[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"First of all, every word I said about our history is totally correct. Second of all, no justice who would be worth having upon the Court would resign when an unpopular decision was made. Such an idea shows total incomprehension of the constitution. What rulings of the Supreme Court did Lincoln ignore?"

Ah HAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!! So there is no legal basis for requiring a resignation letter from a Supreme Court nominee, only a feel-good tradition against it. F%$k tradition. I'm glad we settled that one.

The American Colonist took their freedom by force. That's history.

Lincoln ignored numerous Writs of Habeus Corpus issued by Federal judges to force the release of numerous Confederate sympathizer politicians (from Maryland, I believe). He kept them in prison for the duration of the War and used the Writs to light his pipe. The Supreme Court did not exist in the form that it does today as was stated in the article.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yes, there is a legal basis against such an idea. Justices do not serve at the pleasure of the President as do Cabinet members. That is what pre-signed letters of resignation mean. They go when he wants them gone. That ain't the way the Supreme Court works and no one who understands the Constitution would propose such a thing. This issue has nothing to do with "tradition" but is the essence of the division of power between the three branches of government and the constitutionally required independence of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court had exactly the same form during the Civil War as today except for number of justices. I asked what Supreme Court rulings Lincoln ignored but you only reference lower courts.

The American Colonists took their freedom by force? WoW, and all this time I thought they won it in the Lottery. Next thing I know you'll be telling me the Sun rises in the East.