HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ginsburg needed to retire...

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:44 AM

Ginsburg 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?

69 replies, 6258 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 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ginsburg needed to retire under Obama (Original post)
Calculating Apr 2017 OP
chia Apr 2017 #1
Squinch Apr 2017 #2
MiniMe Apr 2017 #3
gratuitous Apr 2017 #6
FBaggins Apr 2017 #12
unblock Apr 2017 #19
FBaggins Apr 2017 #22
unblock Apr 2017 #34
FBaggins Apr 2017 #51
unblock Apr 2017 #55
FBaggins Apr 2017 #60
Bradical79 Apr 2017 #26
FBaggins Apr 2017 #49
bettyellen Apr 2017 #27
FBaggins Apr 2017 #48
bettyellen Apr 2017 #52
bettyellen Apr 2017 #53
FBaggins Apr 2017 #58
bettyellen Apr 2017 #59
FBaggins Apr 2017 #62
still_one Apr 2017 #37
dsc Apr 2017 #45
pnwmom Apr 2017 #61
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #4
rainy Apr 2017 #7
Blue_Tires Apr 2017 #17
Calculating Apr 2017 #21
Initech Apr 2017 #42
NYC Liberal Apr 2017 #8
dsc Apr 2017 #46
riversedge Apr 2017 #5
Me. Apr 2017 #10
malchickiwick Apr 2017 #13
Calculating Apr 2017 #15
FBaggins Apr 2017 #16
exboyfil Apr 2017 #9
StevieM Apr 2017 #28
exboyfil Apr 2017 #32
Baconator Apr 2017 #44
malchickiwick Apr 2017 #11
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #14
Calculating Apr 2017 #20
Me. Apr 2017 #23
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #24
demmiblue Apr 2017 #18
elleng Apr 2017 #31
LexVegas Apr 2017 #25
elleng Apr 2017 #30
elleng Apr 2017 #29
Shrek Apr 2017 #39
Blue_Tires Apr 2017 #33
Wounded Bear Apr 2017 #35
Calculating Apr 2017 #38
bettyellen Apr 2017 #54
pnwmom Apr 2017 #63
Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2017 #36
still_one Apr 2017 #40
OldSchoolLiberal Apr 2017 #41
dsc Apr 2017 #47
SticksnStones Apr 2017 #43
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #50
tazkcmo Apr 2017 #56
woodsprite Apr 2017 #57
CK_John Apr 2017 #64
FBaggins Apr 2017 #66
JHan Apr 2017 #65
radius777 Apr 2017 #67
moondust Apr 2017 #68
beaglelover Apr 2017 #69

Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:45 AM

1. Good question, I've wondered that myself

What was she waiting for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:46 AM

2. I got reamed here for saying that at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:47 AM

3. You think McConnell would have passed through a judge replacing Ginsburg?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:52 AM

6. Game, set, match

That should adequately answer any legitimate question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:59 AM

12. Nope

Republicans did not control the Senate for all of Obama's presidency

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #12)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:08 PM

19. well that's quite a bit of 20-20 hindsight vision there.

what mcturtle did was completely unprecedented and we can't blame rbg for not predicting that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #19)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:11 PM

22. She didn't need to predict anything

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:29 PM

34. until mcturtle pulled his stunt, having the other party in the senate wasn't the problem it is now.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #34)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:12 PM

51. It wasn't "the problem that it is now"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #51)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:25 PM

55. i agree, of course, that control of the senate has long been relevant

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #55)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:26 PM

60. A good decade left in her?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #12)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:18 PM

26. Filibuster

 

Would Democrats have exercised the "nuclear option" at the time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #26)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:08 PM

49. Of course

That was made perfectly clear at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #12)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:18 PM

27. Just 43 out of 48 non sequential months. What was the longest sequential period?

 

I thought it was less than three months. Not a huge window.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #27)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:08 PM

48. Democrats controlled the Senate from just before Obama took office...

until January of 2015.

