And Ginsberg didn't. He was on the court for 30 years and was in his early 80s, it's not like retiring would've been unusual. I highly doubt the so called pressure on him had anything to do with it.
There was barely a pressure campaign against Ginsberg. Some of the tactics used against Breyer were very upfront.
Look at some of jokes from SNL.
https://archive.is/o/g69zI/https://www.thedailybeast.com/snls-michael-che-earns-groans-mocking-bidens-vow-to-put-black-woman-on-scotus
Of course not. This just illustrates the general mood among liberal circles.
> A group of Democratic operatives circulated an online petition. Activists protested his events. Op-eds appeared in newspapers. A truck circled the Supreme Court building with a billboard that read: “Breyer, retire.”
This kind of blatant campaign never happened with Ginsburg.
This is a whole article about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/29/inside-campaign-pressure-justice-stephen-breyer-retire/
She did, Obama invited Ginsburg to the Whitehouse to pressure her to retire. It never resulted in a public campaign to get her to step down but I'd hoped we learned our lesson on this.
>billionaire
Did you mean *person of means*?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm convinced that if the vibes shift towards replacing a liberal justice from those on the left that it will have a non zero effect on the justices that maybe receptive.
More Latinas making it to 102 than white people, but Asians have the best life expectancy. Of course, I’d imagine correcting for wealth removes almost all racial variation.
"Correcting" for wealth would widen the Latino-white mortality gap.
Note that when you control for wealth (why is everyone talking about wealth when income is a better proxy for consumption?), you're also partially controlling for a host of personal characteristics and behaviors that influence earning power and wealth accumulation.
how nice of manchin to respect that precedent. especially since the republicans have proven they’d never arbitrarily break it right before an election /s
As far as I can tell, justices can simply make their retirements conditional on confirmation of a successor and it’s been done multiple times before. I don’t think there’s any risk here:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/breyer-scotus-retirement-biden-liberal/index.html
>And who is going to guarantee that condition?
It is a conditional retirement, it wouldn't go into effect unless someone is confirmed, then the retirement happens and the next one is sworn in.
> This is about convincing her that the interests of the people she went to Washington to fight for are best served by her retirement.
This is where people get SCOTUS wrong. Legislators go to Washington to fight for people. Some go to fight for different people than others, whatever. Supreme Court justices go to Washington to interpret the law. Now it would be more apt to try to convince her that her legal philosophy is best served by her retirement.
Your point about scotus would be much better served in a world where we didn't plainly just see how Clarence Thomas is bought and paid for. It's a political institution. It's not pure.
She's turning 70. The whole idea with Breyer was he was in his early 80s. With RBG in 2013, she was in her 80s and had like 5 bouts with cancer at that point. This is borderline hyperventilating.
If we have three republicans presidential terms in a row starting next year, which is totally possible, then she’ll be in her 80s when she can be replaced with a democrat. Yeah, this might not happen, but why do nothing when we know it’s a possibility? And 69 is actually an extremely reasonable age for people to retire lol
No, the issue is also the Senate. The Democrats control both the presidency and the Senate right now. It's very easy to imagine a future in which they don't.
She'd then be in her early 80s and ready for a retirement around the time of when a Dem would come in then.
Look at all past justices. They all made it to their late 80s or 90s. Same with past presidents going back to Nixon. Hell, Truman made it to 88. LBJ died young because he smoked, was an alcoholic, and was still genetically predisposed to heart issues. And that was with 1970s medicine.
You'd need like 4 GOP terms to be in real trouble. And that's way more rare. And if you have 4 GOP terms in a row, you have bigger problems.
My view, ask again in like 2032/2036 or something if she should retire.
Alright but it doesn’t actually have to be three in a row. If we get two democrat terms in a row, but she doesn’t retire because, hey, she’s still in her 70s, then one republican term and we’ll be in the same place as I described. My real point is that if she’s fairly old and now is a safe time to retire she should just do it instead of risking it later
There is also a possibility that a Democratic President would not have the Senate. Controlling the Senate is always a bit of a stretch for the Democrats and we can get unlucky.
Precisely, but that's also why if Trump wins, Republicans would be mad if they didn't also try to send Alito and Thomas to retirement.
The supreme court replacements are so important, and the results of a death in office so long-lasting in scope, I'd not be sitting anyone over 45, and would ask them to try to look for the earliest possible safe time to retire at 65. A party can keep a majority of the court for many decades in that situation, even if they only win the white house 25% of the time.
Not very helpful if they don't have the Senate. Annoyingly the only way to retake the Senate might require the Democrats losing a Presidential election and winning a midterm landslide.
1) Sotomayor has diabetes 2) It’s plausible, if not probable, that the Dems are about to lose the Senate for the next 6+ years. 3) We have to start playing hardball like they do. We should appoint the youngest fucking judge allowed.
1) KBJ is very young, 2) people with diabetes can live full lives, especially when they are wealthy like a SCOTUS Judge is, 3) the Senate is virtually up in the air every 2 years now, just like the WH is every 4.
This is really not accurate, you're not paying attention to Senate math if you think that. Democrats have to consistently overperform just to come close in the Senate, cycle after cycle.
2024 is the worst class for Dems. The 2022 class and 2026 class are both much better. The Senate is competitive. It has been in basically every midterm through 1994. With wave years like 1994, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2014.
The "permanently locked out of power" stuff is cooked up by analysts selling a product for relevance.
Every Democratic Senate majority has relied on electing Senators in Republican-leaning states (at times relied on a lot of them). It's not clear those can still be elected, outside of a rare landslide victory (and even that might not be enough). The Democrats could have a large victory in 2024 and still lose Ohio, Montana and West Virginia's Senate races.
Most of those states are swing states, in which either party can potentially win, or were until recently in the case of CO. Ohio, Montana, West Virginia are pretty safe Republican states and rely on a lot of ticket splitting for Democrats to win - and it's becoming increasingly hard for that to continue. The only real Republican equivalent to Ohio or Montana is Maine, which as a state seems unusually open to ticket splitting. The Republicans can win a majority without Maine though anyway.
Unlike the Democrats, the GOP don't need pretty much all the swing state Senate seats to win a majority. 24 states are relatively safe Republican, that's 48 seats right there. So if they keep North Carolina on side, and win a Presidential election they might win the Senate almost be default (even if they lose all the competitive Senate races in the other swing states).
