LaxPower Back-Up Stick

I agree, I don't see either stepping down for Biden under normal circumstances.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:08 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:47 pm Thomas is going to retire soon, and Alito is making noises I thought that he was getting tired of being a Supreme.

Always tough to predict retirements. You would think that both would only step down when a Republican president is in office.

But Thomas’s comments about Ginsburg suggested a degree of tiredness and perhaps resignation that I found notable. I think he was really impacted by Scalia’s death. Wouldn’t surprise me if he just doesn’t find the job fun anymore. Does he want to hang on for four more years, or maybe more? I have long thought he would, but I am getting less sure about that.

Alito would seem to be in a similar boat, but I have heard similar things about him possibly leaving as well. Is he going to pull a Souder?

Bottom line for me, it would be quite surprising if both Thomas and Alito stepped down during a Biden presidency. Now if Trump were to be reelected, I could certainly see that.

Democrats are total birdbrains. Here some discuss theoretical retirements but fail to note the (by far) oldest Supreme left, a lockstep lib Stephen Breyer. 12 and 10 years older than your hoped for retirees. Lol.

Your only hope is Trump doesn’t collect 4 more years since either Nikki or Kristi will win in 2024 and by then SCOTUS will only have one lib left, Kagan, and she’s the best lib for conservatives we have. Breyer won’t last 12 uninterrupted years of Republican rule.

Two guys having a discussion about the future of the Court. One guy senselessly trolling. Boycott.

All of these guys do timed/strategic retirements.

If Joe wins, then Thomas and Alito have to suck up at least four more years. And then maybe another four years depending on how 2024 turns out. Better start hitting the gym hard like RBG did.

The good thing is that, with four whipper snapper law clerks, you can pretty much mail it in for a loooong time. So unless you get struck down by health (Scalia, RBG), you can pretty much be assured of handing down your Dem/GOP seat like a dynastic title. Kennedy for 25 years; then to Kavanaugh for 25 years; then to some other GOP for another 25 years.

If Joe wins and the Senate flips, then Breyer's exit window opens -- but only for two years. The window probably closes if the Senate flips back in 2022 -- GOP cries "the people just decided in 2022" and/or "let the people decide in 2024." So Breyer is stuck -- since the only clear rule now is that you can confirm if the same party holds the WH and Senate.

Good thing is that if the Senate stays Dem in 2022, then the RBG rule (which just replaced the Garland rule) would allow Breyer to step down on 1/19/2025 and still be replaced by a Dem appointment from the outgoing Dem president.

Life tenure is supposed to insulate Justices from political influence. Instead, today it makes them captives to, and active players in, partisan politics. In other words, a total FUBAR.

Makes total sense. Exactly as JMad, TJ and AlHam drew it up on the white board.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:32 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:08 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:47 pm Thomas is going to retire soon, and Alito is making noises I thought that he was getting tired of being a Supreme.

Always tough to predict retirements. You would think that both would only step down when a Republican president is in office.

But Thomas’s comments about Ginsburg suggested a degree of tiredness and perhaps resignation that I found notable. I think he was really impacted by Scalia’s death. Wouldn’t surprise me if he just doesn’t find the job fun anymore. Does he want to hang on for four more years, or maybe more? I have long thought he would, but I am getting less sure about that.

Alito would seem to be in a similar boat, but I have heard similar things about him possibly leaving as well. Is he going to pull a Souder?

Bottom line for me, it would be quite surprising if both Thomas and Alito stepped down during a Biden presidency. Now if Trump were to be reelected, I could certainly see that.

Democrats are total birdbrains. Here some discuss theoretical retirements but fail to note the (by far) oldest Supreme left, a lockstep lib Stephen Breyer. 12 and 10 years older than your hoped for retirees. Lol.

Your only hope is Trump doesn’t collect 4 more years since either Nikki or Kristi will win in 2024 and by then SCOTUS will only have one lib left, Kagan, and she’s the best lib for conservatives we have. Breyer won’t last 12 uninterrupted years of Republican rule.

Pete, read what I said. I said I didn’t think Thomas or Alito would retire if Biden wins.

Nobody was discussing Breyer. But, sure, Breyer would be a likely candidate to retire if Biden wins.

And you are forgetting Sotomayor.

