Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington Post Presses Justice Ginsburg: ‘Time to Leave?’ ‘A Justice Selected by…President Cruz…’
Cybercast News Service ^ | October 6, 2013 - 11:48 PM | Terence P. Jeffrey

Posted on 10/06/2013 9:26:47 PM PDT by Olog-hai

In a major feature piece published this weekend, the Washington Post Magazine—with its eye on a closely divided Supreme Court and the end of Barack Obama’s presidency in 2016—asked 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 Ginsburg’s “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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: liberalagenda; presidentcruz; presidentrubio; ruthbaderginsburg
Full title:
Washington Post Presses Justice Ginsburg: ‘Time to Leave?’ ‘A Justice Selected by …President Cruz is Going to Produce a Very Different Nation’
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.
1 posted on 10/06/2013 9:26:47 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

President Cruz?
They are in a sweat!
Heeheehee.


2 posted on 10/06/2013 9:31:11 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Restoration Party?

Reform Party?


3 posted on 10/06/2013 9:32:08 PM PDT by gasport (I ain't got no guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


4 posted on 10/06/2013 9:32:31 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (This post coming to you today from behind the Camelskin Curtain. Not the Iron or Bamboo Curtain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Once again, the Obama regime recapitulates the history of the New Deal. FDR tried the same tactic, to pressure justices to retire on account of age, so he could nominate his flunkies. When the sage justices defied him, he tried to simply add seats to the bench that he could then fill with whatever refuse he wanted. That didn't fly with anybody though, and never happened.
5 posted on 10/06/2013 9:34:13 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Apparently the author is pretty sure a republican will win in 2016.


6 posted on 10/06/2013 9:36:43 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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...


7 posted on 10/06/2013 9:38:56 PM PDT by Deagle (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I did not know that our nation is produced by the Supreme Court


8 posted on 10/06/2013 9:39:01 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican

You assume Ted Cruz accepts the Republican Party’s nominination...


9 posted on 10/06/2013 9:43:21 PM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


10 posted on 10/06/2013 9:51:31 PM PDT by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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?!

YOU RACISTS!!!1!!

/s (or am I?)


11 posted on 10/06/2013 9:57:33 PM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala

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.


12 posted on 10/06/2013 9:57:35 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

no kidding, and it shouldn’t be.


13 posted on 10/06/2013 10:08:23 PM PDT by Gasshog (Welcome to the United States of Stupidos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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)!


14 posted on 10/06/2013 10:11:30 PM PDT by JSDude1 (Is John Boehner the Neville Chamberlain of American Politics?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
If Ginsberg, a reliably-liberal old ACLU hack, retires while Obummer is still president, it won't make any difference to the balance of the Court. He'll appoint another liberal hack (like the "wise Latina" doofus or that other lib woman whose name I can't recall and who just parrots the lib view), and it won't change the balance of the Court at all. What will make a difference is if Ginsberg retires when a conservative Republican is president and an actual conservative justice is appointed. That WILL change the balance of the Court.

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.

15 posted on 10/06/2013 10:32:58 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I look for her to retire just in time for 0 to appoint another baby killing liberal.


16 posted on 10/06/2013 10:35:24 PM PDT by GailA (THOSE WHO DON'T KEEP PROMISES TO THE MILITARY, WON'T KEEP THEM TO U!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

...but Roberts was appointed by a Republican?


17 posted on 10/06/2013 10:43:41 PM PDT by wildernessvoice67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
That's not what I remember. FDR essentially lost the battle but won the war.

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.

18 posted on 10/06/2013 10:51:22 PM PDT by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC (If my kids make a mistake in the voting booth, I don't want them punished with a community organizer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


19 posted on 10/06/2013 11:02:59 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob (They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lee martell
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.

How old is John "Obamacare" Roberts?

20 posted on 10/06/2013 11:03:55 PM PDT by Yossarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

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.


21 posted on 10/06/2013 11:12:31 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Yossarian

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.


22 posted on 10/06/2013 11:38:09 PM PDT by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wildernessvoice67

. . . a RINO.

Welcome to FR. Here you shall unlearn (and hopefully learn) many things.


23 posted on 10/06/2013 11:41:05 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937


24 posted on 10/06/2013 11:51:16 PM PDT by packrat35 (Pelosi is only on loan to the world from Satan. Hopefully he will soon want his baby killer back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wildernessvoice67

Souter?


25 posted on 10/07/2013 1:12:42 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
After only four days of hearings which were hardly confrontational the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the United States Supreme Court was confirmed by a near unanimous vote of 96 to 3.

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?


26 posted on 10/07/2013 1:20:39 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Is she still there?

Her brain’s been long gone for decades.


27 posted on 10/07/2013 1:41:47 AM PDT by Bullish (Psalm 46)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
Nice summary. There no way the Scotus of 1932 would have rewritten the commerce clause as it did, in 1942.

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.

28 posted on 10/07/2013 1:44:21 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Obamacare - Forcing slaves to buy their chains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

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
extremely cruel!


29 posted on 10/07/2013 1:57:15 AM PDT by Kit cat (OBummer must go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

They’re worried about a Rep president picking an SC justice after the ones Bush gave them?


30 posted on 10/07/2013 4:07:26 AM PDT by al_c (Obama's standing in the world has fallen so much that Kenya now claims he was born in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Here is a gremlin that just entered my thoughts. Wouldn't it be the supreme irony or ironies if Cruz ran for president and Ginsburg stayed on and she and the other libs with Roberts ruled him ineligible under Article II?
31 posted on 10/07/2013 4:27:23 AM PDT by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican

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?


32 posted on 10/07/2013 4:43:39 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stanne

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.


33 posted on 10/07/2013 4:51:57 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


34 posted on 10/07/2013 4:52:06 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gasport
Reform Party?

Nope. That was Perot's party. Don't want to go there.

35 posted on 10/07/2013 4:56:05 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: central_va

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.


36 posted on 10/07/2013 4:56:43 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Thank you.
Free Dominion has been down for thirty hours. I wonder if it has something to do with the jury verdict? However, I was suffering withdrawal from not reading comments on what is happening in this old world.
Great to be on this board my shakes have stopped lol
37 posted on 10/07/2013 5:35:59 AM PDT by wildernessvoice67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Poor old Ruthie. Time to take one for the team.


38 posted on 10/07/2013 8:31:55 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: packrat35
Yup, in ten thousand words it basically says the same thing I did in my summary.

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.

39 posted on 10/07/2013 11:38:35 PM PDT by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC (If my kids make a mistake in the voting booth, I don't want them punished with a community organizer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson