“As long as I can do the job full steam, I will do it,” Ginsburg said last year. She has hired law clerks through the 2020 term.From the comments at WaPo: "11 more months until an election year, where we cannot replace Justices. Hang in there Ruth!"
ADDED: "As long as I can do the job full steam, I will do it" does not necessarily mean As soon as I cannot do the job full steam, I will not do it. There was no commitment to step down upon a reduction from full steam. It was a commitment to keep going, based on the implication that she had full capacity and hoped to maintain it. Must people retire at the point they detect some decline from "full steam"? Generally, I'd say no, because otherwise we'd be hostile to the disabled. Specifically, however, a Supreme Court Justice has so much power, so much ability to disguise a loss of a capacity, and life tenure, and that may mean that only a full-capacity Justice should hold onto the job. Ginsburg's quote — "As long as I can do the job full steam, I will do it" — suggests a belief in that proposition. But what about about the desire to control which President names your replacement? Is it ethical to hold onto the job, despite decline — and how much decline? Other Justices have done this, and many people, like the quoted commenter above, urge RBG to cling to her position no matter how far she declines. That encouragement is open and fervent, and I'm not seeing the expression of the opinion that it is somehow wrong not to let go when "full steam" is no longer attainable.
Posts
112 comments:
She was treated for cancer but not Trump Derangement Syndrome.
That's a shame. She's served well for a long time - and though I don't agree with her viewpoints she's been reasonably consistent.
But time doesn't stop, no matter how passionate the personality. The body ages and fails, the mind slows... and fails.
It's time for her to retire, much as some may not want her to do so.
I think her health is much more fragile than is being revealed. I wish her all the best and would hope that if a focus on her health meant stepping down from the court to do so, she would take that opportunity.
We'll see hologram RGB if they have to.
We should demand strict proof of life,and accept no phoned in votes from a terminal bed case with no brain wave activity.
She'll be another William O. Douglas. Like him she has no life outside of work and politics.
“As long as I can do the job full steam, I will do it”
Are progs honest about anything at all?
RGB thought Hillary would win and her replacement would be the first woman Justice replaced by a woman Justice appointed by the first woman President.
Now that the Dems are all but certain to rush Kamala Harris to the forefront, her dreams can live on a bit longer.
But she is working from home, and Roberts said she will participate in the two cases scheduled for oral argument by reading briefs, filings and a transcript of the sessions.
So why isn't this okay for the rest of 'em? I see potential savings.
I don't wish her "The best"
I wish the USA "the best" - and hope she either steps down or dies.
25 years on the SCOTUS is enough,and its crazy we have people over 80 making these important Judicial decisions.
We should admend the constitution to limit SCOTUS term to 25 years, that's enough to bring judicial independence and would be in line with "For Life" meant in 1788.
Are there any important cases coming up that she will miss?
So, she can rule on the case without even attending the oral arguments.
I guess Justice Thomas was right after all.
Hmmm... So Ruth (the "Master") Bader Ginsburg does not show up for oral arguments today. Is that because she is a non-essential government employee?
11 more months till an election year where a justice can't be appointed? I think not. Those people in Congress just make it up as they go along. It's a three shell monte game with a palmed pea.
Other than some sort of Senate agreement, where is it written that justices can't be replaced in an election year? Mitch could do it and reverse himself for his holding the Scalia "seat" open, but so what? Reed would have done the same thing, no?
Jerry said...
That's a shame. She's served well for a long time - and though I don't agree with her viewpoints she's been reasonably consistent.
She has served her side well. She has served her country poorly. I wish her well. The country would be better off if she retired, but that is not related to any health issues.
She has hired law clerks through the 2020 term.
This was the best line by far. Totally meaningless, yet everything necessary to calm the faithful.
"But she is working from home, and Roberts said she will participate in the two cases scheduled for oral argument by reading briefs, filings and a transcript of the sessions."
Well if she isn't required to be there why even indulge in the charade of her "working"? Everyone knows how she'll vote on a given case. Why not just pencil it in?
Coming soon: Weekend at Ruthie's.
I am Laslo.
"Cannot replace justices!"
Cocaine Mitch says "Challenge accepted!"