I expect Nikki will run in 2024. Really too early to make prognostications because, among other things, we need to know her competition, but I don’t think she will get the nomination.

Miss South Dakota? No, she won’t run. She is unelectable. She would have no appeal to the voters on the coasts and, thus, could never win the primary.

No mention of Saint Ron?

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:19 pm The four justices in Roe you mention were liberal, but it is not correct that all seven in the majority were. Of the other three, one was a conservative, Burger, and two were moderates, Powell and Stewart.

I read Rehnquist dissent and his problem with the decision was simple. The justices found a right in the 14th amendment that the framers never intended and never would have found morally acceptable. In Rehnquists opinion Roe v Wade was never a judicial issue, it should have been a legislative issue. There are many people that believe it should have been handled at the state level.

SCOTUS has had 9 justices for 150 years. Libs are butt-hurt so now they threaten changing that, instead of, you know, winning elections. Also conveniently forgetting that Ginsburg should have retired when Obama and the Senate were Democratic, while her mind was fading.

Puerto Rico and DC statehood.

Pack the court.

Impeach at will.

Release anarchist rioters.

Remove #1A and #2A.

Openly partisan DOJ.

Libs aren't and never have been about norms. Trump and libs are so similar, which is why they hate each other so much. Anyone get the sense that maybe it's Democrats who are America's greatest enemy?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:35 am SCOTUS has had 9 justices for 150 years. Libs are butt-hurt so now they threaten changing that, instead of, you know, winning elections. Also conveniently forgetting that Ginsburg should have retired when Obama and the Senate were Democratic, while her mind was fading.

Puerto Rico and DC statehood.

Pack the court.

Impeach at will.

Release anarchist rioters.

Remove #1A and #2A.

Openly partisan DOJ.

Libs aren't and never have been about norms. Trump and libs are so similar, which is why they hate each other so much. Anyone get the sense that maybe it's Democrats who are America's greatest enemy?

The first two are reasonable, given the stupidity of the Rs.

The rest are just you dreaming.

The Rs impeached Clinton for far less than the Ds impeached Trump.

Trump has pardoned real criminals just because they support him.

Trump is the one threatening journalists with violence at his rallies (as would any dictator).

Openly partisan DOJ is currently in place - much of what Barr has done is purely for partisan purposes, and there are plenty of people who will say so that are not Ds.

Trump is planning on an attempt to overturn the upcoming election. That is why he is so desperate to get that ninth SC justice so he can force states to override their voting. He is telegraphing his plan openly - you just have to listen...

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:50 pm Two guys having a discussion about the future of the Court. One guy senselessly trolling. Boycott.

+1

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:42 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:35 am SCOTUS has had 9 justices for 150 years. Libs are butt-hurt so now they threaten changing that, instead of, you know, winning elections. Also conveniently forgetting that Ginsburg should have retired when Obama and the Senate were Democratic, while her mind was fading.

Puerto Rico and DC statehood.

Pack the court.

Impeach at will.

Release anarchist rioters.

Remove #1A and #2A.

Openly partisan DOJ.

Libs aren't and never have been about norms. Trump and libs are so similar, which is why they hate each other so much. Anyone get the sense that maybe it's Democrats who are America's greatest enemy?

The first two are reasonable, given the stupidity of the Rs.

The rest are just you dreaming.

The Rs impeached Clinton for far less than the Ds impeached Trump.

Trump has pardoned real criminals just because they support him.

Trump is the one threatening journalists with violence at his rallies (as would any dictator).

Openly partisan DOJ is currently in place - much of what Barr has done is purely for partisan purposes, and there are plenty of people who will say so that are not Ds.

Trump is planning on an attempt to overturn the upcoming election. That is why he is so desperate to get that ninth SC justice so he can force states to override their voting. He is telegraphing his plan openly - you just have to listen...

On the issue of the DOJ being partisan today (which I vehemently disagree with since it's actually just Bill Barr you are upset with). let's review who used to be at DOJ who today can be found openly rooting for Democrats on television:

Prett Barara
Jim Comey
Renatto Mariotti
Daniel Goldman
Elie Honig
Barb McQuade
Joyce Alene
Neal Katyal
Frank Fugliuzzi
Mimi Rocah
Matthew Miller
Josh Campbell
Eric Holder


For Republicans:

Andy McCarthy
Rudy Giuliani

Do you see where people might think that the last dozen years that the DOJ lost its balance?

