Asks Ian Millhiser in "Sotomayor and Kagan need to think about retiring/The US Senate is a fundamentally broken institution. Democratic judges need to account for that in their retirement decisions" (Vox).
Is this a ludicrous suggestion? Millhiser has no news of ill health from either Justice (though "Sotomayor has diabetes"). His main worry seems to be that the Democrats are going to lose power — and for a long time. But at least they have the Senate and the presidency for these next 2 years. They could slot in 2 reliable liberal Justices — young Justices, 20 years younger than Sotomayor and Kagan. So give them the chance to do it while they can. That's my paraphrase of Millhiser's position.
Millhiser has a dark view of the Democrats' chance in 2024:
The 2024 Senate map is so brutal for Democrats that they would likely need to win a landslide in the national popular vote just to break even. Unless they stanch the damage then, some forecasts suggest that Democrats won’t have a realistic shot at a Senate majority until 2030 or 2032. And even those forecasts may be too optimistic for Democrats.
If Sotomayor and Kagan do not retire within the next two years, in other words, they could doom the entire country to live under a 7–2 or even an 8–1 Court controlled by an increasingly radicalized Republican Party’s appointees....
Millhiser concedes that there's a problem in having one side of the Court composed entirely of newcomers:
Long-serving justices can develop cult followings.... And justices who serve for a very long time also develop relationships with their colleagues that they can sometimes use to encourage those colleagues to moderate. If only Republican justices can benefit from longevity, the Court’s right flank will gain yet another structural advantage over its left....
[Clarence] Thomas’s tremendous influence on the conservative legal movement’s ambitions were [sic] not apparent until his third decade on the Court. It takes time to build a movement out of the handful of law students in every constitutional law class who read Thomas’s opinions and said to themselves, “Why not?” This kind of sustained movement-building around a central leader simply is not possible if that leader has to quit their job right when they are starting to master it.
Millhiser muses that perhaps Sotomayor or Kagan — with enough time — would, like Thomas, emerge as "a visionary." (Millhiser doesn't use the word "visionary" on Thomas, but he is saying that Sotomayor/Kagan would be a "visionary" if they followed the same narrative arc.) But in the end, that's not enough, and he wants them out before what he fears is the Democrats's coming 10-year eclipse in the Senate.
Posts
74 comments:
Doom the entire country?
SS and EK should retire in the next two years so that we can see what type of DEI nominee Biden would submit to the Senate.
How about instead we get over using judges ideologically and return to seeking common ground? The overturning of Roe v. Wade, the quick flip-flop on the death penalty, and the willingness to hear gun cases is changing the politics.
If elected officials start to legislate and accept defeat...if...
It is bemusing how these people are completely incapable of considering they might be wrong about anything or that they other “side” might have some good points. Their way, all the time, no matter what.
No discussion of good governance, just ageism, straight up, for the purposes of retaining power for sake of it alone.
They should retire, but not for the reason he's suggesting. Sotomayor especially. Some of her recent opinions show she a) needs remedial 1st year law and b) shouldn't be a judge.
He thinks like a roomba - whenever there's an obstacle he darts away in a new direction. He doesn't ask why Republicans might be ascendant or whether intermittent changes in political direction might be a good thing. Just bumps into the fact and instantly darts away to a new idea. And the proposal is kind of silly. I think I see Kagan and Sotomayor resigning in favor of unknown young women. Not.
We’ve moved on from thinking the court shouldn’t be a political body? Why not just do away with it and make all decisions in favor of whoever has controlled the white house for a majority of the last 20 years?
One of my 2 constitutional amendments (the first is “bills shall be of a single subject”): “9 supreme court justices shall be appointed for 18-year terms, staggered at 2-year intervals.” That way, each presidential term will include 2 appointments and there’s no sense fighting about it.
Why does he hate women?? Does he know what a woman is?? Why not ask Ketanji to leave?? Is she special, or is it because she doesn't know what a woman is??
