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

Skip to comments.

Is Justice Ginsburg Risking the Future of the Supreme Court? (Liberals want her to retire)
Daily Beast ^ | 05/24/2012 | Chris Geidner

Posted on 05/24/2012 2:38:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

A little more than a year ago, Harvard Law School Prof. Randall Kennedy sounded the alarm.

“Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer should soon retire,” Kennedy wrote in the pages of The New Republic. “That would be the responsible thing for them to do.”

If they didn’t, Kennedy warned, and “if Obama loses, they will have contributed to a disaster.”

As the presidential race heats up, and the Supreme Court justices settle into their chambers to write their last and most consequential rulings of the 2011-12 term—from health care to immigration—Kennedy’s question once again seems relevant, even revelatory: most court watchers agree it’s now too late for Ginsburg—or Breyer, or any other justice—to give President Obama a third nomination to the high court before the election.

Kennedy’s hypothetical has taken on renewed significance, however, since Mitt Romney is currently polling close to or above President Obama in several key battleground states. If he were to unseat Obama this fall, and Ginsburg—a two-time cancer survivor who turns 80 next March—doesn’t feel she can continue through Romney’s first (or possibly second) term, should liberals fault her for potentially tilting the balance of the court for decades to come? (Breyer, 72, has had no reported major health scares, although he does seem to be a burglar magnet.)

This is the “disaster” Kennedy foresaw: a multigeneration conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Since the 1990s, the court has been in ideological equipoise: a conservative bloc and a liberal bloc, each regularly finding itself in the position of needing to win the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy (or, until her retirement in 2006, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor).

Of course, the justices themselves resist characterizing their votes as “liberal” or “conservative,” instead arguing that they are guided by the Constitution and other supposedly “neutral” principles. But that pretense took a hit in 2000 by the vote in Bush v. Gore, the core of which was decided 5-4, with the conservative justices (including Kennedy) voting in favor of Bush’s argument and the liberal justices voting in favor of Gore’s.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012; democrats; ruthginsburg; scotus; supremecourt

1 posted on 05/24/2012 2:38:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

IF YOU DON’T LIKE MITT FOR PRESIDENT, HERE’S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER...

Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election….

“…..if Mitt is the nominee, I will support his candidacy because I dread the alternative. For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind:

1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3.. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.

We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court — in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.

If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you’re smokin’ something funky….”

So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can’t win... Imagine this: SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER.


2 posted on 05/24/2012 2:40:04 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And if she fails to announce her retirement during 0bummer’s current (and final) term, soon enough to leave time to be confirmed by the Senate, will she have an accident, Chicago style?


3 posted on 05/24/2012 2:42:25 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If sheb resigns, the GOP should bottle up any confirmation hearings until the next President takes office. The Democrats do that kind of thing all the time.

The GOP won’t of course


4 posted on 05/24/2012 2:46:00 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Romney appointed mostly liberals to the court as Governor

The GOP Senate will confirm anything put to a vote


5 posted on 05/24/2012 2:47:16 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ok, folks, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the nomination and appointment process take 6 months or so? If we assume that the process were started next week, wouldn’t it be too late? I would think that any nomination now would be held up in the Senate, until there election is over with.


6 posted on 05/24/2012 2:47:50 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Umm, Souter was nominated by Bush the Elder...

But Romney is better than Bammy....

With Bammy we would get a full on Commie, with Romney we will get a psuedo-socialist...


7 posted on 05/24/2012 2:48:44 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I would remind you that Romney has a history of nominating very liberal judges.


8 posted on 05/24/2012 2:49:25 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’d feel a lot better abut Romney if hadn’t nominated all those liberal Dem judges in MA.


9 posted on 05/24/2012 2:50:59 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

No one rationally thinks a SCOTUS nominee could be confirmed before January. It just takes too long. This happened back in ‘68 IIRC.


10 posted on 05/24/2012 2:54:18 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Four more Souters!


11 posted on 05/24/2012 2:55:55 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It does not matter as Obama will be shown to be constitutionally unqualified for office and each of his appointments to the court will be disqualified.


12 posted on 05/24/2012 2:57:02 PM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
that pretense took a hit in 2000 by the vote in Bush v. Gore, the core of which was decided 5-4, with the conservative justices (including Kennedy) voting in favor of Bush’s argument and the liberal justices voting in favor of Gore’s.

No it wasn't, it was a 7-2 decision. Breyer and Souter said there should ideally be a recount, but there wasn't enough time in any case.

13 posted on 05/24/2012 2:59:52 PM PDT by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Did Romney have much choice in Massachusetts? Did he have a free choice, or was he limited to a list of suggested names? In any case, are there any conservatives in Massachusetts that could have been picked?