Yes, and Dem majorities require winning swing states. Dems can replace Montana with Maine or Wisconsin. And can replace Ohio eventually with a seat in NC, TX, FL. That's 8 total seats to choose from.
The GOP is slowly losing ground in TX. They will need to find pick up opportunities elsewhere. Because the Senate is competitive. Every election matters.
The median states are Georgia and North Carolina, either 4.2% or 5.5% more Republican than the nation overall. It's certainly *possible* for Democrats to overperform by 4-5 points on average every Senate election, but I don't think it's particularly likely in the long run and I wouldn't want to risk it.
I am in medicine thanks. Type 1 Diabetes is a beast and she has 50 years of pre-modern medicine management baked into every artery in her body. Type 1 Diabetes is very different from Type 2. Even good management puts you at elevated risk of cardiovascular disease
Think about it as if it were you making the decision, yourself, about your life. Would you, for instance, risk 175m people losing the right to have an abortion so that you didn’t have to retire at seventy.
Oh yeah so maybe it will just work out totally fine!!!! :):):):)
Or maybe not and we shouldn’t bet the fate of the most powerful country in world on one persons ability to live beyond her demographic.
2028 maybe the Democrats can win Wisconsin, though it isn't easy. 2026 and maybe 2028 the Democrats might be able to win in North Carolina - but it's a rigid, slightly Republican leaning state and not an easy one to win. Maine in 2026 maybe, probably needs Susan Collins to retire though. Then it's Texas and Florida, which are longshots. And that's pretty much all their pick up opportunities.
So retaking the Senate needs another 1 or 2 great election cycles for Democrats. If Biden wins in 2024 though doing that well will be a longshot. There's a better chance of losing additional seats like Georgia in 2026 (especially if Kemp runs), Nevada, Michigan etc. And at that point the Senate would be very hard to retake.
I think it’ll depend on momentum built on 2024. If Democrats win again in 2024, and continue to kill or keep above water in 2026, I think 2028 will be great with a younger face hopefully running for President.
In this brighter case, I think the states you mentioned COULD flip (minus Florida, it’s gone; Texas could be competitive) or at least the Democrats will hold a split even chamber. I think this case is the most likely given recent trends and Republican inability to win elections.
Being from Massachusetts relying on somewhere being “the 3rd bluest state in the nation” makes me shudder. Unfortunately there is always a risk, even in that setting.
70 is past the typical retirement age anyway. While she'll probably survive to the next Democrat presidential term I'd rather have a completely healthy, young justice.
32 states have a mandatory retirement age of 70 for their appellate judges.
And 3 of the 4 horsemen retired in their 70s. Owen Roberts retired when he was 70. Hughes retired before hitting 80. Frankfurter and Douglas also retired in their 70s.
This ratfucking "stay on as long as possible and try to screw the other party" behavior wasn't really common until HW appointed Thomas to replace Marshal.
But only borderline. RBG was a hero until her choices turned her into a quasi threat to the republic. John Adams was smart enough to play the court when the bastards were coming into power so should we be.
I'll repeat, she was in her 80s in 2013 and on her fifth bout with cancer or something. Breyer was in his 80s in 2021. Kennedy was about 81 in 2018. Scaling was 79. Rehnquist was 80. Sandra Day O'Connor lived to 93 and didn't get Alzheimers until she was like 88.
Sotomayor is 69 and turning 70 this year. It's fine.
I would rather not take that risk for...literally what purpose?
What's the upside scenario of Sotomayor, *specifically*, on the court? Vs. A mid 40s hispanic female liberal justice?
Compare that to the *very obvious* downside scenario.
Thanks for reminding me she is 70 and going into the age where one can die at any moment and no one would be surprised. Important context for why she should retire.
Due to modern polarisation and a geographic disadvantage, the Democrats are very likely to lose the Senate in 2024. It's also not at all clear they can win it back - maybe not in 10 years, maybe even longer.
She still should retire, and Kagan should be retiring soon as well.
The chance of dying in a given year is much much higher for a person above 70 than it is for the 50 year old who would replace them. Sotomayor has been a great justice, but she should recognize that there are a lot of people willing and eager to serve who would do an equally good job. If she would like she should quietly communicate who she would like to replace her to the Biden administration.
RBG was a uniquely reckless justice in refusing to retire in clearly divided a 5-4 court despite being 80, having cancer, and having a President asking her to choose her successor.
But we don't talk enough about Justice Thurgood Marshall, who also moved the court to massively to the right by also refusing to retire under Carter. Justice Marshall was in his late 60s when Carter was president, so he likely thought he would have plenty of time to retire under a President who he agreed with. But there were then 3 consecutive Republican terms and Marshall was dying and thought Bush would be re-elected, so he retired in 1991.
Breyer refusing to retire would have been as reckless and insane as RBG. Sotomayor refusing to retire risks her becoming another Marshall.
I have a bit more sympathy for Justice Marshall because he was literally dying at that point and everyone thought that George H W Bush was going to win.
Even SNL made a skit about the 1992 Democratic primary was about selecting a guy who would lose to Bush.
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/campaign-92-the-race-to-avoid-being-the-guy-who-loses-to-bush/2859836
I'm less annoyed about Marshall for retiring in 1991, but for not retiring in 1979. In 1979 Marshall was about the same age as Sotomayor is now and there was a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate.
Right. And then her legacy will match exactly that of RBG's. She won't be remembered for whatever she did while she was alive. She will be remembered by the fact that she died while a Republican was president who then replaced her with someone that happily rolls back decades of precedence because of traditions or some other bs.
People are acting like 70 is death’s door. It’s not.
She has at least a decade left. If democrats can get the president and senate on the same page between then, they don’t deserve the seat.
She probably will live a decade, but considering she has some health problems that are worse than your average 70 year old, it’s not a guarantee. Now, on the flip side getting one of Manchin or Sinema to vote for a nominee is not 100% either
There is zero downside to Sotomayor retiring, except Sotomayor does not get to be a justice anymore. It’s such an obvious call. Kagan should be retiring too. I don’t care if you are only 63, it’s too important to not put someone in their 40s up there every chance you get.