Is it just me, or can anyone else envision this heading down a 'Weekend at Bernie's' path?
"11 more months until an election year, where we cannot replace Justices"
And bless your stupid, little, dark, liberal heart for believing something that is not in the Constitution. If the Buzz leaves the bench in 2020, Trump will nominate and the Senate will confirm, all in 2020, and the duplicitous Romney will vote with the Democrats.
Amy Comey Barrett.
Look, she is 85. I hope she had a long and wonderful life. I mean, I plan on living to be 121 and dying from asphyxiation from blowing out the candles on my birthday cake. But 85 is awfully old. The body ages, and the brain is part of the body.
I mean the other way to look at this is if you expect RBG to not retire until there is a democrat president she will be 107 at the end of President Nicki Haley's two terms.
AGE YEAR President
86 2019 Trump
87 2020 Trump
91 2024 Pence
95 2028 Pence
99 2032 Haley
103 2036 Haley
107 2040 xxx
Justice Breyer is 80.
Let's be honest of RBG or Breyer had a stroke or a heart attack none of us could be surprized. Not really.
I agree with Original Mike, it’s not as though she actually cares about the facts or the law.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not attend her weekly Sunday Brunch, the first time in her career she has missed a session."
Writes Robert Barnes at WaPo.
“As long as I can come to Brunch full steam, I will do it,” Ginsburg said last year. She has made reservations for her usual table through 2020.
"But she is eating at home, and Roberts said she will participate on Sundays by having blueberry waffles with maple syrup during the hours Brunch is traditionally served."
"11 more months till an election year where a justice can't be appointed?"
Nope, the Voters created a GOP President, and in 2018 they re-confirmed the GOP Senate
Team GOP will be happy to replace RGB, the send she's gone.
Seems she is hanging on just to spite Trump. The left has elevated her to goddess status as a result. Very bizarre way to finish up your life. I wish her well. But she has given her life to promoting leftist values, and is no fan of America. Maybe she will be reincarnated as a young women in some socialist country, now that would be Justice.
Dear Desm:
Just to be clear: If in Nov 2020 the voters select a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate, and RGB dies a day later, I expect the outgoing GOP President to appoint, and the outgoing GOP Senate to confirm, her replacement.
And we KNOW you would do the same, if the situation were reversed.
So please, just stop the BS.
Wait, what? I thought Lithwick said that the left no longer cares about SCOTUS.
I can't believe that the Democrats are still whining about Garland. They could have given him a vote in the Senate. And he would have lost it.
I'm certain that the Democrats would have wanted the vote, to be able to then talk about any Republicans who voted no on the nomination.
Like I would talk about any Senate Democrat who in fact voted no on Roberts (there were 22 Democrats who voted against his nomination), Alito (40 Dems voting no), Gorsuch (45 Dems voting no) and Kavanaugh (48 Dems voting no).
Althouse didn't mention it but the text of Lithwick's little contribution really did focus on how the hyper-partisan nomination/confirmation process will erode confidence in the court. And no one has done more to move the federal judiciary in that direction than Lithwick's ideological mentors, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She has hired law clerks through the 2020 term.
This was the best line by far. Totally meaningless, yet everything necessary to calm the faithful.
"Reporting" is no longer. Our host has been pointing this out of late. Not something new to people that have devoured news for the last 50 years. The Geller/Mann effect is real. Any news item on a subject you have extensive experience in, is full of facts that are 180 degrees out of phase with reality.
Justice Kennedy must still be writing opinions, he hired the law clerks for this term. That's another fact, of current history. But "reporters" historical reference starts anew with their next piece for publication.
When originalists dream,
Now that Kavanaugh’s in place we now have a Firm Five (though Roberts is a little iffy here and there, IMO). Ruth the Buzz, who delusionally thinks she’s in charge of the length of her life span, may suffer a snip of the Abhorred Shears of Atropos sooner than she thinks, with DJT naming her replacement. Breyer, longing to spend his final days eating Breyers® Ice Cream with his grandkids and realizing that he will now be facing a Solid Six, responds to the loss of the Buzz, by crying, “What’s the use; I can no longer effectively legislate on behalf of the Democrat Party from the bench,” and resigns. The Don goes into action, and the Solid Six becomes the Solid Seven.