2024 would be bad for Democrats if the GOP wasn't full of establishment grifters who hated the base. I fully expect the GOP to implode and allow the Dems to keep the Senate, or at worst they'll lose by 2-3 seats, and the McConnell/Romney/Murkowski wing of the GOP will happily confirm whatever liberal justices Biden nominates.
Cleverpants Millhiser must think he’s on Law Review with this ponderous vaporing (oxymoron alert). His premise —Dems will lose in 2024, so must act quickly, supplies are limited, operators are standing by— is false. The midterms made abundantly clear that the Dems will never lose another “election.”
Sotomayor has a bad case of genetic type 1. Her face suggests severe kidney damage, or worse. She's also not really competent. But imagine the radical who would replace her.
Kagan is fine. Evil incarnate, but otherwise healthy.
LOL. Let's have presidents that are 90 years old and Supreme Court justices that are 40.
I read this earlier. His one interesting piece of history: Bush had few options because the judicial bench was slim on conservatives. Trump has loaded the courts with Thomas-influenced young judges. The next GOP POTUS will have a wealth of options.
As for his suggestion that the women now on the court should be put out to pasture... well, only a bona fide leftie would get away with that kind of sexism.
One of my 2 constitutional amendments (the first is “bills shall be of a single subject”): “9 supreme court justices shall be appointed for 18-year terms, staggered at 2-year intervals.” That way, each presidential term will include 2 appointments and there’s no sense fighting about it.
I've long thought that the court should have one Justice for each circuit, but that only the eight senior associate justices, along with the Chief Justice, vote on any case. The rest handle circuit court duties, advise in private, and step up to fill a voting role when a voting justice has to recuse himself. The result, hopefully, would be that justices are more willing to retire, since their replacement is already on the court rather than trying to time their retirement to help one party or the other. It also means that there's no need to fill a vacancy immediately. Let both sides battle it out for months, or even years, until they come to a consensus, or the voters give one side a clear advantage.
Democrats could just govern being led by the will of the people. Instead of forcing their extreme agenda through a judiciary. Because the people dont want their agenda.
But at least they have the Senate and the presidency for these next 2 years.
because the democrats spent So MUCH Money, on the repubican primaries?
“Millhiser has a dark view of the Democrats' chance in 2024”
I have a Sun-lit view of the Democrats’ chances: shot in the ass, bleeding out.
More from Millheiser - if you think this is what your opposition has in mind, this is the way you think. On the same vector from the Right we hear, "if you are a traditional American, they hate you and they want you dead."
I'm stoked for all the #takes that will declare me "prescient" in 2031 after Justice Sotomayor is replaced by a guy who wrote an opinion claiming that allowing Black people to vote is unconstitutional.
https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1605653649874571264?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
The future's not what it used to be, is it? At what point can we give all this the degree of indifference it merits? These people can't actually get traction with this kind of stuff, can they? *insert eyes emoji*
"Democratic judges."
I'm OK with liberal and conservative judges. Democratic- or Republican-appointed judges, sure.
But something about "Democratic judges" bothers me, as "Republican judges" would. Let's try to keep up at least a plausible fiction that the justices aren't part of, and batting for, the party that put them there.
The wise Latina cannot be a visionary until after she learns the difference between de facto and de jure.
Also, who leaked the Dobbs opinion? Likely we'll never know because it was the wise Latina.
"It takes time to build a movement out of the handful of law students in every constitutional law class who read Thomas’s opinions and said to themselves, “Why not?”"
Yeah, that's it. The following he has can't be because Thomas has a legal ideology that is legitimate and well-grounded. It must be that he persuades law students reluctantly who shrug and go along with him.
Libs can be such condescending a-holes.
He's insane. Plus one for acknowledging Thomas's greatness instead of gossipping about his perceived lack of intellect. The Left went from one extreme on Thomas to the other in no time.
Even young people can die. Replace them with ChatGPT.
