Skip to comments.Is Justice Ginsburg Risking the Future of the Supreme Court? (Liberals want her to retire)
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 didnt, 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 termfrom health care to immigrationKennedys question once again seems relevant, even revelatory: most court watchers agree its now too late for Ginsburgor Breyer, or any other justiceto give President Obama a third nomination to the high court before the election.
Kennedys 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 Ginsburga two-time cancer survivor who turns 80 next Marchdoesnt feel she can continue through Romneys 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 OConnor).
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 Bushs argument and the liberal justices voting in favor of Gores.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST...
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, Id 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 dont think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think youre smokin something funky .
So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didnt get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can’t win... Imagine this: SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER.
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?
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
Romney appointed mostly liberals to the court as Governor
The GOP Senate will confirm anything put to a vote
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.
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...
I would remind you that Romney has a history of nominating very liberal judges.
I’d feel a lot better abut Romney if hadn’t nominated all those liberal Dem judges in MA.
No one rationally thinks a SCOTUS nominee could be confirmed before January. It just takes too long. This happened back in ‘68 IIRC.
Four more Souters!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
I wouldn’t call a majority of GOP Senators “conservative”
Sounds like a rush to try to get another Obama appointee in.
So, what color is the sky on your planet?
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.
“..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.
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.
For them to retire would be akin to admitting that 0 is a failure whom they believe is likely to lose the election.
Nothing more needs to be said on this issue. Perfect summation.
The vote that stopped the counting in 2000 was 7-2, not 5-4.
If you want to vote for Romney, be sure to not examine the people he put on the bench.
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...
Well, it’s not like Romney picked conservatives in MA.
He’s a moderate liberal and will pick moderate liberals.
“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.
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...
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
I suppose they want Obama to appoint two more liberal candidates to replace them.
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.
“Hes 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...
There is no way he could get away with expediting an Obama Supreme Court pick and still win his reelection.
There is a difference between a Liberal, and a radical Leftist. Obama nominated radical Leftists.
It is choice between bad and worse, at best.
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.
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...
Now, if Hatch loses the primary and decides to go rogue like Specter and stick it to Republicans...
ping for later