Thomas, Alito, and Trump could execute a strategy here. In late-2022 or mid-2023, Thomas & Alito, each of whom will by then be in his mid-70s, come to DJT (yes, there will be a second term), announce their plans to retire, thereby giving the Don time to line up their respective replacements. Thomas & Alito, channeling M. Corleone, condition their retirements on the Don’s promise to “settle all family business” and to replace them with people in the mold of Scalia, with each nominee to be in his/her mid-40s. In time Roberts does the same, though he’ll be coming to President Mike Pence. An originalist bloc remains in place for decades creating solid originalist precedents.
I attended an oral argument a few years ago on an age discrimination case. Ginsburg kept confusing age, race, sex and the applicable statutes and asked confusing and detached questions. The other Justices (especially Scalia) kept bailing her out, quickly forming a new question to make sense. It was obvious then that something was going on and she was struggling to understand what was happening around her.
The likely situation is her law clerks are doing her job for her. We were initially told that she broke her ribs falling during one of her strenuous exercise routines. That was a lie -- turns out it was related to her cancer. In effect, we have a Woodrow Wilson situation after his stroke.
I may disagree with her but I certainly don't want her to die. I won't wish death on anyone who isn't an absolute monster. I hope she steps down and focuses on her health and enjoying what remaining years she has left. This idea of dying on the bench just doesn't seem worth it to me.
Cocaine Mitch ain't playing by the Left's rules.
And Lyndsay Graham is running the Judiciary Committee.
Sorry. Not sorry.
I believe the "Biden rule" was for a President who was in his second term.
But who cares. It was more of a guideline than a rule.
Politicians make up reasons for a position and reverse themselves 12 months later. If you're in power, you make the rules. Elections have consequences.
rcocean said...
She'll be another William O. Douglas. Like him she has no life outside of work and politics.
Exactly. But the irony is even deeper and richer.
Remember the life story of Justice Douglas? That there was talk about impeaching him, in the 1950's when Douglas stayed the execution of the Rosenbergs in the infamous spy case. And then in 1970, when Douglas was doing all kinds of speeches and writing and other work to pay for his three divorces, Rep. Gerry Ford of Michigan led an effort to impeach him that was a serious attempt.
When Douglas finally died (after trying to hold onto his seat and his life well into incapacity), the President of the United States was... Gerry Ford. It was the ultimate final, political insult to Douglas. (Ford chose Prof. John Paul Stevens, which in the end turned out to be another kind of political turnabout.)
It would be much the same, if Ginsburg died and her successor was chosen by Trump.
An originalist bloc remains in place for decades creating solid originalist precedents.
Upon which stare decisis gets turned on its head to "any decision written by old, white men must be deemed racist and overturned."
RBG: Breznhev of the US Supreme Court
Nonapod said...
I may disagree with her but I certainly don't want her to die. I won't wish death on anyone who isn't an absolute monster. I hope she steps down and focuses on her health and enjoying what remaining years she has left. This idea of dying on the bench just doesn't seem worth it to me.
Yours is a nice, caring way to think.
And it is absolutely nothing like the way that the leftist ideologues who orchestrate the Democratic Left's activity think, when they are reacting to SCOTUS vacancies. You saw the reference above, to "Weekend at Ruthie's"? That is only a slight exaggeration. Also only a slight exaggeration; that they would hire a Ginsburg double to fill in for her while the body of the real Ginsburg was kept on ice (see another great comedy, "Moon Over Parador") until a taxidermist could stuff her and use the figure until a Democrat was sworn in as President.
@iowan2:
Not to be picky, but there is no Geller/Mann effect.
And you mean 90 degrees out of phase.
So, she can rule on the case without even attending the oral arguments.
Now when she naps through arguments, she'll be more comfortable.
Original Mike said...
Well if she isn't required to be there why even indulge in the charade of her "working"? Everyone knows how she'll vote on a given case. Why not just pencil it in?
1/7/19, 9:25 AM
Exactly. We all know how she will vote....ALWAYS!
Seeing if the Dems can out-Kavanaugh themselves before the 2020 election could help the Republicans.
Why in the world would Roberts allow her to vote on today's cases. If attending oral arguments are not essential to the case, why keep up with the charade.
