General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJustice Ginsburg: If I Resign, Obama Could Not Appoint ‘Anyone I Would Like To See In The Court’
Justice Ginsburg: If I Resign, Obama Could Not Appoint Anyone I Would Like To See In The Court
(Weisberg): Im not sure how to ask this, but a lot of people who admire and respect you wonder if youll resign while President Obama is in office.
(Ginsburg): Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. (The Senate ...) took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, theyre misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam
. I think Ill recognize when the time comes that I cant any longer. But now I can.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/23/3571216/justice-ginsburg-if-i-resign-obama-could-not-appoint-anyone-i-would-like-to-see-in-the-court/
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)We NEED Justice Ginsburg.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)to have a voice, this is a proven fact when you look at who they wont allow us to appoint to the supremes and Sandy Hook
The republican party pretty much despises their own base
calimary
(81,322 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Bravo, Justice Ginsburg.
Bravo!
Laurian
(2,593 posts)is acceptable to the left. More power to RBG, hang tough!
riversedge
(70,242 posts)nope.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Will enough dems get out and vote in 2014 to make a difference in congress? If we had more power in congress, maybe Obama could do something in his last two years.
That is what this issue is.
She is correct and she is an awesome woman. I too hope she lives long enough to see someone good replace her, and then live a long life in retirement.
Go Ginsberg!
calimary
(81,322 posts)WE have to get off our asses and vote in November. And EVERY November. And EVERY June. And EVERY Election Day - regardless what day of the week it is. This is an absolute MUST. We just simply, basically, and quite urgently have to.
mopinko
(70,127 posts)hmm. why would incumbents schedule elections for the harshest months of winter? in chicago? yeah, that's why.
if there is a runoff, it happens in march, which, since it is wet, is kinda worse than feb.
people need to get it through their heads that it is a DUTY!!
calimary
(81,322 posts)It's part of your civic obligation as a loyal patriotic American. It's a right - at least as long as the GOP does NOT hold all the cards - either locally, regionally, OR nationally. If they ever do, many of us will no longer enjoy that right. And I say that as a white woman slowly moving into the older demos. I have two counts against me - advancing age and my gender. Oops - make that THREE. I always vote Dem. I wouldn't put it past them to be looking at a voter like me and trying to figure out how to keep ME from voting in the future. Hell, there ALREADY ARE people on their side of the aisle NOW (including GOP women, forcryingoutloud!!!!) who think women don't deserve, and shouldn't have, the right to vote.
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Even that might not be enough to get a supermajority in the Senate, which is what it takes.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Purple states are a lot more realistic, but we need turnout there, too.
riversedge
(70,242 posts)progressoid
(49,991 posts)Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)One of the few left I deeply admire
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)We need you.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)would most likely kill any center or left of center nomination made by a democrat. A majority democratic senate would support any right of center candidate a republican president nominated. A democratic minority senate would not kill such a nomination.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If the Democrats retain their Senate majority and a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, it's quite possible that the Dems would eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court seats. I'm not resigned to the prospect you cite, that the Republicans even in the minority would be able to kill an Obama nomination.
You go on to say, "A majority democratic senate would support any right of center candidate a republican president nominated." There I'm afraid you're probably right -- but I'm not giving up entirely. A key is that the calendar in 2016 (which Senate seats are up) greatly favors the Democrats. Consider this scenario: Republicans take the Senate in 2014 and relentlessly obstruct, including blocking Supreme Court nominations. In 2016, a Republican wins the White House but the Democrats take back the Senate. Would the Democrats just roll over and play dead? I see at least some possibility that they'd say, "Okay, President Huckabee, we're going to confirm your judicial nominations at the same pace as the Republican majority confirmed President Obama's." That might include using their majority to reject extreme RWNJ nominees.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Or 2020, if she can hang on that long.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)when he was still able to get good people through the Senate.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Even when he could get his choice through (Sotomayor), he nominated a Justice more conservative than the one she replaced. In fact, both of Obama's nominees have been more conservative than the Justice they replaced.
We need the court to stop moving right...even if Obama could get his preferred-choice through (I suspect that would be Goodwin Liu), it would likely still represent a continued right-ward drift of the court. His preferences are more centrist than the current "liberal wing" of the court.
It's easy to blame Senate Republicans, but it's just as much on who this President would nominate. It's part of the reason I'm so staunchly against Hillary who would be more-likely to nominate a more conservative Justice than Ginsburg than even Obama.