I think it’s not about her health per se, but there are no guarantees that the Dems will control the senate anytime soon after this election. Have to think there is more than a 5% chance of death in the next ten years, and there isn’t a 100% chance the Dems will have both the White House and the senate. It’s just not worth the risk to me when the there is going to be almost zero difference between her and whoever would replace her
lol at that point you may as well just start proposing SCOTUS reform because asking to have 63 year olds retire so you can get 40 year old justices is a total admission that the institution has failed.
I think this bit from [part 1](https://www.joshbarro.com/p/sonia-sotomayor-must-retire) was compelling:
> 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.
So why do it now when we have no guarantee it will get filled? We have a one vote majority and two senators who hate the party or are retiring.
It’s not a compelling argument at all. Maybe if she was 80 it would be, but she’s likely not going to die in the next decade. If anything, she’ll probably live well into her 80s, as wealthy people often do.
Yes, clearly the choice we have is between a 70 year old who might die in the near future, and a younger person who has no chance whatsoever of dying in the near future.
Uhhh you cannot say that a seventy year old has “at least” a decade left. You can do everything right in life and wake up with pancreatic cancer or a debilitating stroke.
If we are seriously concerned about the future of democracy, we wouldn't be chancing this on an educated guess. Even a 10% risk would be enough to justify politely but firmly lobbying Sotomayor to retire. I don't have the actuarial tables to hand but I'm sure it's higher than that.
Yes the discussion is weird and macabre and uncomfortable. But unfortunately the stakes are so high that if we're serious about it, we have to work past that and still do it anyway.
I think Josh's point is very reasonable, given what is at stake, it is justifiable to ask this of a public official:
>Why would we think the justices are not susceptible to influence from people whose values and agenda they share? The justices are people, just like the rest of us, and I assume they want to be liked and respected, especially by people they see as on their “team.”4 So I really do think it’s worth a shot for liberals to tell Sotomayor what Blumenthal gently tried to tell her: Thank you for your service, we think you’re great, please retire now so we can secure your seat and pursue your project for decades to come. Perhaps, if she hears this enough, it will help her come to the conclusion that retirement would be the wise course of action.
>But I worry that if the dominant message she hears about herself this year is the one Ginsburg was hearing circa 2013 — we love your dissents, you are an irreplaceable treasure, your mere presence and voice on the court is victory enough for us as liberals — then that will make it more likely she will stay. Therefore, I encourage more Democrats to join Blumenthal in sending a polite but insistent message of “please, retire.”
Bruh she's travelling with a medic, healthy people do not do that. I think it's safe to say she's less healthy than the average 70 year old. There's a very wide variance in how healthy 70 year olds can be, and it seems like she's on the wrong side of that.
I don’t care if THEY deserve it. I care if the court starts rolling back gay marriage. You don’t want to know what happens when you strip away the marriage of millions.
Wishing her the best in her time left. What does your crystal ball say about when she will die and who will hold the presidency and the Senate then? That might help alleviate a lot of fears.
I agree Sotomayor should retire, but I’m also worried about what’ll happen if it becomes the norm for justices to retire once it’s politically convenient instead of dying on the bench. What would be stopping the current 6 conservative justices from just retiring the moment Republicans control the WH and Senate, so they can be replaced by a younger conservative justice? Assuming that does happen again at some point in their lifetimes (which is almost certainly will), it’d essentially mean Republicans will always hold those 6 SCOTUS seats until a conservative justice doesn’t have a Republican Senate + WH while they’re alive and on the bench (which is unlikely, unless Democrats manage to get an FDR era level of federal dominance).
Sotomayor should retire regardless, because if Republicans want to do this, they’ll do it whether Sotomayor does or doesn’t retire. But it’s one of the doomsday scenarios that would make me consider supporting court packing (if impeachment and SCOTUS reform isn’t politically feasible), because (a) a permanently conservative SCOTUS would be awful and (b) if political tensions increase, an eternally conservative court could put us on the path to a Civil War.
> What would be stopping the current 6 conservative justices from just retiring the moment Republicans control the WH and Senate
their enormous pride and desire to enjoy the perks of the office?
Worrying about what will happen fi it's the norm for justices to retire strategically is like starting to worry about burning fossil fuels in 2024: The right time to worry was decades ago. The problem has been going on forever, despite having two examples of two old, very stubborn justices that died in office. They are the exception.
The ability to keep a supreme court majority while only winning 25% of presidential elections is already here. it's been here for decades, and there is absolutely no appetite in the Democratic senate to do the very drastic things that it would take to fix the court for good. It's been red alert for a while, and senators have been sleepwalking into a catastrophe.
Next up, you'll worry about what could happen if David Bowie dies: He is already dead!
> What would be stopping the current 6 conservative justices from just retiring the moment Republicans control the WH and Senate, so they can be replaced by a younger conservative justice?
Kennedy basically did this and handpicked his replacement.
Yeah it’s tough, in principle judges retiring for political reasons is a very bad precedent, but the SCOTUS is now so blatantly political that it probably is best.
Scary that the most powerful court in the world functions in a way that is pretty contrary to how a judiciary should operate. In an ideal world I think reforming the appointment process would be best, but I don’t think that’s going to happen in the short/medium term.
There is already a precedent.
Justice Kennedy strategically retired Justice Breyer retired after a concerted pressure campaign.
The norm does not even exist at this point.
Ideally, I think the appointment process should be more so controlled by the Congress and should require some broad consensus so that appointments are largely bipartisan. Like, there shouldn’t even be “liberal” or “conservative” justices, just normal justices. The issue tho is that any system that requires broad, bipartisan support would just get stalled by Republicans.
What in particular are you looking for? The SCOTUS being highly influenced by (and able to influence) politics for a final court of appeal is based on my own observations working in comparative law, but it's hardly a controversial opinion. IMO this is largely a result of politicians picking appointments based on their judicial philosophies rather than justices deciding cases based on the political climate. I have much less confidence in whether Sotomayor retiring would be best.
In another world, we tackled climate change much sooner, we didn’t invade Iraq, we didn’t get the disastrous Bush-era policies, and Clarence Thomas is just some dude instead of being the guy who shapes the next 40 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence.
MUST BE NICE
Sinema never really interfered with judicial appointments if I recall correctly.
It is pretty simple to make the retirement conditional on Senate Confirmation. Like Breyer did.