I am so old I remember when few even knew the names of SCOTUS judges. Now it's politics 247 every damn day of the year. F-ing far left liberals [many of those are stinking lawyers btw] are ruining our lives.
It's..... Weekend at Ruthies!!! If necessary Democrats will stuff her like Roy Rogers did Trigger and keep her at the desk!
Not to be picky, but there is no Geller/Mann effect.
Actually, it is the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, named after Nobel-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann whose specialty is subatomic particles.
The "amnesia effect" refers to experts believing news articles outside of their field of specialty while rejecting incorrect news articles dealing with their field.
Has RBJ, or any of the "left side" of the court, ever made a ruling that surprising anybody? I get the impression that you could replace her with a button and a dippy bird toy. It's on the "right" where you actually get surprises.
When she dies, maybe we can get 2 or 3 more Hollywood hagiographies in theaters.
So much for the free exchange of ideas among the Justices.
BTW, please notice the lack of curiosity by the media about RBG's prognosis. IIRC, it was said the cancer in her lungs likely did not originate there.
"Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving." --David Burge, Iowahawk
A fairly-evenly divided SCOTUS is in the best interest of the country. Unfortunately, those on the right and the left believe that the ideal world is a SCOTUS where all nine are in lockstep.
That the health of an 85-year-old woman should be of such earth-shattering significance reflects a system not working very well. I suggest that every president should have 1 nominee to the Court each term. The number of Justices will vary from year to year but that doesn't seem like a problem. Perhaps along with a maximum term of 20 years and/or a minimum age requirement of 50 or so. It is not good if the "political" make up of the Court is vastly different from the make-up of the electorate. People will lose respect for the third branch.
Folks on the left, like Lithwick, have yet to come to terms with the idea that if President Trump picks replacements for Justice Ginsburg, and maybe Breyer, the swing justice will be Kavanaugh or Gorsuch.
"A fairly-evenly divided SCOTUS is in the best interest of the country"
No, an honest Supreme Court that follows the written US Constitution, the written laws, and other than that lets democracy win is "in the best interests of the US"
it's not in the best interests of the Left, because they are dishonest scum-bags who use the Courts to advance political policies they can't get any other way.
And THAT is the greatest danger to the US.
Yes. "Full steam" can mean anything. Supposedly, before he retired, Marshall wasn't involved in writing his opinions but spent his office hours watching TV.
Other than show up at a few meetings, and attend oral arguments, a SCOTUS judge can get by with letting the clerks do ALL the work.
Ginsberg SAYS she reading all the information, but is she? Maybe clerk is doing that, and giving her the "Gist" of it. Lets be honest, in reality a Leftist like Ginsberg knows how she's going to vote, once she figures out which side is "Good for the Left".
Is it much different if she reads transcripts and listens to tapes while Thomas sits on bench and just listens? In court of appeals covering multiple states some judges sometimes appear by remote hookup.
That said, an oncologist cousin who is an admirer tells me that what has been reported on Ginsburg is very troubling.
Exhume Scalia and give him his seat back! I miss him so very badly.
If she dies before January 1st 2021, I think it quite probable that an attempt to conceal her death will occur. It probably wouldn't be successful- too many people to keep the secret- but it will be tried.
Lucien wrote: "Not to be picky, but there is no Geller/Mann effect."
No. But there is a Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. You can read about it here:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you
Ginsburg is a person who outlived her time and neither adapted, nor even sees the need to adapt to the 21st century.
She reminds me of the line in “Arsenic and Old Lace” where Mortimer, played by Cary Grant in the film version, is a theater critic who plans to save time by writing his review on the way to the theater. She doesn’t need to know the law and she doesn’t want to know the facts. She just wants to know how it affects abortion rights, and if abortion rights are not involved then is there’s way to take a slap at Republicans.
Gerald Ford was a moron. He writes in his autobiography that he didn't want to put put his "Stamp on the court" or "Mold it in my image" and that he wanted a Moderate.
So he appointed Stevens who was no moderate at all, unless you think "Moderate Liberal".
IN 1975, Pat Buchanan asked Ford if he was re-elected how many more judges would be like Stevens and Ford replied "All of them"
Buchanan called Reagan the next day and offered to campaign for him.
