Justice Ginsburg Won’t Bow To Liberal Pressure To Retire Before 2016

[cal04]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/justice-ginsburg-wont-bow-to-liberal-pressure-to?ref=fpa

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that she'll resist any pressure from liberals to retire from the bench so that President Barack Obama may nominate her replacement before the November 2016 presidential elections, Reuters reported Thursday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/04/us-usa-court-ginsburg-idUSBRE9630C820130704

"It really has to be, ‘Am I equipped to do the job?'" Ginsburg told Reuters in an interview Tuesday. "I was so pleased that this year I couldn't see that I was slipping in any respect."

Ginsburg, 80, said her new "model" was Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired after almost 35 years on the bench at 90 years old, according to Reuters.

In an interview with The New Yorker earlier this year, Ginsburg said she wouldn't be stepping down in 2013.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/03/11/130311fa_fact_toobin

[cali]

1. I wish she would. I think her philosophy on this is wrong

[Pab Sungenis]

2. Good.

I want there to be a chance of her being replaced by another liberal, not yet another "moderate."

The Court must not creep further to the right.

[BlueCaliDem]

3. There never was a Liberal president and there never will be.

The electorate will never vote for a Liberal President, and it's time those on the ultra-Left finally accept that reality. Just count how many Liberals there are in the Senate, and you'll have a good idea what the odds are that this country will elect a Liberal president. I'd say that the odds are slim to none.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. Then let her stay.

She's the last liberal on the Court. By no means will the Court be better with her gone.

[BlueCaliDem]

16. 100% agreed. She's proven to be an excellent Supreme Court Justice

and as long as she feels healthy enough to sit on the bench, she should remain.

[Lasher]

22. I was about to make this point myself.

And so, why would informed liberals pressure her to resign, as the linked article implies? It's highly unlikely for any change to be an improvement.

[dawg]

32. The public voted for a liberal President in 2008.

They didn't get one, but they did vote for one.

They also voted for a center-left President in 2000. They didn't get him, but they did vote for him.

[BlueCaliDem]

43. Yeah, they did get a center-left president, hence his successful second win for a second term

much to the Purists on the Left's chagrin.

Just because he hasn't passed the purity tests with the tiny but vocal {and may I add, vindictive} EmoLeftists, doesn't mean he isn't more to the left than this country voted for. It just means he's not kowtowing to the radicals on the Left who claim to be "his base" but who undermine him every which way they can - especially on this supposedly Democratic Party supporting site.

[Pab Sungenis]

53. His win for a second term was largely because

the alternative was much, much worse.

With a more moderate Republican, the fight would have been a lot more difficult.

But 2008 was the first time I'd actually been able to vote FOR a candidate instead of against his/her opponent. I wish I'd had that option in 2012. And I'd like to have it again.

I resigned from the local Democratic party because of its antigay views and candidates. I'm getting more and more alienated with the national party every day. And I know I'm not alone. We're going to come to a point where our party falls apart from the inside.

[dawg]

65. If opposing Social Security cuts and the trashing of the 4th Amendment makes me a Purist ...

then I'll wear that name with pride.

[dflprincess]

67. +1

[demwing]

36. Wide sweeping statements are never wrong

except under very narrow and specific circumstances

[BlueCaliDem]

44. Based on electoral history, "dem"wing.

But you're correct, "wide sweeping statements (and I add: by the vocal but teensy-weensy ultra-Left) are never wrong except under very narrow {even myopic, may I add} and specific circumstances".

[demwing]

63. I get the feeling you're laughing at me and not with me :)

not sure why, but at least you're laughing

[cali]

4. well if she retires or dies after 2016 and a repub is elected

that's damn sure to happen.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. Wishful thinking, because NO Repub will win in 2016.

Or do you think that when President Obama leaves office {to the cheers and jeers of the Republicans, Corporatists, and Teabaggers alike} he'll just disappear? Do you actually believe he'll just leave politics forever and not continue as a more powerful community organizer with some serious clout to fight to get another Democrat elected to the WH so that the GOP can't install another idiot like Duhbya in the WH to undo everything he's worked so hard for? If you believe that, even for a second, you haven't been paying attention.

Although the White vote dropped for President Obama in 2012, the minority vote skyrocketed and will grow even larger. There is NO WAY a Republican will win the WH.

[cali]

17. Excuse me? Did you just accuse me of wishing for a repub to win the Presidency?

Just yes or no. We have nothing to discuss until you clarify your little statement about "wishful thinking".

[BlueCaliDem]

21. "well if she retires or dies after 2016 and a repub *IS* elected" is your statement, isn't it?

My "wishful thinking" response is valid based on your post. Either think before you post or take it any which way you want.

[cali]

23. not even a little valid. disgusting is what it is.

or do you think that it's impossible for a republican to win the presidency?

Your suggestion that I'm wishing for a republican to be elected president based on my saying that's a possibility is beneath contempt.

Either fucking think before YOU fucking post- and you can take that any which way you want.

[cali]

47. making a ridiculous and uninformed pronouncement assertively doesn't make it

any the truer.