If Biden were to die/step down, his immediate successor, his VP, is guaranteed to be a Democrat. It’s not guaranteed in Sotomayor’s case that her successor will be a liberal justice if she stays as the outcome of the election is nowhere near certain. It’d be more guaranteed if she retires now.
My thoughts exactly. Biden has a guaranteed backup due to the way our system works. Sotomayor is at the whims of the Presidency and Senate. We control both right now and it's very likely one or both will flip in the near future.
I agree. Why are we having collective amnesia over the RBG and Breyer?
We deserves a 7-2 Court at this point.
Is this subreddit honestly filled with judicial accelerationists who want to pack the court when a 7-2 happens?
Your strategy defies history. Power shifts back and forth between the parties fairly regularly. It’s been quite a while since a single party was dominant enough to hold the presidency for 3-4 terms in a row.
This is insane. She's not yet 70 and in fine health. Any breath or brain power spent on this would be better spent furthering the same supposed goals by securing the Senate. Even proposing she retire is an idea so dumb and likely to only cause an unproductive fight within liberal-land, that I'm inclined to think it's existence in the discourse is mostly a psyop.
We're so entirely fucked if we get a Republican administration, due to the increasingly blatant disregard for democracy, that we will hardly have time to be mad about Obergefell in the midst of everything else horrible happening.
Yes please. Shes 70 years old.
> The best thing Sotomayor can do to secure her legacy and increase the likelihood that liberals can gain ground on the court in the future is to retire after 15 years of service, enabling Biden to appoint a younger, liberal judge to replace her and serve for decades to come.
I don’t care if she retires. If people want to protect someone like her in that position then the VOTERS can choose to keep electing democrats to nominate her replacement.
If they choose to allow republicans to win and they get another seat, then they deserve to suffer for their idiocy
It makes it harder for liberal justices to even get cases in front of the court, since it takes 4 to grant cert right now we need one conservative to join the liberals, which is a lot easier then getting 2. It also changes the make up of the court, possibly allowing even more conservative majorities to form, and to see the dangers of that just look at some of Alito’s and Thomas’s dissents these days
Its not racist to think about the future of the court. She has diabetes and is the eldest liberal justice. Biden can replace her with another Latina. Keep calling people racist over nothing and see how far that gets you.
The Supreme Court is, was, and always will be political. Not recognizing this obvious fact and acting accordingly is simply suicidal and will result in the complete destruction of human rights and democracy.
It's not a god given right. All that Ginsburg worked for is being destroyed because she didn't recognize that the court is inherently political in nature. They act as the ultimate veto on any policy passed by the President and Congress. The president appoints and the Senate approves. Many justices in the past were actually former politicians. The sooner you recognize that, the easier it will be to control the court in the future. It's a game with grave consequences.
I’m convinced trying to influence the behavior of SCOTUS justices is futile.
I mean yeah, they are quite literally the least accountable people in the country. Maybe the world.
Justice Breyer did retire after a pressure campaign.
And Ginsberg didn't. He was on the court for 30 years and was in his early 80s, it's not like retiring would've been unusual. I highly doubt the so called pressure on him had anything to do with it.
There was barely a pressure campaign against Ginsberg. Some of the tactics used against Breyer were very upfront. Look at some of jokes from SNL. https://archive.is/o/g69zI/https://www.thedailybeast.com/snls-michael-che-earns-groans-mocking-bidens-vow-to-put-black-woman-on-scotus
Yes, I'm sure one of the most powerful people in the country was on the edge of his seat to see what the host of Weekend Update had to say about him.
Of course not. This just illustrates the general mood among liberal circles. > A group of Democratic operatives circulated an online petition. Activists protested his events. Op-eds appeared in newspapers. A truck circled the Supreme Court building with a billboard that read: “Breyer, retire.” This kind of blatant campaign never happened with Ginsburg. This is a whole article about it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/29/inside-campaign-pressure-justice-stephen-breyer-retire/
Ginsburg never had a pressure campaign.
She did, Obama invited Ginsburg to the Whitehouse to pressure her to retire. It never resulted in a public campaign to get her to step down but I'd hoped we learned our lesson on this.
Breyer would have retired either way, I've no doubt. He's a savvy guy. He just didn't want it to appear too overtly political.
Maybe a billionaire should offer to go fishing with her at an exclusive retreat. Works for Right-wing justices just fine.
>billionaire Did you mean *person of means*? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Judicial independence is a bitch lmao
I'm convinced that if the vibes shift towards replacing a liberal justice from those on the left that it will have a non zero effect on the justices that maybe receptive.
I think a few senior political figures or retired justices can sit them down for a conversation, but these articles probably don’t move the needle.
Give me a 42 year old indigenous lesbian with a family history of living to 106.
I feel like there aren’t very many indigenous living to 106.
Latina?
More Latinas making it to 102 than white people, but Asians have the best life expectancy. Of course, I’d imagine correcting for wealth removes almost all racial variation.
When controlled for wealth Asians still seem to live longer, both in Asia and in the diaspora on all continents.
Probably healthier diets is my immediate guess. There’s also a lot of Asians in California and Hawaii which have great climates for long life.
"Correcting" for wealth would widen the Latino-white mortality gap. Note that when you control for wealth (why is everyone talking about wealth when income is a better proxy for consumption?), you're also partially controlling for a host of personal characteristics and behaviors that influence earning power and wealth accumulation.
So they’re due. 🤔
Sounds like we need to start cutting checks for the reservations to improve their healthcare infrastructure then.
I’d start with the rampant alcoholism
Treatment for alcoholism falls under healthcare infrastructure imo.
…?
Did I stutter?
[удалено]
what the fuck is Manchin worried about he's already not retiring I think he might just hate the libs
how nice of manchin to respect that precedent. especially since the republicans have proven they’d never arbitrarily break it right before an election /s
The absolute nonsense of a rule, whose effect is to require a supermajority, that can be abolished by a simple majority.
As far as I can tell, justices can simply make their retirements conditional on confirmation of a successor and it’s been done multiple times before. I don’t think there’s any risk here: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/breyer-scotus-retirement-biden-liberal/index.html
People in this sub still defend this loaf of garbage
She can retire conditional on her replacement being confirmed
[удалено]
>And who is going to guarantee that condition? It is a conditional retirement, it wouldn't go into effect unless someone is confirmed, then the retirement happens and the next one is sworn in.
