrdem]

7. Would he have been able to replace them?

The new normal is the GOP makes its own rules and they might not have been inclined to.

[still_one]

8. Why did some self-identified progressives refuse to vote for Hillary?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. Same answer: hubris and callousness towards others

[EffieBlack]

17. Hubris? Really?

Ginsberg and Breyer were supposed to give up their seats in hopes that Obama could have gotten a judge as liberal or more liberal than they confirmed before he left office and the fact that they continued working and fighting for us is "hubris and callousness toward others?"

Are you this judgmental of the liberals who didn't vote for Hillary?

[pangaia]

18. To answer your question.. yup.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. I am at least this judgemental about liberals

Who allowed trump to become president by voting for incompetent leaders like stein and Johnson

Yes, it's hubris to risk this much knowing what's at stake. It's not like they were young in 08.

[Me.]

27. Exactly

Is there some fantasy going round that supposes that for once the Cons were going to stand aside and let the Pres. have his way, again and again, thereby ‘loading’ the court.

[brush]

21. I believe they were waiting for Hillary

Even if they had retired during Obama's time that still wouldn't have changed the 5-4 conservative advantage.

And there's the chance the repugs might have thought of their stalling tactic sooner.

[liquid diamond]

13. Because

she is a coooore-pruh-tist and......emails!

[FBaggins]

15. They wanted to wait for a Democratic Senate

They expected next year to be Hillary picking with a Democratic majority in the Senate (with the threat of the nuclear option to block filibusters)

[EffieBlack]

16. Why didn't the progressives who insisted that they were the "new revolution" that would help Bernie

get single payer and all manner of other liberal legislation through start their revolution earlier and force the Senate to confirm Obama's judges?

And let's not even talk about how many progressives didn't bother to vote for Hillary because she was no better than Trump.

Enough with the "Why didn't THEY do something?"

[JI7]

23. there is no revolution. single payer lost by a huge amount in colorado

And that's a state Clinton won.

[politicaljunkie41910]

35. You can't do single payer on a state by state basis. Bernie learned that when his beloved Vermont's

single payer system failed this past year.

[politicaljunkie41910]

36. Yes so where is that revolution we heard so much about since they spoke loudly on Nov. 8

by either staying home or voting 3rd Party candidates? Probably out playing Pokemon or smoking pot while Rome burns.

[TheCowsCameHome]

19. Hillary was suppposed to win, and the senate flip.

How'd that work out?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. Did it work out any better for you than for us?

[Paladin]

20. Hindsight is a marvelous thing, no doubt.

Honestly, I never saw the Supreme Court situation as that critical---because I never in my darkest dreams ever contemplated there being enough stupid and/or insane and/or lazy voters in this country to put a monstrosity like Trump in the White House. Mea fucking culpa.....

[Uponthegears]

24. If it were hubris at all

It was the hubris of those who believed a Democrat president and a Democrat Senate in 2016 were inevitable.

Ginsburg and Souter are heroes and caused changes that Democratic Party leadership never even came close to accomplishing in the political arena. What's more, without a filibuster proof Senate, we would have got three young Garlands, at best.

Pray for their health. Don't even think about questioning their judgment.

[Me.]

25. Really?

Then there would be even more justices for the Cons to block and stall and more for DT to pick

[guillaumeb]

26. Given the GOP record of eight years of obstruction,

what makes you think that the GOP would have acted on a SCOTUS vacancy in 2009?

[liquid diamond]

28. Ok.

So let's play the same fucking game and obstruct any of rump's future SC picks.

[guillaumeb]

29. That depends on how the Senate sets up its rules at the beginning of the next session

of Congress. McConnell could decide that a simple majority is enough tp pass all legislation.

[Igel]

30. That's confusing.

I remember 2009. There was a small (D) majority in the Senate--57 or 58 (D) + 2 (I) for most of the year.

"The nomination was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in August 2009 by a vote of 68 to 31, making Sotomayor the first Latina Supreme Court Justice in U.S. history." http://www.biography.com/people/sonia-sotomayor-453906#first-hispanic-supreme-court-justice


At least 7 or 8 (R) voted for Sotomayor. So we know how the GOP acted on a SCOTUS vacancy in 2009. Most voted against, some voted for.

That was early, and before an additional 7 years of "gotcha" and scorched-earth politics.

[guillaumeb]

31. But the GOP leaders had already decided, in 2009 as we know, to obstruct Obama.

Perhaps they felt that 2009 was too early to start on SCOTUS level Judicial obstruction, but as I recall there are still vacancies in the District Courts that have been there for years.

[Txbluedog]

38. Kagan got appointed in 2010

August 2010 to be precise

[paigeatemyshoes]

37. Maybe they were like the rest of us

Maybe they thought Hillary would never lose to Donald Trump. Most of us thought that too.

[BlueProgressive]

39. It IS a "lifetime appointment"...

It's up to the justice to decide if they ever want to retire, or die in office.

[Cha]

40. Well scalia died and that didn't help.