That's a pretty big "window".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #48)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:19 PM

52. I think there was a break in there, someone died and we lost the majority....

 

Pretty sure he didn't get a full year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #48)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:23 PM

53. Nope - there was Kennedy and then Franken and the lawsuit messing shit up...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #53)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:17 PM

58. Only the Senate gets a say on nominations

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #58)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:24 PM

59. Nope- Franken and Kennedy are senators and their inability to vote created a stalemate ....

 

But again, much easier to pretend Obama couldn't be bothered to get anything done. See this crap here all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #59)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:31 PM

62. What fantasy world are you living in?

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:36 PM

37. exactly. Justice Ginsberg is a hero. 2018 is where we need to focus on. Not what coulda or

shoulda been

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 01:58 PM

45. He wasn't majority leader until 2015

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:29 PM

61. Yes, in the first term. We would have gotten someone like Sotomayor or Kagan.

Infinitely better than the dreck DT will nominate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:49 AM

4. If she had, there'd have been another Judge Garland situation

with two nominees dangling in the wind instead of one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:52 AM

7. How the hell does McConnell get away

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????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rainy (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:03 PM

17. Because nobody has the stones to step up to him...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:09 PM

21. Evil prospers when good people do nothing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rainy (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:49 PM

42. I don't know, but he needs to be destroyed in his reelection bid.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:53 AM

8. Not if she had retired before 2014.

We had a majority in the Senate for 6 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 01:59 PM

46. Not if she had done so before 2015

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:50 AM

5. Your post is an insult to an honorable Ginsburg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:57 AM

10. Totally

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:59 AM

13. I COMPLETELY Agree!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:02 PM

15. You can be in the right, and still lose the game

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:02 PM

16. Oh I don't know

Apart from the "ust look at her" nonsense, I suspect she feels much the same way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:53 AM

9. We need the Senate

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:20 PM

28. We would have won the White House and the Senate had it not been for James Comey.

He completely rigged the 2016 election, from start to finish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #28)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:27 PM

32. He is a part of it

and his name will be cited along with von Papen in the history books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #28)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:59 PM

44. Please don't make it so simplistic...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:58 AM

11. Underestimate RBG at your own peril. I predict she outlasts this dismal administration.

Remember when she was dying of cancer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:00 PM

14. Any potential contenders for 2020 you can "look at" and determine they can't make....

 

it through a full term?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:08 PM

20. I'm just sayin

She's at the age where it rapidly gets less and less likely she'll see another year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Reply #20)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:12 PM

23. Are You Putting A Death Wish On Her

Seriously, who are you to say when her life is likely to be over?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Reply #20)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:14 PM

24. Yet you leave my question unanswered.

 

"I'm just sayin"

Very little. That is what you are "just saying".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:05 PM

18. I am placing my bet on the Notorious one (plus... coulda, shoulda, woulda is pointless)

I Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Workout. It Nearly Broke Me.
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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #18)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:25 PM

31. Thanks so much for this, demmiblue!

She shames me every day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:16 PM

25. Bullshit. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LexVegas (Reply #25)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:22 PM

30. Thanks, Lex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:22 PM

29. because obviously President Obama would have had an easy time filling her spot,

right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #29)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:39 PM

39. Sotomayor and Kagan were easily confirmed

Replacing Ginsburg with someone of a comparable judicial perspective and temperament might not have been too difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:27 PM

33. I hope all those "But Hillary is too flawed and too unpopular!!111" folks realize

they just handed Trump three SC vacancies...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:30 PM

35. They would have Merrick'd her...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #35)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:37 PM

38. Not if she retired while Obama had the senate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to bettyellen (Reply #54)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:31 PM

63. He got Kagan and Sotomayor approved. Anyone he appointed would have been

infinitely better than a DT choice, though DUers would have hollered that the appointee wasn't progressive enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:33 PM

36. Hindsight is always 20/20



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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:39 PM

40. Gee, I guess those self-identified progressives that refused to vote for Hillary didn't care about

the Supreme Court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:45 PM

41. Is There Any Hope

That if even Trump appoints 2 conservatives, marriage equality will survive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldSchoolLiberal (Reply #41)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:04 PM

47. depends on your meaning of survive

Marriage will be sharply curtailed likely with a huge religious exemption if either Kennedy or Ginsburg retire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:56 PM

43. He spent that small window of time with Dems in majority working on health care

This is classic armchair quarterbacking...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:08 PM

50. She could fool you...and I say she does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:53 PM

56. And watch the Dems flail

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:17 PM

57. So we'd be two down? There's no way the Repubs would have approved one OR two. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:35 PM

64. IMO, Roberts and Thomas will retire at the end of summer. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CK_John (Reply #64)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:55 PM

66. Not a chance on Roberts... almost none on Thomas

(Absent an unexpected death)

But Kennedy will be gone by next summer... and he's a more dangerous loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:39 PM

65. "Just looking at her"

Is there something amiss about Ginsberg's health I wasn't aware of?

Some headline I missed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 04:18 PM

67. Agree, perhaps also Breyer.

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 04:24 PM

68. Hindsight.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calculating (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 04:28 PM

69. Yep, we certainly fucked ourselves over in November. This last POTUS election was ALL about the

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread