Althouse: "Who do you think the president could nominate and get through the current Senate that you would rather see on the Court than me?"

September 30, 2014

"Who do you think the president could nominate and get through the current Senate that you would rather see on the Court than me?"

That's a question Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she "asked some people, particularly the academics who said I should have stepped down last year" and "No one has given me an answer to that question."

Ginsburg knows how to frame a question, but so do I. Here's mine: When that question falls on the ears of people close enough to Ginsburg to hear it and they make no sound, what does their silence mean?

34 comments:

BarrySanders20 said...: It means "You are five years past Zeke's expiration date, and we'd really like to get someone not so ripe even if it means a compromise justice bacause two years of you isn't worth the risk of twenty-five years of whoever Ted Cruz nominates, but I can't really say that to you now, can I?"; 9/30/14, 10:56 AM
Drago said...: #WarOnWomen.

Leave Ginsburg Aloooooooooooooone!; 9/30/14, 10:56 AM
rehajm said...: I AM THE MOST POWERFUL WOMAN IN THE UNIVERSE!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!; 9/30/14, 11:10 AM
richard mcenroe said...: I wouldn't want to see anyone people who associate with Ruth Bader Ginsburg find acceptable on the Supreme Court.; 9/30/14, 11:15 AM
Nonapod said...: It seems a futile thing to beg one of the various ancient creatures that make up the Supreme Court to step down. Who would give up so much power willingly? Diminishing mental faculties would probably further disincline a person to give up their power as well.; 9/30/14, 11:17 AM
MadisonMan said...: That's a very interesting read. Thanks!; 9/30/14, 11:18 AM
lgv said...: Kind of what Barry said.

It's not a matter of who you want to see more than her, it's about probabilities and court makeup over the next 5-25 years.

A nice deflection by Ginsburg by framing it that way.; 9/30/14, 11:23 AM
Richard Dolan said...: I think Ginsburg has the better in this contest between the two questions.

In response to yours, it pays to remember that silence is (often) golden, ant that is truer here given the context. Ginsburg's question only arises after someone has first pointedly suggested that she should step down, and Ginsburg then responds with her push-back. At that point, silence in response to her 'question' (it's only one in form) is simple politeness -- don't want to suggest too starkly that the dear old thing should pack it in -- especially after she's already pushed back strongly the first time that idea was floated. What's remarkable is how so many self-proclaimed 'friends of Ruth' have nevertheless persisted (Chemerinsky comes to mind, but he's hardly alone). If they know her at all, they must know that she would only give in to their (unwanted) advice if she had already lost the hard edge that keeps her going -- and if she ever loses that edge, she has said herself she will know it is time to go.; 9/30/14, 11:24 AM
William said...: I recently saw the Burns' documentary on the Roosevelts. FDR was one sick cookie. It never occurred to him that he was too infirm to guide America during an existential war, and it never occurred to the people around him either. I wonder if Justice Ginsburg can point to any justices whom she felt were too old to fulfill their duties. I realize that the aging process has left her untouched, but she's the exception. It must have had an effect on some of the others.; 9/30/14, 11:25 AM
Brando said...: I know it'll make me sound naive, but it's sort of galling that the consideration isn't "can I still effectively do my job, and if not will I be replaced by a skilled jurist"--no, it's "can Obama find a reliably left-wing replacement that can get through the political gauntlet of the Senate."

If the GOP takes the Senate, though, good luck getting anyone new on the court before 2017.; 9/30/14, 11:34 AM
traditionalguy said...: The War on old Jews is very similar to the War on Women. They both arise from an easy non-acceptance that they are full persons.

Women are only sub-men or less and are at best our workers that do the family logistics and supply services of whatever men need... like bearing and raising children.

Jews as a group are dedicated to be our scapegoats that need to hurry up and do their job.

So what good is Ginsburg if all she can do is assert herself as a valuable liberal vote on Court that blocks another Catholic vote.

Who does she think she is, Louis Brandeis?; 9/30/14, 11:41 AM
AustinRoth said...: The Left to this day reaps the folly of what they did to Bork.

I enjoy my schadenfreude well aged.; 9/30/14, 11:51 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Do these Beltway mahoffs ever get over themselves?; 9/30/14, 12:00 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Who would say to her face the name of someone they'd like better? Who would say to her face she's only short-run, being so old, and they care about the long run and so should she? No one who's close enough to her face to be having a conversation with her.

By the way, that says something about the problem of life tenure. At some point, you are decades away from a time when anyone spoke to you as if you were not a Supreme Court justice.; 9/30/14, 12:06 PM
The Savage Noble said...: If she sticks around, and if the Republicans take the Senate, then she can resign in 2016 so that there is a nice juicy battle over her replacement to stir up a grievance laden base right before an election. Given the current lack of a strong conservative candidates on the horizon, it can be reasonably posited that we will get a "moderate" Republican or another Democrat.; 9/30/14, 12:08 PM
Unknown said...: I think she will stay on forever. Of course we will need a Norman Bates to write her opinions; 9/30/14, 12:12 PM
n.n said...: The uncertainty is deafening.; 9/30/14, 12:16 PM
From Inwood said...: Barry Sanders has nailed it.