@Birches "Plus one for acknowledging Thomas's greatness instead of gossipping about his perceived lack of intellect. The Left went from one extreme on Thomas to the other in no time." No, they can do both at the same time, whatever serves.
His plan makes perfect sense from a pure political power perspective (PPPP, or 4P, you saw it here first!), without any regard to historical, constitutional, logical or ethical perspectives. As do almost all the ideas proposed by the Left.
Also, who leaked the Dobbs opinion? Likely we'll never know because it was the wise Latina.
My theory has been that Sotomayor gave a copy to the WH as a heads-up of what was coming, and that the WH leaked it to Politico because they needed a distraction back in April when all the bad news was starting to pour in.
I read the whole article.
I disagree with many of the author's points, but the biggest disagreement is that I think (unfortunately) that Biden/Harris will be re-elected. I also think D's will overperform in the 2024 senate races. I think Tester in Montana and Manchin in West Virginia and Brown in Ohio will be hard to beat. Watch all 3 of them "attack" their fellow Democrats regarding the Mexico/USA border security, or lack there of . I argue this is just posturing for their 2024 re-election campaigns.
I will say this, even though it angers the Trump supporters here. If Rove and GWB picked the R nominee in MT, OH, and WV, I guarantee the R would win. Might not be as conservative as one would like, but better than a D, right?
Wow, it is almost as if there are democrat and Republican judges. Justice Roberts, I await your rebuttal.
Another instance if trump saying what the state tries to hide.
Since Kagan is part of this story, I want to bring up a touchy subject.
Has there ever been a story in the MSM or left or right side press about Kagan's sexuality or who she dates or who she is married to or who her partner is (I despise "partner" in this usage)?
I think she is a homosexual, and with all the changes in society over the last 30 years, and last 10 years for sure, I do not see why the secrecy. Just my opinion.
Democrats will not be in trouble until mail-in voting is largely abolished.
Recycling is more sustainable than taking out the trash.
Howard said...
Recycling is more sustainable
Technically it's not new, it's Soylent Kagan.
It's preposterous to think that either SS or EK would agree to retire now, but in Kagan's case it's particularly silly. She's only 62 and could easily serve another 20-25 years. What is she supposed to do with her life for the next couple of decades if she's not on the court? Why in earth would she give that up her seat now just so the Dems can replace her with someone who was maybe 7-8 years younger?? (Or is the idea to replace Kagan and Sotomayor with 18-year-olds who can serve for seven decades?)
Sotomayor has never had the chops to be a federal judge. In her case the Dem obsession with checking the diversity boxes really hurt them, because a smarter justice might have had more of an impact.
Not that I'm complaining. "Oft evil will shall evil mar."
Political Junkie:
Kagan is married to the law. Too busy for sex.
“I’ve known her for most of her adult life and I know she’s straight,” said Sarah Walzer, Kagan’s roommate in law school and a close friend since then. “She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men — who in our class was cute, who she would like to date, all of those things. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago – and she just didn’t find the right person.”
Whatever. I continue to believe the court requires an even number of justices so that every decision, other than a clear tie, will result in a "win by 2" majority. No more 1-vote swings. I also like the fixed term limit idea per tim maguire.
This feels like thrashing frustration that RBG didn't retire during Obama. I would be frustrated too.
The GOP may have the advantage in the Senate but the Democrats are very likely to win the presidency no matter whom they nominate. That’s because Trump can’t win, and if he loses the nomination, he will claim he was cheated by the elitists, the globalists, the RINOs, etc., and will urge his loyalists to sit out the election. The Democratic candidate wins either way.
Is this a ludicrous suggestion?
It's from a writer for Vox. Of course it's ludicrous.
One of my 2 constitutional amendments (the first is “bills shall be of a single subject”): “9 supreme court justices shall be appointed for 18-year terms, staggered at 2-year intervals.”
GREAT topic. A couple more:
* Deficit spending requires a super majority of both houses
* Sending troops or weapons to a foreign country requires a super majority of both houses and must be re-authorized every year.
In the case of these two ladies, ego and weight will get in the way of their taking this guy's advice.
want to know what today's "young" use for brains???
Gen Z students dramatically threaten to leave country, change schools over Roe overturning:
A majority of students disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade
Seriously.. How many of these "students" could Even Say what the Supreme Court's decision WAS?
Who thinks that ANY of them will "leave the country" because of this??? WHERE would they go??
and I know she’s straight,” said Sarah Walzer... “She dated men when we were in law school,
I'm TRYING to think of ANY lesbians i've known.. That DIDN'T 'date men' when they were younger.
THAT'S usually how they decided they were lesbians
Millhiser muses that perhaps Sotomayor or Kagan — with enough time — would, like Thomas, emerge as "a visionary." (Millhiser doesn't use the word "visionary" on Thomas, but he is saying that Sotomayor/Kagan would be a "visionary" if they followed the same narrative arc.) But in the end, that's not enough, and he wants them out before what he fears is the Democrats's coming 10-year eclipse in the Senate.
Thomas is one of the greatest Justices of all time.
Kagan and Sotomayor are just not in his league. They are not as intelligent and they are not as wise as he is.
They do not think about the consequences of their decisions. They are party hacks.
You'll have to pry the judgeship from their cold dead hands. That's just a fact.
Notice how the Liberal/left understands the power the SCOTUS. Contrast that with the stupid ass establishment republicans who were willing to hand Hillary control of the SCOTUS in 2016.
Trump had to drop out in October 2016 to "save the Senate" said Mitch, Romney, Ryan, etc. etc. Had he done so, we'd now have a solid 6 to 3 Liberal/left majority. The left understands how close they came to total domination of the country. The right dooesn't really and republicans certainly don't.
WIth the R's, you always have to EXPLAIN everything, and they never perk up or grasp it unless you tell them taxes, abortion or guns or involved and even then its too absract for them to get upset or take action. the D's play chess. The R's play checkers. Badly.
He's wrong on the basic assumption that 2024 will be bad for the Democrats in the Senate. The only seats the Republicans could win would be MT, OH, and WV, but they will only win those seats if the Democrat holding the seat retires- Tester has won three times, and Montana has only drifted further left in all that time. Brown has won twice, and if he was going to lose, he would have lost in 2018, so he is basically a lock, too. Manchin might retire, and give the Republicans a chance to pick up one seat. However, here is the real problem with the entire scenario- the Democrats, with the rise of mail-in-voting, have a lock on the Presidency, and so will nominate any SCOTUS replacements, and the Senate, even if it has 52 Republicans come 2025, will not leave a vacancy unfilled for 2,3, or 4 years. That is just laughable given what has transpired in the Senate the last 3 months.
Thomas and Alito should have considered stepping down in 2020, but that is water under the bridge now. They will have to try to hang on as long as they can, but they will be replaced by a Democrat at some point.
I see Levene is already trying to blame the 2024 election on Trump. That election was lost the moment we allowed mail-in-voting to get in under the tent. In other words, you need to blame the fucking Republican Party for that failure.
they would likely need to win a landslide in the national popular vote just to break even
Give us a landslide! Stat!
Everything from Millhiser is ludicrous!
I will say this, even though it angers the Trump supporters here. If Rove and GWB picked the R nominee in MT, OH, and WV, I guarantee the R would win. Might not be as conservative as one would like, but better than a D, right?
12/22/22, 8:54 AM
After what McConnell and the 21 Republicans that just spit in our faces did, not really. Not really a difference anymore.
No worries, as Joe says he has the best election fraud team ever assembled.
And Joe never lies. Thats what they tell me.
Absolutely not. Democrats are likely to win national elections because the Republican Party is a huge mess thanks to Trump, extremism and weirdos.
https://stylishtext.app/
Thank you Dave Begley. I think I have a decent "gaydar", but I miss sometimes. Although I still wonder. Married to the revolution!