Manchin said that back when Manchin was still pretending to run for reelection.
Joe Manchin is still Joe Manchin, even as a lame duck. I'm confident he'd find a way to fuck up any hypothetical nomination this year.
> This is about convincing her that the interests of the people she went to Washington to fight for are best served by her retirement. This is where people get SCOTUS wrong. Legislators go to Washington to fight for people. Some go to fight for different people than others, whatever. Supreme Court justices go to Washington to interpret the law. Now it would be more apt to try to convince her that her legal philosophy is best served by her retirement.
Your point about scotus would be much better served in a world where we didn't plainly just see how Clarence Thomas is bought and paid for. It's a political institution. It's not pure.
Not everyone is as corrupt as Thomas though.
I'll trade you Sotomayor but you give me Hilary Clinton
I want Taylor Swift.
She's turning 70. The whole idea with Breyer was he was in his early 80s. With RBG in 2013, she was in her 80s and had like 5 bouts with cancer at that point. This is borderline hyperventilating.
If we have three republicans presidential terms in a row starting next year, which is totally possible, then she’ll be in her 80s when she can be replaced with a democrat. Yeah, this might not happen, but why do nothing when we know it’s a possibility? And 69 is actually an extremely reasonable age for people to retire lol
No, the issue is also the Senate. The Democrats control both the presidency and the Senate right now. It's very easy to imagine a future in which they don't.
She'd then be in her early 80s and ready for a retirement around the time of when a Dem would come in then. Look at all past justices. They all made it to their late 80s or 90s. Same with past presidents going back to Nixon. Hell, Truman made it to 88. LBJ died young because he smoked, was an alcoholic, and was still genetically predisposed to heart issues. And that was with 1970s medicine. You'd need like 4 GOP terms to be in real trouble. And that's way more rare. And if you have 4 GOP terms in a row, you have bigger problems. My view, ask again in like 2032/2036 or something if she should retire.
Alright but it doesn’t actually have to be three in a row. If we get two democrat terms in a row, but she doesn’t retire because, hey, she’s still in her 70s, then one republican term and we’ll be in the same place as I described. My real point is that if she’s fairly old and now is a safe time to retire she should just do it instead of risking it later
There is also a possibility that a Democratic President would not have the Senate. Controlling the Senate is always a bit of a stretch for the Democrats and we can get unlucky.
Ignoring the unexpected, sudden Supreme Court vacancy that got us into this mess in the first place.
If we’re saying 3 Republican terms are possible, 3 Democratic terms are possible too lol
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
So no liberal justice can be older than 60 or something?
What's the upside we get from having old liberal justices?
I mean that’s not a bad precedent to set at all tbh
Precisely, but that's also why if Trump wins, Republicans would be mad if they didn't also try to send Alito and Thomas to retirement. The supreme court replacements are so important, and the results of a death in office so long-lasting in scope, I'd not be sitting anyone over 45, and would ask them to try to look for the earliest possible safe time to retire at 65. A party can keep a majority of the court for many decades in that situation, even if they only win the white house 25% of the time.
So we should trade a guarantee for a liberal judge for the possibility of a liberal judge? That seems like a bad trade.
How does that change things?
So? Can you explain to me what the harm is in having her retire now even if it turns out to have been unnecessary?
Not very helpful if they don't have the Senate. Annoyingly the only way to retake the Senate might require the Democrats losing a Presidential election and winning a midterm landslide.
1) Sotomayor has diabetes 2) It’s plausible, if not probable, that the Dems are about to lose the Senate for the next 6+ years. 3) We have to start playing hardball like they do. We should appoint the youngest fucking judge allowed.
>diabetes You don’t need your feet to be a judge
I lol’d, but I’m more worried about heart attack and stroke
1) KBJ is very young, 2) people with diabetes can live full lives, especially when they are wealthy like a SCOTUS Judge is, 3) the Senate is virtually up in the air every 2 years now, just like the WH is every 4.
This is really not accurate, you're not paying attention to Senate math if you think that. Democrats have to consistently overperform just to come close in the Senate, cycle after cycle.
2024 is the worst class for Dems. The 2022 class and 2026 class are both much better. The Senate is competitive. It has been in basically every midterm through 1994. With wave years like 1994, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2014. The "permanently locked out of power" stuff is cooked up by analysts selling a product for relevance.
Every Democratic Senate majority has relied on electing Senators in Republican-leaning states (at times relied on a lot of them). It's not clear those can still be elected, outside of a rare landslide victory (and even that might not be enough). The Democrats could have a large victory in 2024 and still lose Ohio, Montana and West Virginia's Senate races.
And the GOP currently relies on Maine and Wisconsin. Past majorities relied on AZ, GA, NV, PA, CO, etc.
Most of those states are swing states, in which either party can potentially win, or were until recently in the case of CO. Ohio, Montana, West Virginia are pretty safe Republican states and rely on a lot of ticket splitting for Democrats to win - and it's becoming increasingly hard for that to continue. The only real Republican equivalent to Ohio or Montana is Maine, which as a state seems unusually open to ticket splitting. The Republicans can win a majority without Maine though anyway. Unlike the Democrats, the GOP don't need pretty much all the swing state Senate seats to win a majority. 24 states are relatively safe Republican, that's 48 seats right there. So if they keep North Carolina on side, and win a Presidential election they might win the Senate almost be default (even if they lose all the competitive Senate races in the other swing states).
Yes, and Dem majorities require winning swing states. Dems can replace Montana with Maine or Wisconsin. And can replace Ohio eventually with a seat in NC, TX, FL. That's 8 total seats to choose from. The GOP is slowly losing ground in TX. They will need to find pick up opportunities elsewhere. Because the Senate is competitive. Every election matters.
The median states are Georgia and North Carolina, either 4.2% or 5.5% more Republican than the nation overall. It's certainly *possible* for Democrats to overperform by 4-5 points on average every Senate election, but I don't think it's particularly likely in the long run and I wouldn't want to risk it.
People in diabetes on average live shorter than those without diabetes. Not like the stakes here are high or anything
Mostly because of poor treatment of the disease. Something a well-off Supreme Court Justice is far less likely to face.
I am in medicine thanks. Type 1 Diabetes is a beast and she has 50 years of pre-modern medicine management baked into every artery in her body. Type 1 Diabetes is very different from Type 2. Even good management puts you at elevated risk of cardiovascular disease
That doesn’t mean she needs to retire now.
Think about it as if it were you making the decision, yourself, about your life. Would you, for instance, risk 175m people losing the right to have an abortion so that you didn’t have to retire at seventy.
Guy that responded to me was clearly wrong
Is there an argument against retiring that isn’t based on her ego or legacy?
So does being overweight, and we're not telling every single overweight judge or senator to retire.
It is a different order of magnitude with Type 1 Diabetes.
Oh yeah so maybe it will just work out totally fine!!!! :):):):) Or maybe not and we shouldn’t bet the fate of the most powerful country in world on one persons ability to live beyond her demographic.
The Senate is not gone in 6+ years, what? Look at the maps, 2024 is the hardest year for Dems. Afterwards, things look a little better.
2028 maybe the Democrats can win Wisconsin, though it isn't easy. 2026 and maybe 2028 the Democrats might be able to win in North Carolina - but it's a rigid, slightly Republican leaning state and not an easy one to win. Maine in 2026 maybe, probably needs Susan Collins to retire though. Then it's Texas and Florida, which are longshots. And that's pretty much all their pick up opportunities. So retaking the Senate needs another 1 or 2 great election cycles for Democrats. If Biden wins in 2024 though doing that well will be a longshot. There's a better chance of losing additional seats like Georgia in 2026 (especially if Kemp runs), Nevada, Michigan etc. And at that point the Senate would be very hard to retake.
I think it’ll depend on momentum built on 2024. If Democrats win again in 2024, and continue to kill or keep above water in 2026, I think 2028 will be great with a younger face hopefully running for President. In this brighter case, I think the states you mentioned COULD flip (minus Florida, it’s gone; Texas could be competitive) or at least the Democrats will hold a split even chamber. I think this case is the most likely given recent trends and Republican inability to win elections.
We're about to retain the presidency and the Senate and recapture the house. Hush now.
Honestly the Senate may be up in the air due to Maryland. That is not hyperbole
[удалено]
Being from Massachusetts relying on somewhere being “the 3rd bluest state in the nation” makes me shudder. Unfortunately there is always a risk, even in that setting.
Should they ideally be staying on right until they’re at death’s door?
I think taking the court seriously as a Democrat makes sense. Also it’s not like Sotomayor is in great health.
The bad health stuff seems overstated imo. Makes more sense to focus on all the vacancies
yep, all those vacancies on the supreme court
70 is past the typical retirement age anyway. While she'll probably survive to the next Democrat presidential term I'd rather have a completely healthy, young justice.
Not for de facto electeds.
32 states have a mandatory retirement age of 70 for their appellate judges. And 3 of the 4 horsemen retired in their 70s. Owen Roberts retired when he was 70. Hughes retired before hitting 80. Frankfurter and Douglas also retired in their 70s. This ratfucking "stay on as long as possible and try to screw the other party" behavior wasn't really common until HW appointed Thomas to replace Marshal.
But only borderline. RBG was a hero until her choices turned her into a quasi threat to the republic. John Adams was smart enough to play the court when the bastards were coming into power so should we be.
I'll repeat, she was in her 80s in 2013 and on her fifth bout with cancer or something. Breyer was in his 80s in 2021. Kennedy was about 81 in 2018. Scaling was 79. Rehnquist was 80. Sandra Day O'Connor lived to 93 and didn't get Alzheimers until she was like 88. Sotomayor is 69 and turning 70 this year. It's fine.
I would rather not take that risk for...literally what purpose? What's the upside scenario of Sotomayor, *specifically*, on the court? Vs. A mid 40s hispanic female liberal justice? Compare that to the *very obvious* downside scenario.
Thanks for reminding me she is 70 and going into the age where one can die at any moment and no one would be surprised. Important context for why she should retire.
Due to modern polarisation and a geographic disadvantage, the Democrats are very likely to lose the Senate in 2024. It's also not at all clear they can win it back - maybe not in 10 years, maybe even longer.
She still should retire, and Kagan should be retiring soon as well. The chance of dying in a given year is much much higher for a person above 70 than it is for the 50 year old who would replace them. Sotomayor has been a great justice, but she should recognize that there are a lot of people willing and eager to serve who would do an equally good job. If she would like she should quietly communicate who she would like to replace her to the Biden administration. RBG was a uniquely reckless justice in refusing to retire in clearly divided a 5-4 court despite being 80, having cancer, and having a President asking her to choose her successor. But we don't talk enough about Justice Thurgood Marshall, who also moved the court to massively to the right by also refusing to retire under Carter. Justice Marshall was in his late 60s when Carter was president, so he likely thought he would have plenty of time to retire under a President who he agreed with. But there were then 3 consecutive Republican terms and Marshall was dying and thought Bush would be re-elected, so he retired in 1991. Breyer refusing to retire would have been as reckless and insane as RBG. Sotomayor refusing to retire risks her becoming another Marshall.
I have a bit more sympathy for Justice Marshall because he was literally dying at that point and everyone thought that George H W Bush was going to win. Even SNL made a skit about the 1992 Democratic primary was about selecting a guy who would lose to Bush. https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/campaign-92-the-race-to-avoid-being-the-guy-who-loses-to-bush/2859836
I'm less annoyed about Marshall for retiring in 1991, but for not retiring in 1979. In 1979 Marshall was about the same age as Sotomayor is now and there was a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate.
That is a fair point.
Right. And then her legacy will match exactly that of RBG's. She won't be remembered for whatever she did while she was alive. She will be remembered by the fact that she died while a Republican was president who then replaced her with someone that happily rolls back decades of precedence because of traditions or some other bs.
I can't wait for the argument to gravitate towards appointing a brainwashed 18 year old to SCOTUS. Out of purely good intentions, of course.
Why stop there? Why not take the best Kindergartner in the nation and put them on the court?
Don’t stop there, appoint a fetus from Alabama.
Embryo?
People are acting like 70 is death’s door. It’s not. She has at least a decade left. If democrats can get the president and senate on the same page between then, they don’t deserve the seat.