Have you even heard of the SCOTUS gutting of the VRA? Do you even know what it is? Do a wee bit of research- if you know how.

There was no poor choice of words on my part, honeypie.

Fortunately, strategists in the dem party aren't like the complete idiots who think that it's impossible for a republican to be elected in 2016. You have to be monumentally ignorant to actually run around saying that.

I know there are right wing dems. What a shame you folks post on DU.

[BlueCaliDem]

50. Nothing ridiculous OR uninformed on my part,

sweetcheeks.

Just calling you out as I sees ya. And you know you were wrong.

Here, once again to refresh your memory:

"well if she retires or dies after 2016 and a repub IS elected", not, "might be elected" or "IF a Repub gets elected". No. You went for the full-bore IS elected, as if that's a given {or wishful thinking}.

So before you hurl insults about my not thinking before posting, you'd do well to heed your own advice.

[cali]

56. lol. just everything you write,

poppet.

did you miss the IF? It clearly refers to both Ginsberg retiring and a repub being elected. Go back to 3rd grade and learn the basics.

It takes willful ignorance to claim that I was wishing for a republican president.

And, sweetpea, YOU fucking started with the insults. Not to mention the fucking ridiculous nonsense about how NO repub will be elected in 2016.

ta ta

[Logical]

62. LOL, 7 posts hidden in the last 90 days! You have anger issues! n-t

[tularetom]

6. What president is going to appoint this liberal?

If Hillary Clinton is elected she is no more likely than Obama to appoint an actual liberal to the Court.

Of course any republican president will appoint only corporatist jurists.

Yeah, there's a chance a liberal could sneak on there but not a very good chance.

[Pab Sungenis]

8. I'll take the chance.

A moderate in that seat can do more damage now than a conservative can in 5 years.

[cali]

20. Why would you think that the President would appoint a moderate?

Kagan's and Sotomayer's voting records fall solidly with those of Breyer's Ginsburg's.

And his appointments to the federal bench have been good too.

http://prospect.org/article/not-too-shabby-so-far-obamas-judicial-legacy

[Lasher]

35. He would appoint another moderate SCOTUS Justice because that is what he has done.

And because that is what he is.

[Recursion]

68. So you don't think Kagan or Sotomayor are liberal?

Good Lord.

[Pab Sungenis]

54. Because both of his nominees

were to the right of the people they replaced. Obama hasn't appointed a liberal to ANYTHING, with the exception of John Kerry. Nearly his entire cabinet is Third Way DLC types.

[DonCoquixote]

55. sighs

Kagan and Sotomayor voted right when it counted, as we saw about a week ago.
I wish people would stop treating Sonia Sotomayor like she is chopped liver. And yes, that is the Puerto Rican in me realizing we do not count for much.

[dsc]

24. let's recall who appointed the liberal that is in theory being replaced

Hint his last name is Clinton.

[graham4anything]

31. and a Clinton will name another four in her two terms starting 1-17-2017

[madinmaryland]

58. Zing!!!

That was a perfect set-up for you!

[customerserviceguy]

59. I don't necessarily see her getting two terms

but one, yes, I can definitely see that. I'd have to see how the mid-term elections of 2018 are shaping up before I can assume that Hillary Clinton would be re-elected in 2020.

[onehandle]

10. Expect President Rubio's choice to disappoint you. nt

[Pab Sungenis]

11. Strawman. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

18. President . . . Rubio??

[demwing]

38. yeah thats a hoot eh?

Tried not to laugh. Couldn't.

[WI_DEM]

12. Both of President Obama's choices have been superb and liberal.

[Pab Sungenis]

14. Both of Obama's choices have been more conservative than the Justices they replaced

John Paul Stevens would never have voted to gut the Fourth Amendment like Kagan did.

Stop the rightward creep now.

[Nye Bevan]

5. Good for her.

Fuck anyone who would pressure an 80 year old woman doing a job she loves (and doing an excellent job, BTW) into a retirement she doesn't want, in an attempt to get some kind of political advantage.

And people shouldn't be so terrified of a Republican winning the presidency in 2016. That is very unlikely to happen.

[BlueCaliDem]

19. ^^This! ^^

Any DUer who believes a Republican will ever win the White House or that Republicans will control the Senate, haven't been paying attention.

They forget, of course, that President Obama is, at heart, a good community organizer. After he leaves office in January 2017, he'll go back to being a community organizer, only, one with some serious clout and reputation. I'm amazed how some on DU can sow fear that a Republican will ever win the presidency after Obama. Haven't they been paying attention?

[graham4anything]

29. Hillary is going to nominate Obama to SCOTUS in 2018.

[cali]

40. I think I'll join you in peering into the future: No way will Hillary be the next President.

[BlueCaliDem]

51. Why do you claim that? Unless, of course, you know for a fact she's not running in 2016.

Otherwise, if she chooses to run {and all signs are pointing to YES she will!}, she will win. I know it's not what the Leftwing of the Democratic Party would see {I believe Elizabeth Warren is their go-to Democratic candidate - and she would be resoundingly defeated by the center-left and moderate electorate - much like Dennis Kucinich}, but 2016 is Hillary Clinton's to lose.

