Is Sonia Sotomayor the next RBG?
by El Kabong (2024-03-05 14:34:35)
Cannot Reply Return to Political

I subscribe to Josh Barro's "Very Serious" substack, and his latest talks about whether or not Justice Sonia Sotomayor should retire, since both the Senate and Presidency are currently controlled by the (D)'s.

He uses Scalia as his first argument, saying he should have stepped down in 2006 when he was 70 and Republicans held the White House and the Senate. Obviously he didn't and we all know how that worked out, but Barro points out....

But imagine for a moment that Anthony Weiner had actually stopped sexting teenagers after his first sexting-related scandal in 2011. In this alternate universe, there would have been no Weiner’s Laptop story in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign (and thus no announcement from James Comey that he was reopening the email investigation 11 days before the election) and Hillary Clinton probably would have won. By running a couple of points stronger, she might have taken Democratic candidates across the finish line in close races in Pennsylvania and Missouri, gaining Democratic control of the US Senate. In that scenario, Clinton would have named a liberal successor to Scalia — more liberal than Garland — and conservatives would have lost control of the court, all because of Scalia’s failure to retire at the opportune moment.

Perhaps a little wishful thinking, but you can see where he's coming from.

He goes on to say if Sotomayor retires, Biden can nominate a "young and reliably liberal judge to replace her," while Republicans can do nothing because they can't postpone a vote. Otherwise....

But if Sotomayor does not retire this year, we don’t know when she will next be able to retire with a likely liberal replacement. It’s possible that Democrats will retain the presidency and the Senate at this year's elections, in which case the insurance created by a Sotomayor retirement won’t have been necessary. But if Democrats lose the presidency or the Senate this fall (or both) she’ll need to stay on the court until the party once again controls both. That could be just a few years, or it could be a while — for example, Democrats have previously had to wait 14 years from 1995 to 2009, and 12 years from 1981 to 1993.² In other words, if Sotomayor doesn’t retire this year, she’ll be making a bet that she will remain fit to serve through age 82 or 84 — and she’ll be taking the whole Democratic Party coalition along with her in making that high-stakes bet.

If Democrats lose the bet, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority will turn into a 7-2 majority at some point within the next decade. If they win the bet, what do they win? They win the opportunity to read dissents written by Sotomayor instead of some other liberal justice. This is obviously an insane trade.

Breyer got "retired" in 2021, so there's some precedent here.

So what say the cognoscienti here?

"If Democrats lose the bet...."
by Brahms  (2024-03-05 15:45:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Thank you Joe Biden for doing the unselfish thing, even when Obama suggested that you not run.
from the point of view of one who has the ...
by Barney68  (2024-03-05 15:44:00)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

accumulated mileage of 78+ years, ageism is real. were i on the court, i'd probably refuse to retire on general principles.

please pardon the one handed typing.

I think that's a stretch.
by John@Indy  (2024-03-05 15:21:32)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

As Sprack notes, in 2014 Ginsburg was an 81-year-old pancreatic cancer survivor. Sotomayor is 69 years old, and the median life expectancy of an American woman her age is 16.6 years. Even if her type 1 diabetes drives down the number a bit, she's lived with it since she was a child. In 2016 Scalia could have expected on average to live another 14.4 years.

Did he mention Thomas and Alito? They were 72 and 70 in 2020, when the Republicans controlled the White House and the Senate. Should they have stepped down?

I would support some sort of term limit or age limit for SCOTUS justices, and I do not have an issue with justices timing their retirements for ideological reasons. But I do not think there is necessarily an obligation to do so. And even if there is an obligation, then RBG, because of her age and health history, was being significantly more reckless than anyone else listed above.

Finally, I wonder how much of this is based on something we've seen even on this board full of very bright people, which is a misunderstanding of mortality probabilities. Many people who hear that US male life expectancy from birth is 76 sometimes mistakenly think that it's a miracle if, e.g., and 85-year-old man makes it to 86, when in reality 90 percent of those who turn 85 make it to 86, and the median 85-year-old man will make it to just shy of 91. I haven't read the entire piece, so I don't know if Barro is falling into that trap.

I’d support an age limit but not a term limit
by sprack  (2024-03-05 15:30:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Make it like the College of Cardinals, where you can’t participate in a papal conclave past the age of 80.

The article says Thomas should have *
by El Kabong  (2024-03-05 15:26:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Its moot at a 6-3 super-majority
by NJDoubleDomer  (2024-03-05 15:20:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Other than Alito, who is an angry Sith Lord, and Thomas, who apparently doesn't own a mirror, there is some faint inkling that 4 of the 6 understand that history has its eye on them. Maybe there will be a step back on dismantling civil rights, such as Miranda and the exclusionary rule. One can hope.
What do you mean by Thomas not owning a mirror? *
by Tex Francisco  (2024-03-06 08:49:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

One succinct reason
by NJDoubleDomer  (2024-03-06 09:48:00)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

“His entire judicial philosophy is at war with his own biography,” Michael Fletcher, co-author of “Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas,”. told CNN in 2013. “He’s arguably benefited from affirmative action every step of the way.”
For real?
by airborneirish  (2024-03-07 22:51:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Have you never heard the man talk?

That's nice of you to tell him how he should think
by manofdillon  (2024-03-06 11:57:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

based on the color of his skin. If you've ever heard Justice Thomas speak or read what he's written, he doesn't view affirmative action as the unequivocal boon that you seem to think it is. But I guess he should shut up and do what liberals tell him to do, since they've done so much for him.

And if anything, it was private Catholic education (and his own hard work, he was by all accounts a good student at Holy Cross) that helped him escape abject poverty, not government social welfare programs.

I thought that's what you meant.
by Tex Francisco  (2024-03-06 10:27:56)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

How dare he not toe the line! So very uppity of him.
Even more moot if it becomes 7-2 *
by El Kabong  (2024-03-05 15:24:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Yup. Every vote lost for one side has to be clawed ...
by Rocksteady74  (2024-03-05 20:29:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

... back in those rare and unpredictable times when the other side loses a justice and your side has the Presidency and Senate.
Let her retire when she decides to retire
by sprack  (2024-03-05 14:52:45)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

She doesn’t have terminal cancer like RBG did.

Yeah, she’s a Type I diabetic. So what. She’s not at death’s door or close to it.