I don't trust him on judges, but we'll have to be vigilant. If Obama wins, his picks will be at least as bad as the ones he has made so far.

Unfortunately even when Presidents try to pick conservative justices, it doesn't always work. Two of Nixon's four turned out to be liberals. One of Bush-41's two joined the liberal bloc.

14 posted on 05/24/2012 2:59:57 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

Not to mention that when the recounting was done, it turned out that Bush had won Florida’s electoral votes anyway. They never mention that detail.


15 posted on 05/24/2012 3:01:22 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
This time the GOP will bottle -it up.. Two reasons:

1. McConnell wants to be MAJORITY leader..the conservative majority in the Senate GOP caucus..led by DeMint, Paul, Lee, Rubio, among others..would toss him overboard if he didn't.

2. Leahy's speech this week, when he all but threatened SC justices..alone makes the case to block any nomination by Obama..

16 posted on 05/24/2012 3:03:31 PM PDT by ken5050 (FRACK Obama!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

I wouldn’t call a majority of GOP Senators “conservative”


17 posted on 05/24/2012 3:07:08 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sounds like a rush to try to get another Obama appointee in.


18 posted on 05/24/2012 3:10:29 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton
It does not matter as Obama will be shown to be constitutionally unqualified for office and each of his appointments to the court will be disqualified.

So, what color is the sky on your planet?

19 posted on 05/24/2012 3:10:48 PM PDT by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Its a big concern. Liberals can’t get their vile agenda through legislative process, so they need activist judges to break the law and force the public into liberalism. Its hard to be a tyrant without suppressing the voice of the citizens.


20 posted on 05/24/2012 3:11:10 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; GraceG

“..whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court..”
_________________

“With Bammy we would get a full on Commie, with Romney we will get a psuedo-socialist...”
________________

Glad to see you both agree with my tagline. Thanks.


21 posted on 05/24/2012 3:11:16 PM PDT by panaxanax (Voting 'Third Party' will ensure a Communist-Marxist-Socialist dominated Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

I think it’s a little late now. If she announces at the end of the SCOTUS term that she’s retiring, O would nominate a replacement, which would be before a Senate with a D majority, but with many in that majority up for reelection in a few short months. Not sure a real lib would be confirmed. The time to have acted (from the left’s perspective), would have been last year.


22 posted on 05/24/2012 3:12:27 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

For them to retire would be akin to admitting that 0 is a failure whom they believe is likely to lose the election.


23 posted on 05/24/2012 3:26:50 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Separated at birth?
24 posted on 05/24/2012 3:39:57 PM PDT by Zakeet (Obama loves to wok dogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
"Romney appointed mostly liberals to the court as Governor. The GOP Senate will confirm anything put to a vote"

Nothing more needs to be said on this issue. Perfect summation.


25 posted on 05/24/2012 3:43:31 PM PDT by KantianBurke (Where was the Tea Party when Dubya was spending like a drunken sailor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The vote that stopped the counting in 2000 was 7-2, not 5-4.


26 posted on 05/24/2012 3:43:49 PM PDT by Ingtar ("As the light begins to fade in the city on the hill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If you want to vote for Romney, be sure to not examine the people he put on the bench.


27 posted on 05/24/2012 3:45:42 PM PDT by Ingtar ("As the light begins to fade in the city on the hill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Romney appointed mostly liberals to the court as Governor.. The GOP Senate will confirm anything put to a vote

The second part I must disagree. Bush I appointed Souter on bad advise and then gave us Thomas. Bush II appointed two great conservatives. One came about after he nominated Miers and Senate GOP told him no way- they learned from Souter.

This is another reason to settle for Romney...

28 posted on 05/24/2012 3:48:08 PM PDT by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Well, it’s not like Romney picked conservatives in MA.

He’s a moderate liberal and will pick moderate liberals.


29 posted on 05/24/2012 3:53:10 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Slayton

“It does not matter as Obama will be shown to be constitutionally unqualified for office and each of his appointments to the court will be disqualified.”

It would certainly change the SCOTUS if the “wise Latina,” and “Commie Kagan” had to “disrobe.” I just don’t think Romney would replace Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg with someone who is so completely wedded to Communism, so for me, although he is not my choice, Romney beats FUBO in spades.


30 posted on 05/24/2012 4:07:22 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
But that pretense took a hit in 2000 by the vote in Bush v. Gore, the core of which was decided 5-4, with the conservative justices (including Kennedy) voting in favor of Bush’s argument and the liberal justices voting in favor of Gore’s.

For the umpteenth time, no! The actual vote was 7-2 -- with Breyer and Ginsburg joining the majority in deciding that the Gore argument had no merit.

