General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGinsburg needed to retire under Obama
Just looking at her, there's no way she makes it through Trump's full term. Then we're gonna get an ultra-stacked right wing SCOTUS as Trump appoints another conservative justice. Why oh WHY didn't she just retire and let Obama replace her?
chia
(2,244 posts)What was she waiting for?
Squinch
(50,922 posts)MiniMe
(21,709 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)That should adequately answer any legitimate question.
Republicans did not control the Senate for all of Obama's presidency
unblock
(52,126 posts)what mcturtle did was completely unprecedented and we can't blame rbg for not predicting that.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)If you're a judge and you're over 70 and you have a Democratic president and Senate and you know that you can't predict the future...
Do you think Kennedy is going to make the same mistake?
unblock
(52,126 posts)the important thing was always having the presidency.
the senate mattered, but usually just for the extreme picks -- we nixed bork, e.g. and got kennedy instead -- a solid conservative, but occasional swing voter. but often it's just a show and the president's nominee gets approved regardless.
mcturtle changed that, but by then it was too late.
sandra day o'conner retired in 2006 under shrub and a republican senate. she could have served another 11+ years and once again we have a republican president and senate. if picking a partisan successor had been her goal, she probably would regret retiring so soon.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)Since they've gone full-nuke.
But it's nonsense to pretend that this didn't begin MANY years back.
the important thing was always having the presidency.
Not so. We've known for a couple decades that a president couldn't get as consistently left/right a nominee when the opposition controlled the Senate. It's somewhat more recent that a minority might threaten a filibuster, but going up against a majority opposition has endangered a pick for much longer.
unblock
(52,126 posts)and to varying extents, had an impact on selection. but there's a huge difference between getting a quite conservative kennedy instead of a very conservative bork (and that might be the most extreme example previously) vs. getting republican justice truckers-have-an-obligation-to-freeze-to-death gorsick instead of democratic justice garland.
moreover, your complaint (and its timing) seems to be primarily based on the fact that we wound up with the pick of a republican president rather than the pick of a democratic one....
seriously, it's a bit much to ask of democratic justices to retire prematurely from the dream job toward which they strove for all their careers, where they believe they can have the most positive impact for the nation, simply because the timing of their possible replacement seems to be possibly preferable to what may be the case some number of years down the road.
now, if mcturtle wasn't a complete *sshole and donnie's victory had been widely predicted, perhaps that makes the question more interesting. but to say she should have retired in advance of possibly losing the senate, really, that's a bit too much to ask.
especially if she thinks she's got a good decade or so left in her.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)From your lips...
The oldest ever sitting justice was 90. When you have a chance to be replaced with a like mind (because of a progressive president and senate majority), you have to account for the possibility that the next president will be from the other party and will last for eight years. At 82 it would not have been reasonable for her to think that she had "a good decade in her".
82 isn't "prematurely" - it's already one of the oldest ever.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Would Democrats have exercised the "nuclear option" at the time?
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)That was made perfectly clear at the time.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I thought it was less than three months. Not a huge window.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)until January of 2015.
That's a pretty big "window".
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Pretty sure he didn't get a full year.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Easier to blame Obama and the Dems, I see.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)You're looking at whether or not Democrats controlled the Senate and the House. In which case the period was quite small (Because Republicans retook the House in the first mid-term election)... but that's only relevant for passing legislation.
Democrats controlled the Senate for several years straight - including overwhelming majorities for a couple years.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But again, much easier to pretend Obama couldn't be bothered to get anything done. See this crap here all the time.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)Kennedy/Franken only impacted whether the advantage was so huge that it was filibuster-proof... not whether or not we controlled the Senate...
Which we did for six years.
still_one
(92,061 posts)shoulda been
dsc
(52,152 posts)had she retired in his first term or even just after his reelection, we might have had to end the SCOTUS filibuster but we would have gotten someone through.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)Infinitely better than the dreck DT will nominate.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,615 posts)with two nominees dangling in the wind instead of one.
rainy
(6,088 posts)with it? If she left a year before the election could he have used the same excuse? How is it that they get to make the rules as they go but we get destroyed if we EVER tried the same tactics? WHY????