I have to give the Left credit, they've somehow brainwashed everyone to think that anyone who believes in judicial restraint, or the mainstream interpretation of the Constitution that held for 180 years, is a "Right wing extremist" and somehow we need to appoint "Moderates" who will only give the Left half of what they want, or all of it- in twice the time.
Blogger Yancey Ward said..."If she dies before January 1st 2021, I think it quite probable that an attempt to conceal her death will occur."
If she's phoning it in, how do we know she's still alive? Seriously.
Ms. Althouse posted a video of a Ginsberg interview here a several months ago- it was clear to me from that video alone that Ginsberg is suffering from advanced dementia. People who watch the oral arguments the last few years have reported that her questions usually make little or no sense.
I watched my father go through this the last couple years of his life- it was like talking to a young child. And even before he reached that point, his ability to do complex thinking was already gone.
Original Mike,
The information would come from one of the other members of the court. Rebuffing their efforts to see her would cause the cat to escape the bag at some point.
...and I'm not seeing the expression of the opinion that it is somehow wrong not to let go when "full steam" is no longer attainable.
I don't think "full steam" is necessarily required, as long as you are still operating at a level above or at least equal to your expected replacement. For example, if you had an IQ of 130, and your IQ drops to 120, there is no need to retire if your replacement would have an IQ of 110.
In the case of RGB, it is reasonable for people who agree with her ideologically to decide that her operating at half capacity to advance liberalism is doing the job better than someone advancing conservatism at full capacity.
"She was treated for cancer but not Trump Derangement Syndrome."
Have you ever sought help for your racism? She thinks Schlump is deranged like the rest of us do.
If she doesn't appear for oral arguments by the end of May, Roberts himself will go see her.
steve uhr said...
A fairly-evenly divided SCOTUS is in the best interest of the country.
I agree. I want a court that is evenly divided between justices to the left of Thomas and justices to the right of Thomas, with Thomas being the swing vote.
I've been rewatching old interviews with Scalia and taking in his admonition that the supreme court is now at a stage where it is now a political instrument being wielded by both parties and its influence needed to be minimized not amplified. The liberals are freaking out because RBG was a solid liberal vote no matter what case came up. They will be in an existential panic if she passes away and Trump gets to select her replacement.
I think we already have the answer on how ethical RBG is.
Have you ever wondered WHY an old and hyoer-partisan person would not have resigned during the Obama era in order to let a Democrat name her replacement? Think about it.
Now add in that RBG absolutely hated Trump with a passion. Why would she take the risk that Trump might name her replacement? Think about it.
I believe the answer is that RBG clearly believed Hillary would win. And furthermore that she was part of a conspiracy to ensure her replacement was as partisan as you can get. The fix was in and RBG was a central player in it.
Have you ever asked yourself why Barack Obama was breaking precedent and staying in Washington DC? Yeah I know he had one daughter still in high school but that had never stopped him from putting career over family. With one year to go and then Sasha on her own they cull have moved elsewhere and made some arrangement for Sasha to finish at Siddley-Friends, which although not a boarding school, is private and thus has no zinging or residence requirements.
No, I believe RBG did not resign and let Obama appoint a replacement because she was shooting for the Moon. She was going to let Hillary appoint Obama to her seat on SCOTUS. That is what Obama stayed in Washington and why everyone was so discombobulated when Trump won.
For hyper-partisans like RBG and Obama and Hillary what could have been better? Obama could have used this SCOTUS platform to sway public opinion to all kinds of Progressive ideological nirvana regardless of the Constitution. Forget that stale document and go for the Living document that needs too "evolve" to represent "who we are" and "who we should be".
This was the payoff Hillary had to make to Obama to stay out of jail. A lifetime appointment for Obama to do mischief on SCOTUS. And RBG was all-in on the idea as a hyper-partisan that hated Trump. What better legacy could a Progressive leave than Obama on the court for 30 years? All 3 would be Progressive heroes.
Instead, Hillary got embarrassed in a mortifying way. Obama got wrong-footetd as the country rejected his Third Term. And RBG faced a very very grim future of holding on by pure Hate to a seat just to deprive Trump the opportunity to appoint a successor.
