General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRuth Bader GInsburg: Who Will Replace Her? You Tell Me. After All, it Depends on YOU!
The SCOTUS just made a ridiculous (but predictable) 5-4 ruling that corporations can use 'religious freedom' as an excuse to deny their female workers contraception coverage through their government-mandated healthcare coverage. The dissenting minority decision was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, including a statement of the obvious.
"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
This decision should rightly piss off women from coast to coast. Ginsburg herself is about to retire. She's 81 years old, and is battling both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer. Who will be her replacement? You tell me. It all depends on who controls the SENATE after the next election, and you know damned well that if the GOP takes control of the Senate, they will block every single nomination that Obama makes short of him nominating Mike Huckabee to replace her.
Democratic Party faithful: If you care about the make up of the SCOTUS, you need to worry about getting out the vote in the upcoming election.
Democratic Party operatives: If you can't win the next election based on THIS ISSUE, and THIS RULING....you don't deserve the loyalty of the Democratic Party faithful.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)She's repeatedly indicated she doesn't want to retire now.
TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)which is the most pernicious form of cancer next to leukemia. She may not WANT to retire, but she has no control over nature.
I'm not worried about Kagan or Sotomayor; and unfortunately I'm not worried about Roberts, Alito, Kennedy or even Tony The Toad. I have some moderate hope that Thomas will be taken out by an IRS probe into his twenty years of fraudulent tax returns; but that's not very likely.
But right now I'm extremely worried about Ginsburg, and who would be able to replace her should she be forced to drop out. And that all depends on the make up of the Senate.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)by other conservatives. O'Connor said "This is terrible" when Gore was projected to win in 2000 because she had been wanting to retire.
So the idea that the Supreme Court is totally impartial and above politics is just ridiculous now.
Imagine the situation reversed. If Scalia was in pretty poor health and a few years older, and there was a Republican president with a Republican Senate that was dangerously close to falling to the Dems, I have little doubt he would quit to ensure the seat stayed in the hands of the right-wing.
TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)such.
The only thing to do (and probably the most sensible thing to do) is to impose term limits on the SCOTUS Justices, so that you can, at least, clean the place out periodically.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)But yes, I think mandatory retirement at 80 might be a good thing. Another benefit of that is that you'd know who was retiring when, and that could help bring out the vote in presidential elections. SCOTUS appointments can help get people out now, but when you don't know who's retiring it's less of a motivator. Knowing for a fact that it's going to be a specific liberal justice might light a fire under some people's asses to prevent that seat from being filled by a Romney president.
TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)never been a major ruling in favor of the rights of individuals over corporations that I can recall. All the rulings have gone in the opposite direction, where individual human beings must yield to PROPERTY rights, and with them, the property rights of corporations. The Dredd-Scott decision was just the biggest example of this.
TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)That way you wouldn't have to worry about ages. As you can see, we've been stuck with a few dingleberries like Roberts for DECADES because they were appointed in their 50s. I think it would make more sense to appoint them to a single, 12 year term; and the terms would all be offset by several years, so that no President and/or Senate would get to nominate or confirm more than one or two at most.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)She may have no choice.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)Bandit
(21,475 posts)In fact I can envision him becoming the Chief Justice in about ten years.
TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)positions once they retire. And, despite the fact that the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government are supposed to be co-equal governing bodies, I think a President accepting an appointment as a Justice would constitute a step down. (Just like we've never seen a President run for the Senate. At least not to my knowledge. )
One the other hand....I'd consider his being elected to Chairman of the United Nations to be a parallel position. So he could do THAT after he's retired. (And that would have the added bonus of causing a lot of right wing heads to explode. Can't pass up a two-for-one.)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)the partisan political elements of government kept separate from the judicial ones (at least superficially). If it were up to me:
A) Nobody can be appointed a judge if there were ever a registered member of a political party, or were active in a political party, and
B) Judicial appointments are for one term only (ie-12 years), after which you either have to be appointed to a higher court, or retired (up or out).
Condition "A" would eliminate the lower court justices from engaging in so much politics (ie-Louis Gohmert), for fear that it would prevent them from being appointed to a higher judicial office.
Retrograde
(10,073 posts)and of course, Taft was a Supreme Court justice. I agree that Obama would be a good choice for the UN, but that depends on getting a Democratic president elected in 2016.
Atman
(31,464 posts)And the lying-under-oath Roberts. Let's prop up Ruth for awhile until we can get this straightened out.
TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)A) A gun taped behind the 'old fashioned terlit' (you know, with the box and the CHAIN thing),
B) An exploding calzone, or
C) Trick him into looking into a mirror...
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)"moderate" (acceptable to right wingers) to wild-eyed conservative person who will:
happily recuse themselves (if it's a Democratic presidential appointee)
NEVER recuse themselves (if it's a republican presidential appointee)
TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)A) If Democrats maintain control of the Senate we get Option 1 from your list, or
B) If Republicans take control of the Senate we either get Option 2 from your list, or no replacement at all (ie-a permanent conservative 5-3 majority until 2016 at the earliest).
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Why not?