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:43 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:19 pm The four justices in Roe you mention were liberal, but it is not correct that all seven in the majority were. Of the other three, one was a conservative, Burger, and two were moderates, Powell and Stewart.

Do I have it correct that 6 of the 9 Justices on that Court were appointed by GOP Presidents, just 3 by Dem Presidents?

Exactly how might someone call that "packed" by the Democrats, ala 6ft's nonsense?

Yet only 2 dissents...

That is correct! One was a democrat. Go figure. 5 republicans voted for it, just 2 democrats.

But yet we have some people believing the democrats packed the court.

ALL WENT THROUGH DEMOCRAT SENATE HEARINGS. ALL

Do you think a conservative could get appointed in overwhelmingly democrat senates.

Please.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:10 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:58 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:39 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:31 am Not sure if this has been posted, but here are the comments of RBG's colleagues on the Court. Note especially Thomas' about her graciousness and civility.

https://time.com/5890873/supreme-court- ... urg-death/

Looking at the list of other justices she has served with, not one of them will get as big of a mention in the history books. I think it is under appreciated just how highly she is thought of by your average American woman. Saw my daughter yesterday. I was blown away when she and my wife, at lunch, began to rattle off a list of ways Ginsburg impacted their daily lives, brought about change that impacted them in their daily lives and their ability to accomplish the things they have. The change not as a member of SCOTUS, but the cases she won. The laws that discriminated against women, that she changed. This country was a very different place in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s for women, before Ginsburg.

really amazing what she did throughout her "2" careers. and the impact she had, still accelerating. especially noted with what she was up against with regard to society's norms and conventions and prejudices during those times, which are impossible to underestimate.
she was as much mlk as thurgood in making a movement.

Ginsbrug deserves respect for her career (lasting until 87) but that's about it. She was a Democratic judge not an American judge, full stop. She's not even being buried according to Jewish law; nope, the DNC and RBG agreed prior to her death that she would lie in state.

Politicians lying in state drives me bananas, and yes she was a politician. There isn't one significant decision in her career that you could not have pre-guessed a mile away. The only judges that even look at the US Constitution anymore are conservative judges, which is why every so often they vote against the state and not with their colleagues. Liberal judges vote as a clique, easily forecast, to appease their voters and not the law and definitely not America.

No offense to RBG, but she will be forgotten not remembered. She was not an intellectual and was not even a force. She voted like the DNC wanted her to vote. That does not make a 'great' judge, that makes a judge that Democrats salivate over. Sorry to dent your preferred RBG hagiography; you can cry to other posters.

You must be flipping out...RBG can't be all that Jewish...using a women Rabbi officiating at SCOTUS.

foreverlax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:11 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:10 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:58 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:39 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:31 am Not sure if this has been posted, but here are the comments of RBG's colleagues on the Court. Note especially Thomas' about her graciousness and civility.

https://time.com/5890873/supreme-court- ... urg-death/

Looking at the list of other justices she has served with, not one of them will get as big of a mention in the history books. I think it is under appreciated just how highly she is thought of by your average American woman. Saw my daughter yesterday. I was blown away when she and my wife, at lunch, began to rattle off a list of ways Ginsburg impacted their daily lives, brought about change that impacted them in their daily lives and their ability to accomplish the things they have. The change not as a member of SCOTUS, but the cases she won. The laws that discriminated against women, that she changed. This country was a very different place in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s for women, before Ginsburg.

really amazing what she did throughout her "2" careers. and the impact she had, still accelerating. especially noted with what she was up against with regard to society's norms and conventions and prejudices during those times, which are impossible to underestimate.
she was as much mlk as thurgood in making a movement.

Ginsbrug deserves respect for her career (lasting until 87) but that's about it. She was a Democratic judge not an American judge, full stop. She's not even being buried according to Jewish law; nope, the DNC and RBG agreed prior to her death that she would lie in state.

Politicians lying in state drives me bananas, and yes she was a politician. There isn't one significant decision in her career that you could not have pre-guessed a mile away. The only judges that even look at the US Constitution anymore are conservative judges, which is why every so often they vote against the state and not with their colleagues. Liberal judges vote as a clique, easily forecast, to appease their voters and not the law and definitely not America.

