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 ...
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’
President Cruz?
They are in a sweat!
Heeheehee.
Restoration Party?
Reform Party?
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?!
YOU RACISTS!!!1!!
/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?
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.