Should Justices Kagan and/or Sotomayor retire?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1605553399386103808

This thread is based on this article.

RBG not retiring earlier screwed Dems. Dems don't know how much longer they will control the Senate after January 2025.

Sonia Sotomayor is 68 years old and has Type 1 diabetes. Kagan is 62 which isn't particularly old. Thoughts?

[Sestak]

I half expect Sotomayor to retire in '24. Kagan I don't think will.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Sotomayor having diabetes makes me lean Yes. No for Kagan. These are two separate questions...

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Sotomayor having diabetes makes me lean Yes. No for Kagan. These are two separate questions...

And I asked them separately (that's what the "and/or" is for). Also, added separate options in the poll.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Sotomayor having diabetes makes me lean Yes. No for Kagan. These are two separate questions...

And I asked them separately (that's what the "and/or" is for). Also, added separate options in the poll.

I apologize if I gave you the impression that I was critiquing your poll setup. It was just fine.

[🥥🌴]

What?

Absolutely not (unless they want to).

[TDAS04]

Probably option 3.

It’s sad how partisan politics results in presidents having to scramble to find young ideologues to put on the court.  Lifetime appointments is an area where the founding father’s really f-d up. I support judicial review, but the partisanship and lack of rotation on SCOTUS result in serious problems.  I oppose court-packing in theory, but as long as the Constitution remains as it is, the option shouldn’t be discounted completely.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The first thing to point out is that diabetes (yes, even Type One) is a perfectly manageable condition these days, and suggesting that someone ought to retire for having it is, for the record, discriminatory behaviour.

That out of the way, neither are particularly old by modern standards. The compulsory retirement age for judges (of any kind) in the United Kingdom is seventy five, which seems like a reasonable gauge to use for an appropriate retirement age, at least for a post that is as lamentably as politically sensitive as this. In other words, both are old enough that they should - again, given the politically sensitive nature of the post - consider drawing up retirement strategies if they haven't already, but not old enough that it would be reasonable to put any pressure on them to actually retire.

[Donerail]

That out of the way, neither are particularly old by modern standards. The compulsory retirement age for judges (of any kind) in the United Kingdom is seventy five, which seems like a reasonable gauge to use for an appropriate retirement age, at least for a post that is as lamentably as politically sensitive as this. In other words, both are old enough that they should - again, given the politically sensitive nature of the post - consider drawing up retirement strategies if they haven't already, but not old enough that it would be reasonable to put any pressure on them to actually retire.

If we take 75 as an appropriate retirement age (a majority of states require judicial retirement at 70-75), will Democrats control both the Senate and presidency together at some point between 2024 and 2030? You have to assume you lose the Senate in 2024, and given how structurally disadvantaged Dems are in the Senate it feels dicey to say they'll definitely win it back at some point between now and then.

[Blair]

I know it’s hard to compare to the past but it’s funny looking at old justices where the average service was 10-15 years and often came after a relatively big job.

It’s really hilarious and terrifying that the court is so broken that the only way to guarantee control is to nominate 45 year old lawyers who’ve served on as a judge for 5 year.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If we take 75 as an appropriate retirement age (a majority of states require judicial retirement at 70-75), will Democrats control both the Senate and presidency together at some point between 2024 and 2030? You have to assume you lose the Senate in 2024, and given how structurally disadvantaged Dems are in the Senate it feels dicey to say they'll definitely win it back at some point between now and then.

Well, yes: this is what I mean by drawing up plans for it. Sotomayor is at an age where it would make sense to plan to do it in a couple of years or so, but I think that trying to put pointed pressure on - and especially bringing up diabetes which is really not a relevant concern in 2022 - would likely be counterproductive in getting that to happen.

[Orser67]

Sotomayor is also a former chain smoker, though she apparently quit a while ago. 68 isn't super old, and I wouldn't hold not retiring against her the way I do with Ginsburg and would have with Breyer, but personally I do hope she retires.

Though looking at Biden's Supreme Court candidate wiki page, it doesn't look like there are any slam dunk choices among potential Hispanic choices.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

The first thing to point out is that diabetes (yes, even Type One) is a perfectly manageable condition these days, and suggesting that someone ought to retire for having it is, for the record, discriminatory behaviour.

A "perfectly manageable condition" doesn't mean much.

1. Women with type 1 diabetes have a 7.9-year shorter life expectancy than women without the condition.

2. Life expectancy estimates for individuals with type 1 diabetes range from approximately 65 years of age to 72 years of age. Sotomayor is 68, so she's right in the middle of that.

3. Women with type 1 diabetes tend to die sooner than men with the condition.


Bringing this up is not "discriminatory behavior". Also, this is more about the fact that we don't know how much longer Dems will control the Senate for past 2024 as I mentioned in the OP post.

[West_Midlander]

Maybe in '25

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Sotomayor is a maybe. As for Kagan, wanting a healthy and active 62-year-old judge to retire only really makes sense if you want the President to start appointing thirty-somethings to the SC.

[Drop Billionaires, Not Bombs]

Sotomayor is a maybe. As for Kagan, wanting a healthy and active 62-year-old judge to retire only really makes sense if you want the President to start appointing thirty-somethings to the SC.

I mean, Clarence Thomas was just 43 when he was sworn in and that clearly paid dividends.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

No because they aren't elderly like Breyer and Harris likely to be Prez in 28 anyways, we are a one party country now, because post Pandemic Income inequality and Obamacare favs DS

[dw93]

Sotomayor yes, Kagan no.

[MarkD]

If the theory is they should retire while a Dem is POTUS because they should be replaced with people who are ideologically similar, then no, that is not a reason to retire. People should not be appointed to the Supreme Court on the basis of ideology. They should be appointed because they are the most highly objective interpreters of law that can be found anywhere in the country.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

If the theory is they should retire while a Dem is POTUS because they should be replaced with people who are ideologically similar, then no, that is not a reason to retire. People should not be appointed to the Supreme Court on the basis of ideology. They should be appointed because they are the most highly objective interpreters of law that can be found anywhere in the country.

Well, that ship sailed decades ago. Sorry to tell you.

[TML]

If the theory is they should retire while a Dem is POTUS because they should be replaced with people who are ideologically similar, then no, that is not a reason to retire. People should not be appointed to the Supreme Court on the basis of ideology. They should be appointed because they are the most highly objective interpreters of law that can be found anywhere in the country.

I would only support your idea if the Senate institutes a rule forcing all SC nominees to be voted on within a specified time period following the submission of the nomination (and having staffers schedule such votes if Senators themselves refuse to do so). Otherwise, as long as one or both parties reserve the right to prevent nominees from being voted on, your idea can only be a pipe dream in the current political climate.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I know it’s hard to compare to the past but it’s funny looking at old justices where the average service was 10-15 years and often came after a relatively big job.

It’s really hilarious and terrifying that the court is so broken that the only way to guarantee control is to nominate 45 year old lawyers who’ve served on as a judge for 5 year.

Yeah and what’s with this obsession with nominating elite law school graduates to the courts? It’s not like it’s a hard job, especially given how blatantly political the courts are (and always have been).

Cut the bulls—t and put a major campaign donor on the Court. That would be honest, at least.

[President Johnson]

I wish Alito, Thomas and Roberts would retire first. Especially the former two. However, Kegan and Sotomayor should indeed consider retiring given political realities of the 2024 senate map.

[Donerail]

I know it’s hard to compare to the past but it’s funny looking at old justices where the average service was 10-15 years and often came after a relatively big job.

It’s really hilarious and terrifying that the court is so broken that the only way to guarantee control is to nominate 45 year old lawyers who’ve served on as a judge for 5 year.

Yeah and what’s with this obsession with nominating elite law school graduates to the courts? It’s not like it’s a hard job, especially given how blatantly political the courts are (and always have been).

Do you think the 12-year deadline for bringing a civil action under the Quiet Title Act is a jurisdictional limit or just a claims-processing rule that can be tolled by agreement? Interested in your thoughts.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

They aren't retiring it won't change the balance on the Vet, Breyer only did it because of what happened with Ginsburg