No offense to RBG, but she will be forgotten not remembered. She was not an intellectual and was not even a force. She voted like the DNC wanted her to vote. That does not make a 'great' judge, that makes a judge that Democrats salivate over. Sorry to dent your preferred RBG hagiography; you can cry to other posters.

You must be flipping out...RBG can't be all that Jewish...using a women Rabbi officiating at SCOTUS.

I'm against lionizing any politician, including Presidents. I don't support allowing any politician to lie in state in any federal facility anywhere in America. If you miss RBG, go to church or synagogue and pray for her; trust me, she doesn't care any longer what your feelings are.

The lie about RBG is that she wasn't openly partisan. She was the most partisan judge ever on the court; no part of the US Constitution attracted her. So far as Jewish burial rights, she prioritized being a liberal far more than being Jewish, as evidenced by the scripted agnostic ceremonies accorded her, which she no doubt approved of if not directed. Ego.

So feel free to eulogize her, mourn her, whatever. I feel sad for anyone who has emotions about any politician other than skepticism. RBG was a politician, not a judge. The hagiography of her breaking glass ceilings is stupid beyond belief. Sandra Day O'Conner if I am not mistaken took her seat well before RBG, among other matters. SDO exited the court with far more grace, and no one lost their heads when she did. Unlike, say, today's emotionally unstable Democrats.

Your tears should be for your family members and close friends, and the occasional tragic ending (Kobe and Gigi for example). That's it.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:03 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:43 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:19 pm The four justices in Roe you mention were liberal, but it is not correct that all seven in the majority were. Of the other three, one was a conservative, Burger, and two were moderates, Powell and Stewart.

Do I have it correct that 6 of the 9 Justices on that Court were appointed by GOP Presidents, just 3 by Dem Presidents?

Exactly how might someone call that "packed" by the Democrats, ala 6ft's nonsense?

Yet only 2 dissents...

That is correct! One was a democrat. Go figure. 5 republicans voted for it, just 2 democrats.

But yet we have some people believing the democrats packed the court.

ALL WENT THROUGH DEMOCRAT SENATE HEARINGS. ALL

Do you think a conservative could get appointed in overwhelmingly democrat senates.

Please.

So, not packed...perhaps you don't know what that word means?

Tell you what, 6ft, how about you go back and find out what the votes were for each of those Justices on Roe...while you're at it, take a look at the voting for the Justices on the current Court, plus the deceased Scalia and Ginsburg. Did they attract support from both D's and R's ? Take a look at the nominations that were withdrawn and why. Which ones were close and why? Do you like the breakdowns happening now?

Is it better to have Justices who attract support from both D's and R's, based on the quality of the nominee rather than how far right or far left they are? or is it better to have highly partisan voting independent of the quality of the nominee?

It would seem from your posts that if a nominee attracts support (or not) based on their combination of judicial qualities, their excellence in legal reasoning, their demeanor, their character, that's bad, all that matters to you is that they are known to be supportive of social positions you favor...

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:55 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:50 pm Two guys having a discussion about the future of the Court. One guy senselessly trolling. Boycott.

+1

So place him on your "foe" list. I have. I've reached the point where I barely read half the posts in this thread since I refuse to read his posts and replies to his posts.

This isn't something I do often. My "foe" list consists of PB and a couple of Fattylax's current iterations I've identified.

The "foe" option exists for a reason. Use it.

AOD wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:58 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:55 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:50 pm Two guys having a discussion about the future of the Court. One guy senselessly trolling. Boycott.

+1

So place him on your "foe" list. I have. I've reached the point where I barely read half the posts in this thread since I refuse to read his posts and replies to his posts.

This isn't something I do often. My "foe" list consists of PB and a couple of Fattylax's current iterations I've identified.

The "foe" option exists for a reason. Use it.

I finally broke down and did the same.

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

Me too.

Starve the troll.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:23 am A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:46 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:23 am A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

The radio host said she only had one black person work for her in 40 years. I was surprised when he said it but he is normally very thorough about what he reports on his show. As a matter of fact, he was surprised as well. If he was wrong I am sure he will catch holy hell from his audience. I am sure the record will be fact checked on this forum.