[cali]

57. sigh. I'm claiming it because I'm tired of that poster claiming hundreds of times

that Hillary will be President period full stop.

I don't support Elizabeth Warren for these reasons: 1) She's only run one political campaign and she didn't do an outstanding job on that, though she did improve in the final weeks. 2) She doesn't have the innate political chops of a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama. 3) She doesn't have the needed infrastructure to mount a successful campaign and that's very unlikely to change.

I suspect Hillary Clinton will run, but who knows. And if she does, it may be hers to lose- she's done that before. I I would NEVER vote for her in the primaries, but if she's the nominee in 2016, she has my vote.

[Iggo]

45. Sure.

[madinmaryland]

60. More likely, Martin O'Malley (45) will nominate Obama to SCOTUS in 2018.

[WI_DEM]

9. I can't agree with those who want to hang on to their position until the bitter end

The Dems currently have the senate and the presidency and there is a chance they will not have either after 2016. We could even lose the Senate as early as 2014. Obama has put two excellent women on the US Supreme Court already and I believe if given another opportunity he would select another superb nominee. WE know that we won't get even a moderate if the GOP takes over the presidency in 2016.

[Pab Sungenis]

13. The Dems don't have the Senate.

The Republicans have sworn to block everything and anyone, and will filibuster whoever is put before it. Harry Reid is too spineless to go nuclear. And Obama would be too eager to appease them with someone who "can be confirmed," who they will still filibuster.

No. Let's keep the only remaining Liberal on the Court. We can still get five to ten years of good rulings out of her.

[graham4anything]

28. Methinks you forgot about Sonia Sotomayer and Elana Kagen and Steve Breyer

[Pab Sungenis]

52. No, I didn't.

"Moderates" all.

[dsc]

25. I am torn

I tend to favor the idea of letting good justices stay at being good justices. But then I recall Thurgood Marshall. He decided not to retire under Carter, then retired just a bit to soon when Bush looked invincible. The Marshall example is complicated.

[BeyondGeography]

26. What stupidity

Sorry. The great Justice Ginsburg is an admirable person in many ways, but this is absurd.

[graham4anything]

27. Now that it is known Hillary is running, we don't have to worry about losing in 2016 as she is 45.

therefore it don't matter anymore.

Had Hillary not run, most likely the republicans would win, but now that we know Hillary is a definite, it is obvious
she will win and all.

Bush on the other hand forced Sandra Dey O'Connor to retire so he could put in Alito and thus he did.

[cali]

30. I missed her announcement. Please link to it.

[woolldog]

33. It's weird how people think that 2016

is Hillary's for the taking. A lot can happen in 3 years. Its not a done deal.

I certainly wouldn't bet the Supreme Court on it, which is what so many here seem to be ok with.

[cali]

34. yep. it's willfully blind.

[sabbat hunter]

49. I do not think

that Bush or anyone else forced Sandra Day O'Connor to retire. Her husband was very ill and she wanted to be with him. And lets face it, she wasn't exactly on the liberal wing of the SCOTUS.

[madinmaryland]

61. Actually Hillary is 66. Martin O'Malley (45) just turned 50.

BTW, when did Hillary announce she is running for POTUS.

[polichick]

37. Thanks a bunch Justice Ginsburg - for gambling on our kids' futures.

[Gin]

39. She said she wouldnt be stepping down in 2013....

She may be thinking 2014 since she is evaluating herself in the job.....IMO

[Politicalboi]

41. We need to limit the Supreme Court appointments

To 20 years IMO. And if you're 80, you're TOO OLD! Too old for the court, too old for the senate, too old for congress, and too old for President. 70 should be the cut off to work in government representation. Not being elected when 70, only being elected if you don't turn 70 in mid term. I wish she would retire. This is playing with fire. If the Repukes take over in 2016, who knows if Ginsburg could hold on till another Dem is elected.

We need younger blood in our government. I'm 52, so I'm not some young 20 year old ragging on the old folks.

[UTUSN]

42. Maybe she's adding pressure on one of the Neanderthals to retire first. Maybe KENNEDY would go?

We need to replace them more than just maintaining the Lib side.

[kiranon]

48. She needs to retire now. Yes, she is a wonderful SCJ but

she is tempting fate and the future of this country.

[TreasonousBastard]

64. I find it highly objectionable that a Justice is being pressured to quit for...

purely political purposes. Sure, that's the world we live in, but it still distasteful-- a Justice should continue to be on the bench until unable to work, if that's what the Justice wants.

Now, if you must be political about this-- considering an historical precedent, imagine that President Hillary appoints Justice Obama...

[RedCappedBandit]

66. She is far more liberal than any person Obama would replace her with.

Stay, and keep fighting the good fight. Enough damn moderates.

[davidpdx]

69. I don't think she should be pressured to step down

That being said, if she passed away in 2016 (even early in the year) before the presidential election there is no way a replacement would be confirmed unless the Ds in the Senate have 60 votes (which I see as doubtful). Once we get out of 2015, she's got to hold on until the spring of 2017.