Skip to comments.Washington Post Presses Justice Ginsburg: ‘Time to Leave?’ ‘A Justice Selected by…President Cruz…’
Posted on 10/06/2013 9:26:47 PM PDT by Olog-hai
In a major feature piece published this weekend, the Washington Post Magazinewith its eye on a closely divided Supreme Court and the end of Barack Obamas presidency in 2016asked Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was going to get off the court and make room for Obama to appoint a younger liberal justice to replace her.
The piece, written by Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes, made not-so-subtle references to Justice Ginsburgs 84-year-old ankle and 84-year-old head.
The reality of the court, and the parties, these days is that Ginsburg
should know that a justice selected by President Rubio or President Jindal or President Cruz is going to produce a very different nation than one selected by Barack Obama, the Post quoted political scientist Jonathan Bernstein as having written in The Washington Post itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Prejudice against Hispanics, with respect to the references to Cruz and Rubio? They sure seem very scared that the next president will be a genuine Tea Party conservative, do they not.
Washington Post Presses Justice Ginsburg: Time to Leave? A Justice Selected by President Cruz is Going to Produce a Very Different Nation
They are in a sweat!
Personally, for all the popularity points they heap on Obama non-stop, they know he’s a turncoat traitor.
The Islamic operative is going to sink the Debmocrat party mid-term and on into 2016,
They know it.
Apparently the author is pretty sure a republican will win in 2016.
What! Why would they look at the political grouping of the Supreme Court instead of looking at decent justices. Do they actually think that Democrats would only nominate liberal justices? Do they actually think that Republicans would only elect conservative justices? Is something wrong here? Hello newspaper folks, you should only push for constitutional justices even though it is a problem with your politics - ha.
Okay, this is just a wish list of a newly inspired Independent... Something that the News folks will never be blamed of...
I did not know that our nation is produced by the Supreme Court
You assume Ted Cruz accepts the Republican Party’s nominination...
Some kind of age limit will have to be established. Todays cases are too big and complex to leave competence totally up to chance and diplomacy. Recall Senator Byrds last few decades where his clerks and interns did most the work, that includes making decisions of record.
Oh, is that right, Washington Post Magazine? So, you’re saying a Supreme Court Justice selected by a Latino president won’t be as good as a Supreme Court Justice selected by a Black president. Right? “We sure hope Obama gets to pick the next Supreme Court Justice before one of those ‘Latinos’ gets to pick.” Is that what you’re trying to say?!
/s (or am I?)
I thought the writer accepted Cruz would be a republican. I will say that if he’d run as an independent or third party I’d be a lot more excited.
no kidding, and it shouldn’t be.
I say that President Cruz vastly reduce the power of the courts, or at least take a trick out of the Roosevelt’s playbook (an extra two justices)!
Frankly, I don't think Ginsberg will ever retire voluntarily. She sleeps through oral arguments now and no one knows who writes her opinions. Why should she retire when she does basically nothing in exchange for a paycheck and prestige? That's a lib's wet dream of a job.
I look for her to retire just in time for 0 to appoint another baby killing liberal.
...but Roberts was appointed by a Republican?
FDR asked the Dem-controlled Congress to pass a "court-packing" bill that would allow him to appoint an extra justice for each member currently over 70. Since 6 of the 9 were over 70, the USSC would increase to 15 members, 6 of them newly appointed by FDR. USSC decisions would then need 8 votes for a majority, and since at least two of the nine current justices were already on FDR's side, he would end up with a majority who were loyal to him.
But the solidly Democratic Congress, who had been obedient, subservient little rubber-stampers up until then, finally had enough and rebelled at what looked like a President who was a wanna-be dictator.
So they killed FDR's bill.
But that wasn't the end of it. Two or three of the older justices who had diligently tried to uphold the US Constitution, were successfully intimidated into retiring very soon afterwards. (I believe our "scrupulously unbiased press" had significant involvement with the intimidation).
This was especially sad, because these justices had resisted the Dem's egregious attacks on the Interstate Commerce Clause, ie their desire to frankenstein it into something totally unrecognizable that would justify ANY legislation that FDR's little heart desired.
So FDR soon got to appoint loyal stooges to the USSC, and soon all three branches of the Fed Govt were good little rubber-stampers.
So much for Separation Of Powers.
If the Republicans can manage to take the Senate in 2014, they should block EVERYTHING Obama tries to do, including nominating someone to the Supreme Court.
How old is John "Obamacare" Roberts?
Yeah it was called the court packing plan and it did have an effect. The justices backed down on opposition to New Deal legislation.
What this commentary is alluding to is a pre-packing plan before conservatives take power.
Something needs to be done with the Supreme Court. Some recent rulings such as the Roberts decision on Obamacare and the Kennedy decision on same sex marriage are awful decisions that should never have seen the light of day. And it’s not just sour grapes. These decisions are insulting and nonsensical to just about anyone trained in the law.
If Obama pre-packs the court before the end of his current term, I would be all for a President Cruz packing the Court to 11 justices with appointments of Demint and Moore. Either that or nudge and accept the resignations of Kagen, Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Breyer.
With 11 justices comprising conservatives Demint, Moore, Thomas, Alito and Scalia, conservatives would need at least 1 resignation and 2 for good measure from Breyer and I would say Kennedy.
Kennedy needs to go. His recent decision on US v. Windor is so off the wall that our country will need a constitutional amendment to define marriage. His reasoning was a rant against ‘haters’; it was worse than awful and shows that such a person should not be allowed anywhere near a court room.
Roberts should be forced out too. He should be investigated as having been compromised. His ruling on Obamacare went beyond the pale as he actually revised/rewrote the legislation on his own to be a tax. This ruling should be revisited and he should be interrogated and investigated.
Kagen and Sotomajor will be more difficult to dislodge but they can be rendered irrelevant by expanding the court to 11 justices.
Judge Roberts? Not very old, unfortunately. I think he’s a young 58. I’m hoping he retires early due to health goals and wanting more family time.
. . . a RINO.
Welcome to FR. Here you shall unlearn (and hopefully learn) many things.
Those of us who knew Ginsburg knew she was as rabid a liberal as she was soft-spoken; we knew that she would do untold damage to the jurisprudence of the United States and to its social fabric. We knew she was a bloodthirsty abortionist.
But we could not convince any putative conservative in the United States Senate of the danger she represented: Oh, she is qualified; oh, the president is entitled to have the nominees of his choice if they are qualified; oh she has a splendid record etc. etc.
They fell all over themselves endorsing a flagrant leftist and committed activist. They actually knew what she was but they were playing inside the Beltway.
When we hear the criticism of Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul we must ask ourselves, what sort of paladins do we want fighting of our corner in the United States Senate? Do we want those who will play inside the Beltway games or do we want those who will kick over the game board on our behalf?
Is she still there?
Her brain’s been long gone for decades.
We've had an endless train of judges hostile to the 10th amendment ever since.
The 17th amendment, which cut the cord between the states and the national government, was a fundamental mistake from which I doubt we'll recover.
I want the game board stomped on and broken!! I hope their spines of
steel remain. I have very little hope the GOP-E, Rove and his gang will
NOT end up breaking their spines of steel!! What they did to PALIN was
They’re worried about a Rep president picking an SC justice after the ones Bush gave them?
And who are they running?
Hillary could not even beat BO. She has a way of deflecting blame for that. WE immediately go into ‘this happened and then there was that and don’t forget about WHat that guy was saying’, but she could not beat BO.
Who do they have?
Even the guys up there now can’t figure out that the old media is over.
Not only is the MSM not the source to whom people turn to get news, and decreasing gby the day.
But the new media does not operate in lies and propaganda. The lying propaganda politicians cannot thrive in it.
It’s a conservatives’ world on twitter, virtual townhalls.
Can we imagine Hillary in an on line interview with 100,000 for twenty minutes, with no plants, no teleprompter?
If Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg did keel over during the remainder of the Bastard’s admin then I am sure Hillary would accept a nomination to be a SCOTUS justice.
Even the Post knows her brain has been addled for the last ten years. Actually, her brain, like all the libs on the court, had been addled all her life. It’s just that now the drooling and snoozing during sessions has been too obvious to casual observers.
Nope. That was Perot's party. Don't want to go there.
Oh, I was talking about the presidency.
If OhNoNo appoints another SC justice during the next year before there’s a chance of a majority GOP Senate, anyone he chooses will be worse than Kagan or Sotomeier.
Poor old Ruthie. Time to take one for the team.
Here's a shorter summary near the end of the wiki article:
"President Roosevelt lost the Court-packing battle, but he won the war for control of the Supreme Court"
In the next two years after FDR "lost" in his war to control the USSC, five of the judges had been intimated into retiring (or died), and two more retired in the next two years after that, so that within four years of Congress rebelling against his court-packing plan, FDR owned 7 of the 9 USSC justices.