Why in the world would a rational person with such partisan views have taken the risk of letting someone she viewed a a mortal threat appoint her replacement? it only makes sense if you think about it and realize RBG was shooting for the Moon because she thought it was such a high probability outcome.
Forcing RBG to live a grim life fueled by Hate will affect her health and we are seeing that now. Is her pure Hate strong enough for her to hold on, maybe for 6 more years? There is an ironic sense of justice to the impact her lead pipe cinch scenario has had. That lead pipe has hit Hillary, Obama and RBG right in the heads.
There's precedent!
In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) had a massive stroke, was paralyzed, was
confined to his bed, and let his wife, Edith, pretty much run the show.
Gotta cling to power, baby!
Blogger rehajm said...
We'll see hologram RGB if they have to.
--
Could be Christian Bales' next role.
Maybe Thomas should retire too so Trump can appoint a younger judge to replace him. I mean if and it is certainly feasible the Trump may not wind reelection a President Harris could have a nomination because Thomas is not spring chicken either.
"Original Mike said...
Blogger Yancey Ward said..."If she dies before January 1st 2021, I think it quite probable that an attempt to conceal her death will occur."
If she's phoning it in, how do we know she's still alive? Seriously."
That smell from the bedroom will go from bad to worse.
Hope she's OK. From what I know about her, she must be really sick to not show up. She may not make it 11 months. Not sure what the 11 month countdown is about. It's perfectly possible to nominate a justice in 2020. The last one was sworn in right before the election. Chances of RBG making it to 2021 in the current political climate (where incapacity can't be well-hidden) are low.
She should have resigned in 2010, but that's hindsight. The current political situation requires one party to hold the Presidency and the Senate at the same time to appoint justices, and there has to be a vacancy. With three conditions to meet before a justice can be sworn in, it's unlikely very many will make it over the next decade or two.
Given past history, it's unlikely the 2020 election will deliver both the Senate and the Presidency to the Democrats. For one thing, Alabama's Senate seat currently held by a Democrat is up for election in 2020. That seems unlikely to continue. The best the Democrats can hope for is either the Presidency or the Senate, which will let them block RBG's replacement by a conservative justice.
So, no new liberal justices for quite a while, 2025 at the earliest.
Elections matter.
And Breyer is 80...
It's been a bit more than 40 years now since the California Commission on Judicial Performance declared that Marshall McComb (an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court) aged 81 or 82 had to step down from the Court because of senile dementia.
McComb had had a long and distinguished career on the bench in California--first appointed a trial judge in 1927 (so he had a 50 year run as a trial judge, intermediate appellate court judge, and finally Associate Justice). There were those who loved and respected him. But the end was ugly. Among other evidence offered to prove his dementia, he frequently failed to open his overcoat or pants when he stood in front of a urinal and "let fly". There was a lot more evidence. I knew some of his former clerks (then about a dozen years past their clerkships) who had to discover and offer that sort of evidence in the trial. It was sad.
I don't think anyone has suggested that the "Notorious RBG" has hit early Alzheimers or senile dementia--yet. But better to leave now than risk the arrival of such a condition. She can leave with her reputation intact.
RBG is a good person who has led an honorable life. That said, can anyone explain why she is such a quantum jump ahead of Sandra Day O'Connor who was the first female Supreme Court Justice? I don't remember any hagiographic movies tracing the life and times of Sandra Day O'Connor. One thing is for sure: O'Connor had a more graceful exit strategy than RBG......There's not a lot of love here for David Souter, but I think he should be congratulated for the way he bowed out. There's apparently a strong temptation for justices--of all political leanings--to stay on past their use by date. Souter and O'Connor resisted that temptation, but RBG did not. This fact should be part of her legacy, and perhaps other Justices--of all political leanings-- should consider her example.
I agree 100% with Will above.
It made zero sense to me why RBG didn’t retire when BHO was President. I didn’t think of appointing BHO to SCOTUS. And the Senate would have confirmed Obama to SCOTUS.
William said...
RBG is a good person who has led an honorable life. That said, can anyone explain why she is such a quantum jump ahead of Sandra Day O'Connor who was the first female Supreme Court Justice? I don't remember any hagiographic movies tracing the life and times of Sandra Day O'Connor. One thing is for sure: O'Connor had a more graceful exit strategy than RBG......There's not a lot of love here for David Souter, but I think he should be congratulated for the way he bowed out. There's apparently a strong temptation for justices--of all political leanings--to stay on past their use by date. Souter and O'Connor resisted that temptation, but RBG did not. This fact should be part of her legacy, and perhaps other Justices--of all political leanings-- should consider her example.
Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.
Yes, O'Connor (a Republican nominated by Reagan) could never get the hagiographic treatment that an ACLU alum like Ginsburg would.
Yes, O'Connor exited very gracefully, making way for Justice Alito.
Yes, there is little affection for Souter here as far as I know. I wish he had exited before he was confirmed. (Bush 41 batted .500 for the Supreme Court, and we can probably say that on balance, Reagan did only a little better. Bush 43 was the hitting leader, going 2-for-2.)
Yes, Ginsburg was grossly selfish in not retiring to allow Obama to name her successor in about 2014, when the Democrats still had a solid majority in the Senate. Ginsburg had turned 80 by then.
And yes, if Ginsburg's successor is chosen by Trump, her political devotees ought to hold it against her. I'll be drinking champagne. In respectful memory to her, of course. It would be wonderful, on so many levels.
Blogger David Begley said..."It made zero sense to me why RBG didn’t retire when BHO was President." 1/7/19, 12:19 PM
David you are correct! But, RBG is not what the MSM frauds claim. There's a big difference being for the "Tribe" vs. being for "Herself". This is her legacy - screw the pundits!
Still, I'm in the camp of retiring these fossils at some age. Hell we've had the same crap for centuries in Congress too!
"the Senate would have confirmed Obama to SCOTUS"
You really think he wanted another job when he can make millions w/o?
Has anybody ever seen anything in "Mother Jones" that they found agreeable? I can't think of even a single example, but then I am not much of a "Mother Jones" reader.
Here is the exception that proves the rule; a clear-eyed examination of what a mistake (for the Left) it was that Ginsburg stayed on the Court through the duration of the Obama Administration:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/11/what-cult-ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-got-wrong-obama-trump/
Calls for her to retire started as early as 2011. It might even be tempting to think that if Justice Scalia had not died, Ginsburg might have retired but all of that uproar (and Senate control going to Republicans in 2014) overwhelmed her into staying on. Presuming, no doubt, that Hillary Clinton would win.
Haha.
"... I'm not seeing the expression of the opinion that it is somehow wrong not to let go when "full steam" is no longer attainable."
There is 'full steam', and then there is 'Gwyneth Paltrow full steam'.
For the ladies.
I am Laslo.
Those of us who have had friends and associates with serious (beyond first stage ) cancer know that there is no guarantee for surgery to result in becoming cancer free and the prognosis written in her medical records likely contain no assurances. She has had too many bouts with more than one cancer type and the public is never told about her radiation and chemo treatments.
It is not surprising that RBG remains confined to bed two weeks after surgery, since removal of her body's largest breathing surface (the lower left lung) requires a whole new lifestyle that is obviously tough even on young people - so octogenarians can look forward to far more trouble. Oncologists will tell patients upfront that the procedure is debilitating.
@William
Justice O'Connor had common sense, something that is now considered irrelevant on the Supreme Court. She had a sterling career, and accepted when it was time to step down. She had two feet in the ground, likely because she had a full life as a state legislator, prosecutor, civilian Army attorney, and Arizona Attorney General, while giving her family her highest priority. That life experience informed her time as Justice. Now, the Supreme Court is an esoteric argument in an Ivy League faculty lounge among Justices with little life experience other than Harvard/Yale/Columbia and getting on the bench. Outstanding intellectuals, no common sense. I have been hoping that Trump breaks the mold and nominates someone outside the pipeline.
She reminds of the members of the Soviet Politburo.... old, reactionary, barely able to speak and constantly on medication and hooked up to medical devices. I wonder if a medical emergency vehicle accompanies her everywhere she goes.
She was shown to be a hypocrite at her confirmation hearing, so don't expect her to step down now.
Sotomayor is not looking good.
Serious weight gain over the last year or two. She's in a fight with diabetes. She may be losing.