It is noteworthy that people on the left view liberal justices with such disdain; Kagan and Sotomayor are viewed as completely without substance - merely safe votes for whatever the approved left position. We really don’t even need a live body in the seat, just ask the NYT editorial board what the vote should be on each case.
This guy has a 'dark view of democrat chances in 2024? Why on earth for? Unless the rules on early voting (and late voting, and votes being mysteriously found in the trunks of cars after the elections, until the democrats go from losing on election night to just barely leading (at which point all counting stops and the democrat wins), republicans will never win the presidency again. As Stalin said, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.
The dark sarcasm of viability.
Despite all the Law Reviewish dressing, I assume this is really just about finding a parking place for Kamala.
Wendybar...Don't give in to the dark side. Your anger must not let you vote indirectly for the D (by not voting for the R).
Fight for the most conservative and electable R possible in each race, and then pull the lever for the R. I did not vote for 16 years (between 2006 and 2022). Do not neuter yourself.
even if it has 52 Republicans come 2025, will not leave a vacancy unfilled for 2,3, or 4 years. That is just laughable given what has transpired in the Senate the last 3 months.
Laughable, only because the GOPe are laughable.
If Republicans have the majority in the Senate, they have serious leverage to pick a qualified(not a far left fire brand) candidate. Not Clarence Thomas conservative, but a strong Judge that the Dems can nominate and save face. Or else the seat will remain vacant. Republicans can put the name out there and hang it on the Dems for refusing to compromise.
But GOPe are much more willing to sell out, than stand on principle
If one writes law stuff for a living one must find law stuff to write about'
A writer at Vox predicts. VOX!! Whatever ....
But GOPe are much more willing to sell out, than stand on principle
Democrats sanction 1-2 relief. Republicans have a 3/5 compromise. Choose.
Iowan2,
The Democrat White House will put up anyone they want in 2025-2027, and that person will win Senate approval with at least 70 votes.
If you pay attention over time, you realize that professional political experts tend to make all sorts of predictions that are wrong. If you want my analysis, my analysis is this is not worth discussing, any more than discussing the claims of the drunk lout at the bar. The drunk lout may be more entertaining.
Red Wave! Trump Can't Win! Etc.
Possibly the only worse thing than trusting people who repeatedly lie to you is trusting idiots who have no idea what they are talking about.
D.D. Driver said...
One of my 2 constitutional amendments (the first is “bills shall be of a single subject”): “9 supreme court justices shall be appointed for 18-year terms, staggered at 2-year intervals.”
GREAT topic. A couple more:
* Deficit spending requires a super majority of both houses
* Sending troops or weapons to a foreign country requires a super majority of both houses and must be re-authorized every year.
* Any person found to have served in elected position in the federal government for more than 8 years is summarily executed.
* 10 year limitation on working for the federal government.
these 2 Supreme Court Justices did not Pelican Brief themself!
these 2 Supreme Court Justices did not Pelican Brief themself!
* Deficit spending requires a super majority of both houses
* Sending troops or weapons to a foreign country requires a super majority of both houses and must be re-authorized every year.
Never happen. These amendments would result in small-c conservative governance, and we're too far down the progressive rabbit hole for youngish voters to think that's a good thing - even when this is the kind of basis on which they make their own personal decisions. Everybody wants government to Do Something!! all the time.
If they wasn't set up before 1789 when people understood, viscerally, the parable of King Log and King Stork, they were never going to be able to pass, ISTM.
Political Junkie said...
Wendybar...Don't give in to the dark side. Your anger must not let you vote indirectly for the D (by not voting for the R).
Fight for the most conservative and electable R possible in each race, and then pull the lever for the R. I did not vote for 16 years (between 2006 and 2022). Do not neuter yourself.
12/22/22, 1:53 PM
I live in New Jersey. Try FINDING a decent conservative or Republican there!!
I believe they should resign. We need a trans man in leather dog mask and a drag queen on the court to represent this centuries democrat party.
Post a Comment