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Calculating
(2,955 posts)Initech
(100,043 posts)He can't keep getting away with the shit he's doing. I really hope that the people of Kentucky have had enough of his shit.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)We had a majority in the Senate for 6 years.
dsc
(52,152 posts)riversedge
(70,093 posts)malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)Calculating
(2,955 posts)Ginsburg has been a great justice, but if Trump replaces her with another 'right of Scalia' type it won't have been worth it for those extra few years.
FBaggins
(26,721 posts)Apart from the "ust look at her" nonsense, I suspect she feels much the same way
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)without that it is meaningless. Going forward you have to have control of the Presidency and the Senate to get a Supreme Court justice confirmed.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)He completely rigged the 2016 election, from start to finish.
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)and his name will be cited along with von Papen in the history books.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)There were systemic and long standing flaws that led to 2016 and if they aren't addressed in 2018 and 2020 you can expect the same result.
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)Remember when she was dying of cancer?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)it through a full term?
Calculating
(2,955 posts)She's at the age where it rapidly gets less and less likely she'll see another year.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Seriously, who are you to say when her life is likely to be over?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"I'm just sayin"
Very little. That is what you are "just saying".
demmiblue
(36,824 posts)Pumping iron with RBG's personal trainer is no joke.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/rbg-ruth-bader-ginsburg-workout-personal-trainer-elena-kagan-stephen-breyer-214821
elleng
(130,768 posts)She shames me every day!
LexVegas
(6,031 posts)elleng
(130,768 posts)elleng
(130,768 posts)right?
Shrek
(3,975 posts)Replacing Ginsburg with someone of a comparable judicial perspective and temperament might not have been too difficult.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)they just handed Trump three SC vacancies...
Wounded Bear
(58,605 posts)Calculating
(2,955 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)pnwmom
(108,959 posts)infinitely better than a DT choice, though DUers would have hollered that the appointee wasn't progressive enough.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,396 posts)Let's just hope that we get a Democratic Presidency and Congress (or at least Senate) in 2020 and RBG holds on until at least 2021.
still_one
(92,061 posts)the Supreme Court
OldSchoolLiberal
(23 posts)That if even Trump appoints 2 conservatives, marriage equality will survive?
dsc
(52,152 posts)Marriage will be sharply curtailed likely with a huge religious exemption if either Kennedy or Ginsburg retire.
SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)This is classic armchair quarterbacking...
Demsrule86
(68,497 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)As McConnell steals two seats? President Obama couldn't even get his one seat filled. Do you think Turtle would've split them fairly, one each? This is unfair, Monday Morning Quarterbacking, imo and out of touch with the reality of GOPee corruption.
woodsprite
(11,905 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)FBaggins
(26,721 posts)(Absent an unexpected death)
But Kennedy will be gone by next summer... and he's a more dangerous loss.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Is there something amiss about Ginsberg's health I wasn't aware of?
Some headline I missed?
radius777
(3,635 posts)If Ginsburg or Breyer die (or are forced to retire due to health issues) we're in deep trouble.
If they retired early in Obama's second term I think replacement(s) would've been easily made, as (iirc) Dems controlled the Senate, and would've used the nuclear option to break the filibuster.
I wish Obama/Dems had forcibly seated (the eminently qualified and moderate) Garland, using any obscure method possible, as even if it (likely) would've been reversed eventually, it would've forced more discussion about this entire issue, about how the GOP stole Obama's pick, a two term president who was legitimately elected by the people (unlike W or the orange clown).
moondust
(19,963 posts)Some might have guessed it but I don't think anybody knew that Republicans would be so totalitarian and unconstitutional as to block Merrick Garland for the better part of a year--until it happened and then it was too late for Obama to nominate anybody.
beaglelover
(3,460 posts)USSC, yet some were too stupid to realize that and could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary. So we lost and we will lose the USSC for the remainder of my lifetime (I'm only 52). Within a decade say goodbye to legal abortion and gay marriage. Thanks fuckers who voted 3rd party or didn't vote at all.