(That would be my first and most-important question of Sec. Clinton. "Who would you nominate to your 1st SCOTUS vacancy? A name, not a vague response."
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Earlier in his Presidency Obama could have nominated another good Justice and gotten him or her approved.
It comes down to whether we are better off with Ginsberg, on the theory that we might have a somewhat more progressive Justice for a few more years (or less, if we're unlucky); or with a Justice who could have added a liberal weight to the balance for decades more. It's too late now but I think she made the wrong choice. The country will not be served well if she has to be replaced by someone confirmable by a Repub majority Senate, or nominated by a Repub President.
you're the best.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)All they have done is block and obstruct.
Filibuster, blue slips, and more.
I'm sick of the Republicans that are in office now.
They have no shame, whatsoever.
The status quo to keep Washington in gridlock is fueled by millions of dollars from corporations and the Koch bros.
Even our 3rd branch of government is being held hostage by the minority party.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)She might be replaced by another right wing nut job making the court.6 to 3 for the next 40 years.Theres no guarantee Hillary will win in 2016
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Heck, right now, there's not even any guarantee that Hillary will run.
I'm still hoping for a more liberal candidate on the Dem ticket, but I know that's unlikely.
But a lot can happen over the next 2+ years... whether good or bad...
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)be used on judicial appointments.
former9thward
(32,025 posts)The filibuster rule was changed for court appointments at district level and the appellate level. Supreme Court was specifically exempted.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)we'll be likely to get in January will be any better, and she's wrong if she thinks she's going to be alive and productive forever. She's already had two bouts with cancer and she's 81.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)And is just doing her part.
-p
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Except I can't help that she's someone so committed she's going to die trying to make things right. There's a soft spot in my heart for people like that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Democrats don't use it to the effect that the Repubs do, otherwise we wouldn't have Thomas and Scalia on the bench. When I objected to the nominee of one of the Repubs, my Democratic Senator wrote back and said she thought the President (Bushy) should have his appointment
littlemissmartypants
(22,692 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,692 posts)I am really in love with her!
woolldog
(8,791 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,692 posts)I scare myself and get on my own nerves, too.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)kpete
(71,996 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Cha
(297,322 posts)thanks kpete~
Autumn
(45,107 posts)recommended.
LoisB
(7,206 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)tritsofme
(17,380 posts)It is not a serious concern.
After Reid pushed the nuclear button last year, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. No future Senate majority leader would sit back and allow his president's nominee to be defeated by a minority.
If Ginsberg were serious about retiring, Obama and Reid could make those assurances.
indepat
(20,899 posts)Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)She is correct. The GOP/Tea Party would Fuzzbuster every progressive candidate Obama would try and get through. In the end, the president as he usually does, would back down and put a centrist in.
Like I said tough and smart.
She's got skin in the game.
EEO
(1,620 posts)and a Republican wins and replaces Ginsburg or another liberal justice (two of which Obama WAS able to appoint to the court) it is game over for a generation. It will be an unmitigated disaster.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)a President Jeb will have four long years to throw up a bunch of wackos, many of whom will probably make Tony S. look like Thurgood Marshall in comparison.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Shitty 5-4 decisions are just as bad as shitty 6-3 decisions.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)we can see decent 6-5 decisions, unless, of course, you have another way to appoint people to the scotus, while the GOP is in power.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)and then she can retire.
GOTV 2014 and Beyond!
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)No amount of GOTV can get us 60 seats in this election. There aren't enough Democratic voters in those states.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Getting that person confirmed is the problem.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Sotomayor and Kagan reliably vote with her, and there are other good potential nominees out there. It's too bad Ginsburg didn't retire in Obama's early years, when he was able to get good nominations past the Senate.
But in January, the Rethugs may control the Senate and we'll be even in a worse situation.
Ginsburg better stay on the court another dozen years if she wants to be replaced by someone SHE would find acceptable. Considering her age and two bouts with cancer, that's unlikely.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Historic NY
(37,451 posts)or one of the geezers strokes out.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)V O T E !!
TBF
(32,067 posts)the only folks wanting her to step down are the g-d'ed repugs (and they happen to have some stooges on this board).
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)Guess thats how she's been so successful
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If something, god forbid, should happen before we are able to put another D in the White House, we are screwed. I'd even venture to guess in that sort of a situation that the Republicans would rather there be no replacement if possible so they can use their majority to railroad everything bad they could think of through the court.