Be interesting to see, assuming GOP takeover of the Presidency & both Houses in '16, whether Scalia would retire if he thinks a GOP POTUS would not be inclined to appoint a Scalia clone.

BTW, even Pope Benedict & The Spanish king called it a day.

In my ideal world, all future SCOTUS justices would be limited to a term of 20 years (no lecture on the US Constitution & the inability to get the public to focus on this, please).

BTW II, if I asked my friends & relations about whether I was too old for some activity, even tho I obviously am, how would they reply? Don't think I'm gonna do it.

BTW III, on Sunday I went to the Renaissance Festival in the Cloisters up in Inwood. I then went down into the valley. The path I normally would have taken was fenced off, but some had trampled down the fence somewhat. I climbed over it. The steps & road were dicey, & when I got to the bottom, the fence there had also been trampled on, but there it involved a run down over it to the path at the end of the fence with nothing to grab onto. While I was thinking, a beefy guy at the bottom :-) held out his arms & I ran over the trampled fence & he caught me. Most people would think me addled for doing that at my age (past Ezekiel's expiration date).

"The old are in a second childhood" (Aeschylus) But who wants them on SCOTUS?; 9/30/14, 12:34 PM
From Inwood said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/30/14, 12:34 PM
From Inwood said...: Have I passed Peak Commonsense?; 9/30/14, 12:49 PM
Brando said...: I don't know--if I were Ginsburg, I'd like my chances of having a left-leaning replacement in 2017 better than the time between now and then. With the election on, there's little chance of Obama getting a leftist replacement through the Senate even with Harry Reid's trickery to count on. And the GOP is definitely going to gain Senate seats, if not the Senate itself, meaning the only nominees Obama will get through will be ones he has to compromise with McConnell over (or more likely, McConnell plus some Tea Party senators).

In 2016, the Democrats have a good chance to take the White House--the GOP hasn't won a majority of the popular vote in five of the last six elections, and has a very narrow electoral path to victory, not to mention a habit of screwing themselves and their nominees in the general elections. Then you have the Senate elections that year, which favor a Democratic surge--seats like Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida will be targeted.

Besides, don't underestimate the appeal of writing a few more years of opinions that beceome Supreme Court precedent, and having influence over the Court for a little longer. Ginsburg may prize that over being replaced by a reliable leftist.; 9/30/14, 1:01 PM
Richard Dolan said...: "No one who's close enough to her face to be having a conversation with her."

I think you misunderestimate the singular importance of power, and how it trumps ordinary human consideration, to dedicated lefties (she knows lots of them).; 9/30/14, 1:05 PM
Sam L. said...: Inwood, LOTs of people have passed Peak Commonsense. You may be safe, for now.; 9/30/14, 1:06 PM
Bob Ellison said...: The Ginsburg quote you cite betrays both Narcissism and lust for power.; 9/30/14, 1:29 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: Considering the way that Obama and Harry Reid have burned their bridges, I don't think that any of their choices can get through the Senate on a traditional vote basis. That said, the ability of Dirty Little Harry to do nasty work at the procedural crossroads should never be doubted.; 9/30/14, 2:06 PM
jacksonjay said...: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Would Senate Democrats vote for Ruth today?; 9/30/14, 2:12 PM
teej said...: From Inwood,

"The old are in a second childhood." is from Aristophones.

Aeschylus said "It is always in season for old men to learn."; 9/30/14, 2:22 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: I would think that at least one person might respond with something like "I wouldn't want it to be another Samuel Alito."

And what if the answer the person wants to give is "Hilary Clinton?" Or, "Ann Althouse."

But there is another angle. Ginsburg may feel Barack Obama would nominate a man, as he has already nominated two women. Hilary or a Republican President might feel free to nominate a woman.

So for her the strategic moment to retire might be after the next election.; 9/30/14, 2:45 PM
lgv said...: It would be like telling Paul McCartney who you would like better to sing his songs than he.

My grandfather kept singing solos into his 80's. No one would tell him his voice was no longer good enough, but it wasn't that big a deal. A supreme court justice? It's a bigger deal.; 9/30/14, 4:40 PM
tim maguire said...: I know the court is political, but it's not supposed to be. Is it too much to ask the justices to be embarrassed by their betrayal?; 9/30/14, 5:28 PM
DanTheMan said...: .. What does their silence mean?

I suspect they are dumbstruck by the obviousness of the answer:

"Anybody! Just so long as they always vote left, like you always do."

Next question.; 9/30/14, 6:27 PM
RecChief said...: "Brando said...
I know it'll make me sound naive, but it's sort of galling that the consideration isn't "can I still effectively do my job, and if not will I be replaced by a skilled jurist"--no, it's "can Obama find a reliably left-wing replacement that can get through the political gauntlet of the Senate.""

Agreed; 9/30/14, 9:31 PM
From Inwood said...: teej

I stand corrected.

Like Obama tho, I blame it on someone else, here a snob book I use: The Quotable Intellectual
("for... anyone who wants to sound really smart".)

No excuse.

But it's interesting to see how one is corrected immediately on the 'net whereas it's rare that we see the Lamestream Media publishing corrections, all the while laughing at the 'net.; 9/30/14, 11:31 PM
Fernandinande said...: "Who do you think ... you would rather see on the Court than me?"

None of the above.; 10/1/14, 8:09 AM