The 5-4 vote came on a secondary issue -- the remedy. Which was to allow Florida to meet its electoral requirements under the Constitution...

Liberals lie.

31 posted on 05/24/2012 4:16:16 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes, I hope the liberals retire AND THE REPUBLICANS HOLD UP CONFIRMATION OF ANY OF THE KENYAN CLOWN’S APPOINTEES—BORK THE HELL OUT OF THEM—UNTIL WE CAN GET SOMEONE ELSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. :)


32 posted on 05/24/2012 4:28:19 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Can’t they wait to see who wins and then put in for retirement? I mean I know they are Democrats but so what? They can leave when they dang well please. I can just see it now when the Republicans feel that our conservatives should retire, they will use the ole “but the democrats forced their’s out.....no thank you.


33 posted on 05/24/2012 4:29:31 PM PDT by napscoordinator (VOTE FOR NEWT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You are making a very good argument for Romney to see the light, step down, and let the Convention pick a strong Conservative for the nomination.


34 posted on 05/24/2012 4:41:28 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Doesn’t the fact that this issue is being raised now reflect panic on the left? As many have pointed out, it’s a bit late to even manage the process going into the Fall election.

The Dems are in a nice bind. If the leftist Justices stay, the left risks losing the court if (when) O loses. If they resign now, it is a clear signal that O’s crowd is sure he will lose, which will undermine fund-raising and become a self-fulfilling prophecy.


35 posted on 05/24/2012 4:47:56 PM PDT by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I suppose they want Obama to appoint two more liberal candidates to replace them.


36 posted on 05/24/2012 5:10:50 PM PDT by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ginsburg may be a liberal, but she’s also Jewish. I sense that she’s both smart and perceptive, and that she sees Obama for who and what he is — either a Muslim sympathizer or an out-and-out Muslim who must keep his beliefs “under wraps” for public consumption.

I sense that regardless of her leftism, deep down she despises him and even in the face of severe health problems refuses to resign and give him the opportunity to “fill HER seat” on the Court.

Of course I could be completely wrong, and she may announce her retirement after the Court adjourns in June.

But if she stays, it’s my guess that she’s “waiting Obama out”.

She’s not “risking” the future of the Court — she’s doing what she believes to be her duty to preserve it.


37 posted on 05/24/2012 9:02:55 PM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jewbacca

“He’s a moderate liberal and will pick moderate liberals.”

That may or may not prove true, but has not Romney picked none less than Robert Bork to advise him on judicial nominations? Saw that reported right here on FR....

Mr. Bork represents the gold standard of “conservative judicial thought” and if so, this bodes well for how Romney (and his administration) will choose future nominees...


38 posted on 05/24/2012 9:08:16 PM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ken5050; GeronL
Third reason: Hatch is up for reelection, trying to appeal to Tea Party voters.

There is no way he could get away with expediting an Obama Supreme Court pick and still win his reelection.

-PJ

39 posted on 05/24/2012 9:14:13 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Romney appointed mostly liberals to the court as Governor The GOP Senate will confirm anything put to a vote

There is a difference between a Liberal, and a radical Leftist. Obama nominated radical Leftists.

It is choice between bad and worse, at best.

40 posted on 05/25/2012 4:35:08 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The difference is simple. If Obama wins, we will get the most liberal activist judges he can find. If Romney wins we at least have a chance to influence who is appointed, like we did with President Bush and Miers. And it is not just about the Supreme Court, it is also about all federal judges.

We have zero chance to influence who Obama picks. And if the senate doesn’t want to confirm, he may just try to make recess appointments.

This is crucial, all legislation the left doesn’t like ends up in court.


41 posted on 05/25/2012 5:00:52 AM PDT by Ironfocus (Unseat the Looter-in-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Gotta disagree...whoever wins the primary next month will win the general election..no way Utah elects a Dem...but Orin will play hardball..oppose any Obama nomination...


42 posted on 05/25/2012 9:20:45 AM PDT by ken5050 (FRACK Obama!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
I think we're saying the same thing. If Ginsburg were to retire now, Hatch would stay on the reservation and prevent the nomination from reaching a vote until after the November election. There is no way that Obama will get to replace her.

Now, if Hatch loses the primary and decides to go rogue like Specter and stick it to Republicans...

-PJ

43 posted on 05/25/2012 9:54:02 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
Anybody who leaves the court between now and the next administration should NOT be replaced under Obama. Let the liberals whine.
44 posted on 06/18/2012 3:55:40 PM PDT by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

ping for later


45 posted on 06/21/2012 6:24:33 AM PDT by ClarenceThomasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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