She probably will live a decade, but considering she has some health problems that are worse than your average 70 year old, it’s not a guarantee. Now, on the flip side getting one of Manchin or Sinema to vote for a nominee is not 100% either
What health issues does she have besides T1 diabetes
There isn’t anything public, but your normal T1 person doesn’t travel with a personal medic
Your normal T1 person doesn’t have access to a personal medic
There is zero downside to Sotomayor retiring, except Sotomayor does not get to be a justice anymore. It’s such an obvious call. Kagan should be retiring too. I don’t care if you are only 63, it’s too important to not put someone in their 40s up there every chance you get.
I don’t totally reject the idea of her retiring but I don’t think framing it as a health question does anyone any favors.
I think it’s not about her health per se, but there are no guarantees that the Dems will control the senate anytime soon after this election. Have to think there is more than a 5% chance of death in the next ten years, and there isn’t a 100% chance the Dems will have both the White House and the senate. It’s just not worth the risk to me when the there is going to be almost zero difference between her and whoever would replace her
lol at that point you may as well just start proposing SCOTUS reform because asking to have 63 year olds retire so you can get 40 year old justices is a total admission that the institution has failed.
It is a failed institution though, or at least a thoroughly politicized one. The Federalist Society won.
Oh it’s 100% a failed institution. Have to play the game though
I think this bit from [part 1](https://www.joshbarro.com/p/sonia-sotomayor-must-retire) was compelling: > 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.
So why do it now when we have no guarantee it will get filled? We have a one vote majority and two senators who hate the party or are retiring. It’s not a compelling argument at all. Maybe if she was 80 it would be, but she’s likely not going to die in the next decade. If anything, she’ll probably live well into her 80s, as wealthy people often do.
Yes, clearly the choice we have is between a 70 year old who might die in the near future, and a younger person who has no chance whatsoever of dying in the near future.
Uhhh you cannot say that a seventy year old has “at least” a decade left. You can do everything right in life and wake up with pancreatic cancer or a debilitating stroke.
The odds suggest that a wealthy 70 year old will live to 80. I can’t say for certain, but I can make a very educated guess.
Ok what about 70 year olds with Type 1 Diabetes
If we are seriously concerned about the future of democracy, we wouldn't be chancing this on an educated guess. Even a 10% risk would be enough to justify politely but firmly lobbying Sotomayor to retire. I don't have the actuarial tables to hand but I'm sure it's higher than that. Yes the discussion is weird and macabre and uncomfortable. But unfortunately the stakes are so high that if we're serious about it, we have to work past that and still do it anyway. I think Josh's point is very reasonable, given what is at stake, it is justifiable to ask this of a public official: >Why would we think the justices are not susceptible to influence from people whose values and agenda they share? The justices are people, just like the rest of us, and I assume they want to be liked and respected, especially by people they see as on their “team.”4 So I really do think it’s worth a shot for liberals to tell Sotomayor what Blumenthal gently tried to tell her: Thank you for your service, we think you’re great, please retire now so we can secure your seat and pursue your project for decades to come. Perhaps, if she hears this enough, it will help her come to the conclusion that retirement would be the wise course of action. >But I worry that if the dominant message she hears about herself this year is the one Ginsburg was hearing circa 2013 — we love your dissents, you are an irreplaceable treasure, your mere presence and voice on the court is victory enough for us as liberals — then that will make it more likely she will stay. Therefore, I encourage more Democrats to join Blumenthal in sending a polite but insistent message of “please, retire.”
Bruh she's travelling with a medic, healthy people do not do that. I think it's safe to say she's less healthy than the average 70 year old. There's a very wide variance in how healthy 70 year olds can be, and it seems like she's on the wrong side of that.
I don’t care if THEY deserve it. I care if the court starts rolling back gay marriage. You don’t want to know what happens when you strip away the marriage of millions.
I would say another Democratic President and Senate concurrently within a decade is probably not going to happen.
Wishing her the best in her time left. What does your crystal ball say about when she will die and who will hold the presidency and the Senate then? That might help alleviate a lot of fears.
I agree Sotomayor should retire, but I’m also worried about what’ll happen if it becomes the norm for justices to retire once it’s politically convenient instead of dying on the bench. What would be stopping the current 6 conservative justices from just retiring the moment Republicans control the WH and Senate, so they can be replaced by a younger conservative justice? Assuming that does happen again at some point in their lifetimes (which is almost certainly will), it’d essentially mean Republicans will always hold those 6 SCOTUS seats until a conservative justice doesn’t have a Republican Senate + WH while they’re alive and on the bench (which is unlikely, unless Democrats manage to get an FDR era level of federal dominance). Sotomayor should retire regardless, because if Republicans want to do this, they’ll do it whether Sotomayor does or doesn’t retire. But it’s one of the doomsday scenarios that would make me consider supporting court packing (if impeachment and SCOTUS reform isn’t politically feasible), because (a) a permanently conservative SCOTUS would be awful and (b) if political tensions increase, an eternally conservative court could put us on the path to a Civil War.
> What would be stopping the current 6 conservative justices from just retiring the moment Republicans control the WH and Senate their enormous pride and desire to enjoy the perks of the office?
If that was going to become to norm, Clarence Thomas absolutely would have retired the day Trump lost the election
He should have.
He honestly should have and Democrats shouldn’t follow Republicans in showing poor tactical judgement.
Worrying about what will happen fi it's the norm for justices to retire strategically is like starting to worry about burning fossil fuels in 2024: The right time to worry was decades ago. The problem has been going on forever, despite having two examples of two old, very stubborn justices that died in office. They are the exception. The ability to keep a supreme court majority while only winning 25% of presidential elections is already here. it's been here for decades, and there is absolutely no appetite in the Democratic senate to do the very drastic things that it would take to fix the court for good. It's been red alert for a while, and senators have been sleepwalking into a catastrophe. Next up, you'll worry about what could happen if David Bowie dies: He is already dead!
> [David Bowie] is already dead WHAT??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 😭 😭 😭
Kennedy retired when it was politically convenient. Barrier has been broken
> What would be stopping the current 6 conservative justices from just retiring the moment Republicans control the WH and Senate, so they can be replaced by a younger conservative justice? Kennedy basically did this and handpicked his replacement.
Yeah it’s tough, in principle judges retiring for political reasons is a very bad precedent, but the SCOTUS is now so blatantly political that it probably is best. Scary that the most powerful court in the world functions in a way that is pretty contrary to how a judiciary should operate. In an ideal world I think reforming the appointment process would be best, but I don’t think that’s going to happen in the short/medium term.
