HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Justice Ruth Bader Ginsbu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:27 PM

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wants To See All-Female Supreme Court


Ginsburg Wants To See All-Female Supreme Court

BOULDER, Colo. (CBSDC) — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hopes to see an all-female Supreme Court one day.

Ginsburg made the comment during a 10th Circuit Bench & Bar Conference at the University of Colorado in Boulder, according to CNS News.

“Now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay,” Ginsburg told the conference. “And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough and I say when there are nine, people are shocked.”

Ginsburg said that no one has “ever raised a question” when nine men were serving on the bench.

-snip-

Full article here: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/27/ginsburg-wants-to-see-all-female-supreme-court/





59 replies, 6295 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wants To See All-Female Supreme Court (Original post)
Tx4obama Nov 2012 OP
Vincardog Nov 2012 #1
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #2
NewJeffCT Nov 2012 #3
FSogol Nov 2012 #4
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #34
NewJeffCT Nov 2012 #52
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #54
loudsue Nov 2012 #57
CTyankee Nov 2012 #38
YOHABLO Nov 2012 #5
David__77 Nov 2012 #27
mr_liberal Nov 2012 #6
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #7
mr_liberal Nov 2012 #9
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #16
mr_liberal Nov 2012 #19
kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #36
mr_liberal Nov 2012 #41
kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #55
aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #13
ShadowLiberal Nov 2012 #24
JimDandy Nov 2012 #35
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #43
JimDandy Nov 2012 #49
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #8
mr_liberal Nov 2012 #14
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #45
davidpdx Nov 2012 #50
aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #12
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #17
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #47
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #48
aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #59
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #46
SheilaT Nov 2012 #10
mr_liberal Nov 2012 #15
SheilaT Nov 2012 #56
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #44
aaaaaa5a Nov 2012 #11
mr_liberal Nov 2012 #18
graham4anything Nov 2012 #32
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #20
graham4anything Nov 2012 #29
davidpdx Nov 2012 #51
graham4anything Nov 2012 #31
glowing Nov 2012 #21
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #22
shenmue Nov 2012 #23
zentrum Nov 2012 #25
mucifer Nov 2012 #26
Dont call me Shirley Nov 2012 #28
Skittles Nov 2012 #30
philly_bob Nov 2012 #33
AAO Nov 2012 #37
Ter Nov 2012 #39
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #40
rachel1 Nov 2012 #42
WI_DEM Nov 2012 #53
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #58

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:29 PM

1. I don't care about the sex, I want to see an all LIBERAL court. Federalist Society FREE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:31 PM

2. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:32 PM

3. We'd probably need another 30 years of Democrats

controlling the presidency in order to get an all Democratic appointed SC. I think Roberts is still pretty young, so can easily hang on for 20 more years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:47 PM

4. 30 years of Democratic control? Make it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:18 PM

34. Scalia is 76. He is the only conservative on the court who I could see

leaving any time soon. But I doubt he will with a Democratic president. And 76 is old, but he could easily hang on for another 10-15 years. He'll die on the bench if we keep winning for the next 30 years.

Kennedy is 76; he may or may not care about retiring with a Democrat in office.

Thomas is only 6 years older than Roberts, believe it or not. So he'll be there for a while.

I think at best, Obama will be able to secure the existing liberal seats for another 30 years...but that's not insignificant. It's definitely very important that we do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 08:45 AM

52. Scalia could be on his deathbed

and would hang on out of spite if there was a Democrat in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:45 AM

54. Yep. Tho I think he will die on the court regardless

of who's in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #54)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:40 PM

57. I wish it was sooner than later.

This world would be a MUCH better place without that man in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:03 PM

38. No, we need women. We need their perspective. With only men, we have a one sided view.

It is not enough. We need the women's point of view.

And since women slightly outnumber men in our population, we need 5 women to 4 men on the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:59 PM

5. Get Rid Of The Egotist and testosterone driven court. Hell yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YOHABLO (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:29 PM

27. Testosterone is a good thing.

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:06 PM

6. Ginsburg, retire.

She's been a good judge but its time for her to retire. I think she knows that though.