As gadfly noted about RBG, they removed half of her left lung. I'd be amazed if she's not on oxygen and, even if able to sit up for a hearing, that would not be a good look.
If RBG stays on when she can't do the job, Trump can appoint a new justice in an election year.
But, based on the frenzied statements that she is making a complete recovery, I assume she is a dying woman so that the issue of Trump appointing a justice in 2020 won't come up. You can't fool around with cancer and linger things out the way you can with stroke or dementia.
There's precedent!
Justice Clarence Thomas rarely ever asks questions during oral argument. You can google this and get a google of articles .
So, Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg will simply adopt the same practice.
walter said...
"the Senate would have confirmed Obama to SCOTUS"
You really think he wanted another job when he can make millions w/o?
1/7/19, 12:54 PM
------
That's the fatal flaw in that theory: Obama just doesn't want to work that hard. HE's on easy street now.
It's an interesting theory, but, I second the notion that Obama, after the presidency, would rather make $100 Million dollars, which takes a few years, before taking on another political office.
Good hypothesis, though.
why do you all insist on making things up? things like:
Sandra Day O'Connor who was the first female Supreme Court Justice?
O'Connor wasn't even a Human; she was a republician (boo! hiss!)
what lies are you all going to come up with next? the Thurgood Marshall wasn't the ONLY African American to serve on the Court?
The American People (and the undocumented among us) are Only Interested in HUMANS
get boring us with stories about Satan's Spawn
"11 more months until an election year, where we cannot replace Justices. Hang in there Ruth!"
Has something been added to the Constitution?
@skeptical voter wrote
".....But the end was ugly. Among other evidence offered to prove his dementia, he frequently failed to open his overcoat or pants when he stood in front of a urinal and "let fly"."
That was the word on William O. Douglas as well. After his mild stroke he was incontinent of bladder and bowel. A former clerk for a different SCOTUS described the stench as 'worse than a baby'
She will stay on the court even when she lapses into a coma.
“We are not about to send Republican boys nine or ten miles away from home to do what Democrat women ought to be doing for themselves.” — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
“We do this [keeping me alive by artificial means] in order to slow down aggression. We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of the Democrat Party who have bravely born this brutal battle for so many years with so many casualties. And we do this to convince the leaders of Trump's Party—and all who seek to share their conquest—of a simple fact: We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired. We will not withdraw either openly or under the cloak of a natural death.”— Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
“There may be a limit beyond which many Americans and much of the world will not permit Ginsberg to go. The picture of the world’s greatest Progressive issuing or tweeting about 1,000 Supreme Court cases a week, while trying to pound the rest of the Court into submission on any issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty one.” — Alan Dershowitz
"I refuse to believe that a little fourth-rate power like Ruth Bader Ginsberg doesn’t have a breaking point." — Vice President Mike Pence
“During the day on Monday, Washington time, the Supreme Court came under persistent rocket as well as artillery fire and was effectively closed. The military situation in the area deteriorated rapidly. I therefore ordered the evacuation of all medical personnel remaining in Ginsberg's home.” — President Donald J Trump
in other news, it turns out the husband of dabney freidrich, the judge hearing the concord case, was the head of the criminal division, back during the stevens case, and has strong ties to mueller through Weissman,
Dabney Freidrich dated Brett Kavanaugh in 1998, and had to submit a statement to the judiciary committee during his confirmation process refuting an anonymous allegation that he once slammed her against a wall.
Missing the point:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1082374672623124480
Just to reiterate. The Biden "rule" is when the President is in his eighth year (and cannot run for reelection) AND the Senate is in the hands of the opposite party. That very well might be the case in five years, given that the Dems have an advantage next year in not having to defend as many seats as the Republicans.
Essentially what is going on there is that the Senate majority is betting on the Presidency flipping the next year (which is precisely what happened in 2016) to their party, and so are willing to leave the SCOTUS seat open for the rest of that last year. Theoretically, they could leave a vacancy open for longer - and that happens regularly in the lower courts. But most everyone can count to nine, and leaving a SCOTUS seat open for too long is unseemly. And hence the Biden nonrule rule.
Except the Senate had been in Reid's hands for 8 years
Post a Comment