should Ginsburg (and maybe Breyer) retire
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:17:18 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  should Ginsburg (and maybe Breyer) retire
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: should Ginsburg (and maybe Breyer) retire  (Read 6640 times)
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 05, 2011, 11:00:51 PM »


How did Schumer "change the rules"?  There were no Supreme Court retirements in Bush's term after 2006 anyway.  Reid probably couldn't get a vote at this time, but what does it have to do with Schumer?

That having been said, I think the Dems would be in a vengeful mood over 2009-10 if the Republicans have full control in 2013.  I'd expect them to vote unanimously against basically anything a President Romney proposes beyond the naming of a monument (remember, the average House Dem would be way left of Obama after more seats are lost).  That probably also means using the filibuster as liberally as the GOP did under Obama if they still have 41.  

Quite simple.He stated that in the unlikely event of a vacancy after July 2007 any nominee should be automatically rejected.

Did the Senate Democrats formally adopt this as their policy?  Could it ever have been enforced in a vote?

On a slightly unrelated note, I wonder if we will ever have a future president ignore the supreme court like Andrew Jackson did.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 05, 2011, 11:05:27 PM »


How did Schumer "change the rules"?  There were no Supreme Court retirements in Bush's term after 2006 anyway.  Reid probably couldn't get a vote at this time, but what does it have to do with Schumer?

That having been said, I think the Dems would be in a vengeful mood over 2009-10 if the Republicans have full control in 2013.  I'd expect them to vote unanimously against basically anything a President Romney proposes beyond the naming of a monument (remember, the average House Dem would be way left of Obama after more seats are lost).  That probably also means using the filibuster as liberally as the GOP did under Obama if they still have 41.  

Quite simple.He stated that in the unlikely event of a vacancy after July 2007 any nominee should be automatically rejected.

Did the Senate Democrats formally adopt this as their policy?  Could it ever have been enforced in a vote?

On a slightly unrelated note, I wonder if we will ever have a future president ignore the supreme court like Andrew Jackson did.

Newt wants to try to ignore them a bit. One of his themes is "judicial tyranny," citing Jefferson ad nauseum, who was a kook on the issue.  And no, I won't be voting for Newt under any circumstances. Smiley
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 05, 2011, 11:16:05 PM »


How did Schumer "change the rules"?  There were no Supreme Court retirements in Bush's term after 2006 anyway.  Reid probably couldn't get a vote at this time, but what does it have to do with Schumer?

That having been said, I think the Dems would be in a vengeful mood over 2009-10 if the Republicans have full control in 2013.  I'd expect them to vote unanimously against basically anything a President Romney proposes beyond the naming of a monument (remember, the average House Dem would be way left of Obama after more seats are lost).  That probably also means using the filibuster as liberally as the GOP did under Obama if they still have 41.  

Quite simple.He stated that in the unlikely event of a vacancy after July 2007 any nominee should be automatically rejected.

Did the Senate Democrats formally adopt this as their policy?  Could it ever have been enforced in a vote?

On a slightly unrelated note, I wonder if we will ever have a future president ignore the supreme court like Andrew Jackson did.

Not formally, no. But he is in leadership and on the Judiciary Committee, so I presume it still holds.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 05, 2011, 11:38:53 PM »


On a slightly unrelated note, I wonder if we will ever have a future president ignore the supreme court like Andrew Jackson did.

Gore should have.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2011, 12:01:08 AM »

another interesting question is if another ex-president will be a justice on the court. Taft was the only one. None of them really have any judicial experience. Obama is the only one with any remote knowledge of ConLaw (didn't he teach it in the 90s?)
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 06, 2011, 07:13:26 AM »

another interesting question is if another ex-president will be a justice on the court. Taft was the only one. None of them really have any judicial experience. Obama is the only one with any remote knowledge of ConLaw (didn't he teach it in the 90s?)

I could see Obama being put on the court if he loses in 2012 and a Dem wins in 2016.  His reputation would have to be redeemed by events after his term.  If he wins two terms, he'd probably be too old by the next time a Dem gets in.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 06, 2011, 07:40:16 AM »

another interesting question is if another ex-president will be a justice on the court. Taft was the only one. None of them really have any judicial experience. Obama is the only one with any remote knowledge of ConLaw (didn't he teach it in the 90s?)

I could see Obama being put on the court if he loses in 2012 and a Dem wins in 2016.  His reputation would have to be redeemed by events after his term.  If he wins two terms, he'd probably be too old by the next time a Dem gets in.

Impractical. Why go through a much tougher and more arduous confirmation process when you can find another activist judge just like him.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 07, 2011, 12:39:34 AM »

another interesting question is if another ex-president will be a justice on the court. Taft was the only one. None of them really have any judicial experience. Obama is the only one with any remote knowledge of ConLaw (didn't he teach it in the 90s?)

I could see Obama being put on the court if he loses in 2012 and a Dem wins in 2016.  His reputation would have to be redeemed by events after his term.  If he wins two terms, he'd probably be too old by the next time a Dem gets in.

Impractical. Why go through a much tougher and more arduous confirmation process when you can find another activist judge just like him.

It wouldn't matter.  The Dems would already be near 2/3rds in Congress.  If Obama and his successor both lose after 1 term, whatever is happening to the economy in 2016 would probably make 2010 look like a golden age.  Think of  a 1937-38 scenario where deficit cutting sends unemployment into the teens.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2011, 10:39:26 PM »
« Edited: October 15, 2011, 11:17:01 PM by WeareAnonymous »

First, Romney WILL NOT BE THE GOP NOMINEE. That will be either Ron Paul or Herman Cain. Second, get ready in event of GOP victory, in all but the case of Mitt a one Andrew Napolitano will be a coming. Once he's in kiss abortion bye bye.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2011, 09:22:04 PM »

Would Scalia and Kennedy retire for a Republican in 2013?

Certainly not Kennedy.  Scalia might.

Andrew Napolitano will be a coming. Once he's in kiss abortion bye bye.

Really?  Who retires in this scenario?  Or are you assuming Ginsburg and/or Breyer dies?  Because right now, abortion won't be overruled (Kennedy will stand by the Casey precedent.)

Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2011, 09:24:07 PM »

Kennedy is planning to retire under Mitt.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2011, 09:31:34 PM »


Source?  I assume you're just making up facts, but if you have any proof it'd be interesting.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2011, 09:36:44 PM »


Source?  I assume you're just making up facts, but if you have any proof it'd be interesting.

Lawyer neighbor, she worked as a clerk for Justice Blackmun.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2011, 10:52:46 PM »

Andrew Napolitano will be a coming. Once he's in kiss abortion bye bye.

The only way Napolitano gets through the Senate is if the GOP gets to 60 in the Senate, maybe 61.  There's zero chance the Dems wouldn't filibuster him and zero chance the GOP pull the nuclear option of killing the filibuster to get him through.  60 GOP Senators in 2013 is possible but not likely.


I could see Kennedy hoping to retire under a moderate Republican if he tires of the court.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2011, 11:19:44 PM »

so that Obama can get in two "quickies" in case he loses?

the GOP would never allow a vote for a SCOTUS nominee in an election year.
Logged
Rochambeau jk I'm Hamilton
Conservatarian1989
Rookie
**
Posts: 110
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2011, 04:26:06 PM »

Weed is always a good substitute.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2011, 05:13:42 PM »


I've heard this too before as well. Kennedy is the justice that is brought up the most when the question of retirement during a GOP administration is mentioned.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2011, 06:10:58 PM »

I could see Kennedy hoping to retire under a moderate Republican if he tires of the court.

That's the thing.  I think Kennedy loves being the swing vote too much to actually retire unless he becomes incapacitated, or if he loses his status.  If a liberal is replaced by a Republican, I could see Kennedy calling it quits.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2011, 10:46:30 PM »

First, Romney WILL NOT BE THE GOP NOMINEE. That will be either Ron Paul or Herman Cain. Second, get ready in event of GOP victory, in all but the case of Mitt a one Andrew Napolitano will be a coming. Once he's in kiss abortion bye bye.

Would never happen.  The Republicans would be lucky to get 40% in any non-southern suburb in the following election if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.  The senators know this and they want to keep their jobs. 
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2011, 02:03:48 PM »

If they were going to retire, they should've done it about 2 1/2 years ago.
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: March 20, 2014, 01:22:05 AM »

Yes.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: March 21, 2014, 09:27:43 PM »

This thread is three years old. You would be better served starting a new thread, for future reference.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: March 21, 2014, 09:28:15 PM »

I hope both live on through January 2013/2017 so Romney/Rubio can appoint a replacement.
Boy, things change.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: March 21, 2014, 09:37:07 PM »

This thread is three years old. You would be better served starting a new thread, for future reference.

Indeed.  In fact, we have a more recent thread on this topic, tho the one I found wasn't the one I was thinking of.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167455.0

Discussing potential SCOTUS retirements and the desirability of doing so is a fairly perennial topic with multiple threads over the years.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2014, 07:56:48 PM »

First, Romney WILL NOT BE THE GOP NOMINEE. That will be either Ron Paul or Herman Cain. Second, get ready in event of GOP victory, in all but the case of Mitt a one Andrew Napolitano will be a coming. Once he's in kiss abortion bye bye.


Comedy Gold
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.