Its Breyer that doesn't, and he needs to go too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_liberal (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:09 PM

7. Why should she or Breyer retire?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:15 PM

9. Because they're old and a Republican might win Presidency in 2016. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_liberal (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:39 PM

16. Pres Obama hasn't even started his 2nd term of four years yet. Too early for retirements. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #16)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:50 PM

19. I mean within the next four years. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_liberal (Reply #9)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:28 PM

36. It's only 2012. She doesn't need to go now. But thanks for your concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #36)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:59 PM

41. The sooner the better.

That gives Breyer and chance to go then too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_liberal (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:19 PM

55. How does her leaving relate in any way to his leaving?????

I guess if you are a RWer you'd want her to leave. I can't imagine why otherwise.

Funny how you chose a name that says you're liberal. Most of us here don't feel the need to proclaim it so loudly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:26 PM

13. Breyer needs to drop too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:21 PM

24. She isn't in the best of health, that's why

Ginsburg has had cancer twice, including pancreatic cancer. Sure she may be fine now, but cancer can come back.

Breyer on the other hand is pretty good shape, I could see him lasting another decade on the bench at least if he tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShadowLiberal (Reply #24)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:24 PM

35. Pancreatic cancer has a nearly 100% mortality rate.

It's still one of the cancers that, if you get it, you die from it. Most patients die within 1 year. Surviving past 5 years is nearly unheard of, so, in any case, unfortunately, I seriously doubt she will be in the judiciary past Obama's 2nd term. My aunt died from it within the usual 1 year time frame. As cancers go it's one of the worst to have-quite painful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JimDandy (Reply #35)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:12 PM

43. Her tumor was caught at an early stage.


Ginsburg was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999 and underwent surgery followed by chemotherapy and radiation therapy. During the process, she did not miss a day on the bench. On February 5, 2009, she again underwent surgery related to pancreatic cancer. Ginsburg's tumor was discovered at an early stage. Ginsburg was released from a New York hospital, eight days after the surgery and heard oral arguments again four days later. On September 24, 2009, Ginsburg was hospitalized for lightheadedness following an outpatient treatment for iron deficiency and was released the following day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#Illness

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 01:33 AM

49. How very fortunate! Pancreatic cancer is almost never discovered at an early stage

because, in most cases, it doesn't present with symptoms until it's too advanced. Surgery is pretty much the only way to get it out, because pancreatic cancer doesn't respond to chemo or radiation (hench the high mortality rate) and often then spreads to the liver. She's at 3 1/2 years post surgery so she's doing phenomenal. Glad she's still on the bench.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_liberal (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:15 PM

8. She will probably retire after April 2016. See link below

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:27 PM

14. I had heard that quote before

but I didn't know it had her retiring in the middle of an election year. she shouldn't do that.

Im already disappointed that she risked being replaced by a Republican president by not retiring during Obamas first term, now i read this. I hope she changes her mind and goes earlier. This idea of matching Brandeis is kinda dumb.

She leaves no time for Breyer to retire either. because I know he wont go before she does. He probably wont go at all though.

I think its likely that Obama only gets one nomination this term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:37 PM

45. With all due respect to Justice Ginsburg, I hope she reconsiders

She is my favorite justice on the Court and I will be sad when she retires, but she has had some health problems and we don't know who will be president after 2016. I think it would be best if she stepped down sometime in 2015 to ensure that President Obama has enough time to get a successor confirmed. If she waits until 2016 the Republicans might just wait it out if they think a Republican will win the presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:13 AM

50. She is perhaps the most feisty.

One thing about her is she'll never back down from a fight. I read in The Oath that a reporter called her frail and her son talked to the reporter and said she wanted to know how many push up's the reporter could do. That sounded like a challenge to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_liberal (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:26 PM

12. +1


I just wrote a post about it below, before I saw your comments. You are right on the money. She should have retired last term. This term, she definitely needs to go. She has to think less about herself, and more about what she has been fighting for her whole life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:45 PM

17. Breyer is 74 years old. I wonder why you're not saying he should have retired last term.


I think one of the reasons that Ginsburg has not retired earlier is because she knows that Sandra Day O'Connor regretted retiring too soon.


Ages of current Justices here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court#Current_justices

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:42 PM

47. I think Ginsburg has had some health problems

Wasn't she treated for pancreatic cancer a few years ago?

But I agree with you, Breyer should probably retire soon as well. I have no doubt that both of them probably have some good years left in which they could do the job very well, but we don't know when we will have another Democratic president after 2016. The stakes are just too high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #47)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 11:09 PM

48. Yes, see comment #43. n/t


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:02 AM

59. Because Breyer wasn't the topic of the OP!


And he doesn't appear to be as much in ill health as Ginsburg.


If it makes you happy, let me say it or type it as boldly as possible. Breyer needs to go too!


I want the court stacked with as many young liberals as we can get while we have the chance.

Happy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:39 PM

46. She is my favorite justice on the Court, and I will be sad to see her go

But I agree that she needs to retire before 2016. I hope she will not risk waiting until then, because Republicans might not confirm someone Obama nominates in his last year as president. If it looks like they have a chance to recapture the White House they will probably just hold off on confirming anyone.

Preferably, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer will retire before the 2014 elections, so we can ensure having a Democratic Senate to confirm their successors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:22 PM

10. Considering how long we had an all male SC, over 200 years, I think we

should have 200 years of an all female SC.

And we should deprive men of the right to vote for as long as they didn't let us vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:38 PM

15. Right, lets put all Ann Coulter clones on the supreme court

Gender, race...should have NOTHING to do with it. Its philosophy that matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_liberal (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 12:47 PM

56. Gender and race ought to have nothing to do with it, but it does.

Having middle-aged and older men only for over 200 years led to such decisions as Dred Scott and Minor v. Happersett (upholding not allowing women to vote because the 14th Amendment was deemed not to apply to women). Yes, we did get Brown v. the Board of Education and Roe v. Wade from an all male Supreme Court. But I think that even three women out of nine are simply not enough to change the sensibilities of the men around them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 10:15 PM

44. Men have so fucked up this country and this planet that I favor a return of the

 

matriarchy (Just kidding, but I do think the world would be a better place, were women in charge.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:24 PM

11. If its going to happen, she needs to step down this term.



I thought she should have stepped down last term. She took a huge risk with everything we have fought for.


She is old and not in the best of health. People with this much power must think beyond themselves. We need to move now to find her replacement to lock in another Dem judge for the next 30 years. If she waits another 4 years and we were to somehow lose the White house, a 6-3 majority would be locked in for another entire generation.


I am hoping we can replace Ginsburg and one conservative judge this term. This would give us a 5-4 majority. And would be a spectacular exclamation point to the Obama legacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:49 PM

18. I don't think that will happen

The only conservative/moderate that might retire would be Kennedy and he's mad at Obama for calling out the court for Citizens United during that state of the union address. Scalia would have to have health issues. all the other conservatives are too young to go yet.

I think Obama gets one nomination, Ginsburg. Breyer should retire too but I doubt he will. The supreme court will still be a major issue in 2016.

Rachel Maddow did a piece where she said the court wont go conservative now, Roe wont be overturned etc etc..... and she's wrong. that is not decided yet. Obama would have to replace Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy during this term and i think there's very very little chance of that happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_liberal (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:12 PM

32. If Hillary is seen as sure thing, Thomas and Scalia won't wait 8 years after Obama to leave.

 

But it depends on how sure it is that Hillary will win in 2016 to see when/where a couple of the right wing ones will retire.
Thomas and Scalia will retire the same time most likely. If they know Hillary is a sure thing,
they won't bother to hang on for another 8 years after the 8.

And poetic justice will be if Thomas resigns in 2018 and is replaced by Justice Obama himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 05:53 PM

20. I think Pres Obama will probably have the opportunity to appoint 2 or 3 new Justices.


1) Ginsburg (79) will retire before Obama leaves office,
and
2) Kennedy (76) will likely retire too - knowing that Obama would replace him with a swing voter like he is
and
3) Breyer (74) might retire before the end of Obama's 2nd term since he will be 78 yrs old in 2012 and probably would want a Democratic president to replace him
and
4) Scalia (76) his seat might be vacated due to retirement due to: health reasons or death

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #20)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:06 PM

29. Between Obama and Hillary, it will be 7 to 2 or 8 to 1 at some point.

 

When Scalia retires, so will Thomas. Probably same minute.

IMHO, judging by the way the court is rushing to rule on some things right now, I think a rightside retirement is coming very soon.

Justice Obama in 2018. Chief Justice Obama by 2024.
As super great a President, President Obama is, he was born to be a Supreme Court Justice.
One year of rest, then an appointment to finally fill Thurgood Marshall's seat.(What a freakin' slap in the face Thomas was, so typical).

And SCOTUS is the single easiest to see issue that from second one, so made Ralph Nader (and Ron Paul) and anyone who says the two parties are the same, such a freakin' liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 05:16 AM

51. Even 2 would be great

I keep hoping Scalia will keel over any day now. I can't stand him.

I was reading in The Oath that during the health care law debate he sat there making jokes and Roberts had to step in at one point and basically tell him to shut up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:09 PM

31. Justice Ginsburg wants to serve the longest, so that would be around year 3

 

but she does have an illness almost nobody survives, not even mega billionaire Steve Jobs, though he bought himself some time with his money.

(where is the money to cure this horrible disease?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:01 PM

21. I don't understand why we have only 9 justices anyway?

In out court systems, for the most part, there are 12 jury members; and a couple of alternates, in case something happens to one of the juror members. I think it would be more wise to add 12 Supreme Judges and have a couple of "alternate" judges that are rotated thru from the next lower courts.. In case a tie needs to be decided OR and Judge feels they are too close to the decision at hand and has to step aside from making a decision due to impartiality.

And the rotation of "alternates" for each case being heard would be picked by "lottery" draw. I think if we had more members, there could be more diversity on the courts from differing perspectives. Also, the "alternate" idea could possibly keep the Supremes a bit more humbled about their being the Law of the Land. There is no one higher than them when they basically are screwing the American People.. The United Decision has made the election process more corrupting than ever before. Has allowed for Secret monies to control messages and for foreign interests to be able to secrete money and influence into the democratic process. AND there must be a much more attainable way for the people to hold corrupting forces on the bench to account. Justice Scalia and Thomas are fond of Republican events and money interests.

And I'm not sure how that accountability could be held to account? Some states vote on whether or not to keep Judges from being removed or kept on... I'm not sure that voters would be the best at deciding these things? Most don't really understand the 3 parts of Govt and the "checks and balances" idea originated by the Founders. But there has to be a way of replacing the Judges who radically enact agendas that harm Americans and the world.

We need to be vigilant and work as a populace to "perfect the govt" as we need it to try and keep People's rights secure, while making sure those "right's" do not harm others worse for those decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:08 PM

22. In a normal court room there are 12 jury members but only ONE judge. :)


Having 12 Justices wouldn't work very well, it needs to be an odd number so that there aren't a lot of ties.

It is the U.S. Constitution that states Supreme Court Justices' appointments are 'life' terms.

Also, each Justice has an 'office' and staff at the Supreme Court building - logistically it would probably be mess if there were more Justices and more staff members.

A president in the past, Roosevelt, tried to up the number of Justices and that never materialized.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:14 PM

23. Yes!

Where do I sign up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:23 PM

25. Gender in itself means nothing.

Look at Thatcher. Or Condi Rice. Or Palin/Bachman/Brewer.

What matters are feminist sensibilities--and they can exist in anyone. Feminist sensibilities are by definition for people over corporations, peace over war, inclusion over exclusion, environmentalism over profit.

This public statement is unfortunate and actually surprisingly unpenetrating. I guess what she meant was "when it becomes possible that there could be nine women" and no one would object one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 06:28 PM

26. I believe it's a statement to shock people into thinking about reality.

People for so many years never thought twice about an all male court and she wants people to think about a day when it wouldn't matter if it was an all female court. I think it's her Jewish sense of humor that brought about that statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:04 PM

28. At least 51% women, 49% men to represent the real population

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:07 PM

30. no she doesn't; she is simply making a point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:14 PM

33. Misleading headline. She was speaking for effect.

As a man, this annoyed me, until I saw the context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 07:33 PM

37. Ruth is a genius!

 

She has the logic to eviscerate a million zombies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:18 PM

39. Sorry, but id Scalia said "all male" instead, we'd be hammering him

 

Let's not be hypocritical. She said a very insulting and bigoted thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #39)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 08:55 PM

40. For 192 years there were only men on the Supreme Court. It is not insulting to think ...


that when/if there are 9 women on the Court the glass ceiling will finally be broken for the female gender.

I do not think there will ever be an all female Supreme Court, but if there ever was it would really show how far we've came baby

There will probably be a day when there are 5 females and 4 males - and I hope I live long enough to see it.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 09:40 PM

42. How about a progressive Supreme Court instead?

I couldn't care less about gender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:34 AM

53. I hate to say it but she should retire before 2015

Why? We need fresh liberal blood on the court. The GOP may win back the Senate in 2014. She has served well, but the time has come to let this president make sure we have enough liberal numbers for years to come.

And Breyer, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #53)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:29 PM

58. I doubt we will lose 6 senate seats in 2014.


If anything I'm hoping we pick up a GOP seat

I would absolutely love it if McConnell and/or Sessions lost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread