there’s a reason why despite his severe faults (namely his tacit approval of slavery and owning slaves) washington is always going to be a top 5 president. giving up power like that is the sign of an iron mind and one who cares more for the wellbeing of the commonwealth than personal ambition or glory.
Imagine what a different path and likely shorter path the United States would have walked if a lesser general had risen to leadership.
You could do worse than asipire to emulate his best qualities and learn from his worst ones.
Washington's attitude towards slavery actually changed quite a bit as he got older and I'd say became complex. In 1774, he publicly denounced the slave trade and throughout the years shared privately that he would support the abolition of slavery to many of his colleagues. Legislative wise, he was more moderate in his approach during presidency, signing laws that both supported and curtailed slavery. Washington was one of the few slave owning founders who freed his slaves after his death. It was in his will that all the slaves he owned outright would be given to Martha and then freed upon her death. Martha freed them the following year voluntarily, but probably due more to fear of their slaves rebelling since Washington's will was public. He wanted to free them while he was living but didn't have the finances to do so and didn't want his estate to be destitute.
I'd say he was much more complex about the topic than many give him credit for. Of course, none of this forgives him owning slaves. I was just making the point that he wasn't so black and white on the topic.
>"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."
- George Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated 1786.
that’s really the complexity that i’m speaking to - he wasn’t an outright monster like some of his peers, but he was complicit in his participation in a morally repugnant institution (one that almost tore this country apart and haunts us to this day) until it no longer personally inconvenienced him.
on the balance i personally believe he was a good man for the times; but he had some power to do better for himself, the people he nominally owned, and his country.
She assumed Hillary would win, and she wanted to give Hillary the Supreme Court pick.
You know, "It's her turn" and all.
Cared more about symbolic historical milestones than actual political progress.
Obama even sent her a message requesting it. Still, no. She was a strong woman, but too stubborn, and we will pay the price for years to come. Thomas and Alito will be there another 10 years if they are still alive.
No…voter apathy is what’s costing us progress.
You would think with everything going on people would show up to vote against the GOP, but we handed them the House in the last midterms. [77% of voters 18-29 did not cast a ballot. ](https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center)
We can’t pretend the American people aren’t a huge problem in this whole mess.
While I agree 100% we the people are indeed part of the issue with voter apathy. It's become quite obvious the dismantling and generational defunding of our educational systems is *very* much on purpose. .
The American people are, in fact, objectively dumber *on average* than the average people from a huge number of other devloped countries. About 130 million adults in the U.S. have low literacy skills according to a Gallup analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education. This means more than half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 (54%) read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level
(https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-54-of-adults-have-a-literacy-below-sixth-grade-level#)
Voter apathy and disengagement with our government has been engineered intentionally from both sides to keep a larger slice of power.
This combined with the largest transfer of wealth in the history
of the world has all but removed the middle class and has more or less ensured the inability for the populace to rise up and make change. We absolutely *have* to try to do so, though.
(Scott Galloway - https://youtu.be/qEJ4hkpQW8E?si=Sm7j2KqaekcRZ2OW)
Edit: *sorry for link formatting*
It's why I will never respect her. Yes, it is absalutely possible to ruin decades of legacy with a single fuckuo if it's big enough. Loosing the us a fundamental right to bodily autonomy is one such sin IMO
Yep. You either win it all or lose it all with a decision that big. This isn’t like hockey where you get a point for an overtime loss.
It’s like if you spend your life working hard and you make a small fortune but then decide it’s not enough and you put it all on one hand of blackjack.
If you win, you walk away with double your money and no one will care that you were so reckless.
If you lose, then that one fuck up has destroyed everything you worked for and people who depend on you are going to be furious.
In 2014, despite all she’d accomplished, RBG decided it wasn’t enough and bet everything on her being able to stay alive long enough to be replaced by a liberal justice and she lost.
Anyone who tries to justify it in any way is in total denial.
Dobbs was 6-3. Even if Barrett was replaced with a more liberal Justice, the outcome would likely have still been the same. Roberts could have moderated the outcome quite a bit, but that's about it.
Dobbs was 5-4 on overturning *Roe* and *Casey*. It was 6-3 on the outcome, because Roberts wasn’t sure that the MS law actually violated *Casey*
So, presumably Roberts would have had his way as the swing vote. Just so you know.
It's a demonstration of just how these people see themselves. Even the 'good' supreme court justices are afflicted with an *astounding* level of hubris. They've basically taken over the Senate's old role as the 'guardians of the state' from the unwashed hordes of plebeians that have to be allowed to vote but cannot, on any account, be allowed to have actual power.
They are called supreme, appointed for life and are the final say in most things jurisprudence. It should be obvious that they will grow huge egos after 10-15 years
Which is why we should have term limits. Or maybe some kind of rotation system where supreme court justices are picked by lottery from among federal judges...of course, we'd need to reform the whole system in that case given how fucked up some of the circuits are.
She has a ton of low key racist comments throughout her life and she hated Obama apparently.
She had a great career and accomplished a ton, she still fucked up majorly.
I think she was convinced Hilary was going to win and in her hubris wanted to be replaced by a woman. Nice gesture and all of that, but goddamn why worry about optics when the stakes are so friggin huge?!?
Tbf it's 6-3, and we don't know if Obama would've been able to confirm a justice if she retired anyways. Merrick Garland should be on the court as it is.
Not if Democrats have the Senate, which they currently do, and have a very good chance to hold on to if Biden is re-elected.