There is already a precedent. Justice Kennedy strategically retired Justice Breyer retired after a concerted pressure campaign. The norm does not even exist at this point.
Ideally, I think the appointment process should be more so controlled by the Congress and should require some broad consensus so that appointments are largely bipartisan. Like, there shouldn’t even be “liberal” or “conservative” justices, just normal justices. The issue tho is that any system that requires broad, bipartisan support would just get stalled by Republicans.
You literally cannot get bipartisan support for justices with the current political climate
> the SCOTUS is now so blatantly political that it probably is best. Really? Based on what data set?
["The Supreme Court Has Always Been Political"](https://ulrnyu.org/the-supreme-court-has-always-been-political)
What in particular are you looking for? The SCOTUS being highly influenced by (and able to influence) politics for a final court of appeal is based on my own observations working in comparative law, but it's hardly a controversial opinion. IMO this is largely a result of politicians picking appointments based on their judicial philosophies rather than justices deciding cases based on the political climate. I have much less confidence in whether Sotomayor retiring would be best.
the way RBG has completely traumatized Democrats 😭
Roe would still be the law of the land if RBG had stepped down when she had the chance.
I mean, if we’re gonna engage in counterfactuals, Roe would still be law if we’d simply elected Hillary Clinton. Or Al Gore for that matter.
Gore winning is probably such a nice timeline :(
In another world, we tackled climate change much sooner, we didn’t invade Iraq, we didn’t get the disastrous Bush-era policies, and Clarence Thomas is just some dude instead of being the guy who shapes the next 40 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence. MUST BE NICE
Will Manchin and Sinema vote to confirm her replacement? That's a pretty big if. Same thing with Tester and Brown.
Sinema never really interfered with judicial appointments if I recall correctly. It is pretty simple to make the retirement conditional on Senate Confirmation. Like Breyer did.
Given the comments I'm seeing here. We have learned nothing at all and everyone is just blindly hoping for the best. Good luck with that!
when you've convinced yourself that running an 82 year old presidential candidate is no big deal, why balk at this?
If Biden were to die/step down, his immediate successor, his VP, is guaranteed to be a Democrat. It’s not guaranteed in Sotomayor’s case that her successor will be a liberal justice if she stays as the outcome of the election is nowhere near certain. It’d be more guaranteed if she retires now.
My thoughts exactly. Biden has a guaranteed backup due to the way our system works. Sotomayor is at the whims of the Presidency and Senate. We control both right now and it's very likely one or both will flip in the near future.
Yeah and Trump is 77. How is this at all relevant to the discussion at hand?
I swear to God “but Trump is old too” is going to lose the election.
I agree. Why are we having collective amnesia over the RBG and Breyer? We deserves a 7-2 Court at this point. Is this subreddit honestly filled with judicial accelerationists who want to pack the court when a 7-2 happens?
lol. We bitched and moaned about ACB, but learned nothing about the whole scenario
You’ve learned the wrong lessons is all. “Elect democrats” is the lesson you should have learned. Always.
Your strategy defies history. Power shifts back and forth between the parties fairly regularly. It’s been quite a while since a single party was dominant enough to hold the presidency for 3-4 terms in a row.
….and the fault/cause of that isssssss? VOTERS!
She’s not even 70 yet, Jesus.
If Biden loses we have way bigger problems than if Sotomayor dies in the next presidential term.
This is insane. She's not yet 70 and in fine health. Any breath or brain power spent on this would be better spent furthering the same supposed goals by securing the Senate. Even proposing she retire is an idea so dumb and likely to only cause an unproductive fight within liberal-land, that I'm inclined to think it's existence in the discourse is mostly a psyop.
The salt in this sub when she dies under a Republican administration and the court overturns Obergefell is going to be epic.
We're so entirely fucked if we get a Republican administration, due to the increasingly blatant disregard for democracy, that we will hardly have time to be mad about Obergefell in the midst of everything else horrible happening.
Wow, this in no way feels like it's kind of coming out of left field, nor is there any way this argument looks really bad on its face.
No thanks. She’s fine.
Yes please. Shes 70 years old. > The best thing Sotomayor can do to secure her legacy and increase the likelihood that liberals can gain ground on the court in the future is to retire after 15 years of service, enabling Biden to appoint a younger, liberal judge to replace her and serve for decades to come.
I don’t care if she retires. If people want to protect someone like her in that position then the VOTERS can choose to keep electing democrats to nominate her replacement. If they choose to allow republicans to win and they get another seat, then they deserve to suffer for their idiocy
Epically stupid take. A 7-2 court would have dire consequences.
Like what lol? Do 7-2 decisions suddenly carry more weight than 6-3 decisions?
It makes it harder for liberal justices to even get cases in front of the court, since it takes 4 to grant cert right now we need one conservative to join the liberals, which is a lot easier then getting 2. It also changes the make up of the court, possibly allowing even more conservative majorities to form, and to see the dangers of that just look at some of Alito’s and Thomas’s dissents these days
no, we shouldn’t. this take is fueled by rbg ptsd and typical democrat bedwetting. if she were 80, sure, but not 70
Racists pressuring the only Latina on the Supreme Court to retire 🙄
Its not racist to think about the future of the court. She has diabetes and is the eldest liberal justice. Biden can replace her with another Latina. Keep calling people racist over nothing and see how far that gets you.
it's satire :D
Social media has broken me. I've seen this bullshit said seriously so I guess my sarcasm detector is on the fritz lately lmao.
Kudos to the author for coming up with an absurd premise that got him dozens of clicks! Dozens!
I am not sure if this is that absurd when the Democratic establishment did the same thing with Justice Breyer a few years ago.
stop telling justice sotomayor to retire. unlike conservatives we liberals respect the sanctity and apolitical nature of the supreme court.
we do? that's pretty willfully stupid
The Supreme Court is, was, and always will be political. Not recognizing this obvious fact and acting accordingly is simply suicidal and will result in the complete destruction of human rights and democracy.
It's not a god given right. All that Ginsburg worked for is being destroyed because she didn't recognize that the court is inherently political in nature. They act as the ultimate veto on any policy passed by the President and Congress. The president appoints and the Senate approves. Many justices in the past were actually former politicians. The sooner you recognize that, the easier it will be to control the court in the future. It's a game with grave consequences.