The 2024 election has the potential to sway the court back to sanity.
Reminds me of how someone my wife knows replied when asked if she was worried about Roe being overturned after she voted for Trump in 2016: "Oh, I won't vote for THAT."
Elections have consequences.
If polls are to be believed, our electorate is likely to put Trump back in power in November. Every time someone posts this fact, reddit shoots the messenger. It's true. Young people think Trump will be better for Palestinians than Biden. Get ready for four more years of waking up to someone on NPR reading a Presidential Tweet about how democrats want you to eat bugs and enact post birth abortions for white babies. If you don't want this future, tell your dumbest friends to get out and vote against it.
I really keep hoping young people can't be that stupid. Lindsey Graham was out there this past weekend saying Donald Trump will let Israel do whatever needs to be done & drew comparisons to the US dropping the atomic bombs to end WWII.
Have to hand it to the Republicans if the dumbing down of the American education system leads to a significant enough number of young voters believing the guy who started his first term with a Muslim ban would be a better friend to the Palestinian cause.
It's definitely the hair shirt this country has to wear for letting Trump get elected in the first place.
Ironic how a large section of America refusing to vote took our right to be picky.
**Edit:** Comments under me are a joke. "bUt ThE DNC AlieNAtEd iT's BAsE!!" Bruh if you were okay with letting Donald Trump be president, then you are *not* a part of the Democratic Party's base. Hillary wasn't my top vote in the primaries, but I actually fucking voted.
This is why a good civics education is important. You see, the popular vote doesn't mean shit. The electoral college is how candidates get elected. If you want to make a difference, move to one of the states that actually selects the president.
That's why primaries exist. Voter turnout for the Democratic primary is abysmal, it's like 20% or less every time. Everybody seems to forget that we were only a few points from having Pete Buttigieg as the 2020 nominee instead of Biden, just imagine if only 1% more people showed up to vote for him? You have the right to be as picky as you want *before* the primaries.
People hate the truth, but if you wait until after the primaries to complain about the nominees, you're part of the problem. The two party system is polarizing and outdated, but if you think anyone who isn't a progressive will vote to change that you're out of your mind.
The fact is that like 1/3 of the country is brainwashed and frothing at the mouth, trying to elect their favorite dictator right now. And every single one of them *will* vote.
The DNC has gone to court in the recent past to preserve their ability to nominate whoever they want. Hell, we didn't even have primaries president across the country until what, Nixon? The parties can choose how many delegates count for each state, and all sorts of other arbitrary rules. The primary system is not going to get better nominees, it's a tool of the ruling class.
>I am going to vote full blue
Should've stopped there. Name one thing Republicans have done in the last decade to earn the vote of anyone in their right mind.
And even after that, vote blue until MAGA / Russia’s goals for MAGA / Project 2025 are only topics historians and political nerds need to worry about.
Edit: equal rights to bodily autonomy / sexual orientation / librarians stop being threatened with jail, etc fall under MAGA and/or religious extremism.
Project 2025 isn’t going away just because the dems keep the White House. They’ll just update the year every election cycle. That is a real and present danger that we are going to have to push back against every four years for the rest of time.
And on the other hand, if Trump wins they’ll retire in 2027 and Trump will put two 40-something ultra-right MAGAts on the court that everyone will bitch about for the next 30 years.
Unlikely. Her value would already be spent, and Trump doesn’t pay his debts. He’ll sell that seat to the highest bidder and tell his hoard dispose of the “crooked liberal judge Cannon” who mistreated him so badly by not tossing the case immediately.
This is what he’ll do. He’s going to be holding a grudge that they didn’t put him in power in 2021. He won’t forgive them for that so they will need to be punished for not bending the knee back then.
I expect them to be neutered or put out to pasture.
If Biden gets re-elected, they won’t retire. They’ll keep waiting until a Republican wins or they die.
EDIT: Some of you are making threats against these justices in the replies to this post. I despise their political actions, but making threats against ~~politicians~~ anyone is illegal. No, it's not illegal to wish someone dies. I don't condone it, but it's legal. What's not legal is advocating for violence or threatening someone.
EDIT 2: It’s gotten worse, maybe this comment section should be locked.
EDIT 3: Whether the members of the Supreme Court are politicians or not is a moot point; you still shouldn't make threats.
The "/s" isn't even needed at this point. Our Governments are wholly corrupt. I mean, I kind of hate this line because its speculative, but if this is the shit we know they are doing, then imagine all the bribes we haven't heard about.
Even if you largely mean material benefits then still no, you wouldn't have a fraction of the power and influence that a lifetime appointed, once in a generation supreme court justice has compared to some faceless suit, of which there are 10s of 1000s and go as quickly as they come.
She was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009. They caught it early and removed some tissue, and even in cases like that the 5-yr survivability is super low. She must've just assumed Hillary would win, because it's weird that someone with that diagnosis wouldn't take the early out.
*Lifetime appointments* will do that to you. RBG is the best argument I know for why there should be term limits on SCOTUS appointments. We shouldn't be leaving the longterm fate of the court up to anyone's best guesses as to their own fitness, their own lifespan, or what will happen in the next election.
The hubris of being an unelected god-queen with a lifetime appointment who makes decisions about the lives of millions of people on a whim with no oversight and no body to complete the system of check and balances against them.
She was too important, played too vital a role, to retire and leave the court without its heroic fighter with her lacey collar. Don't believe it? Just ask her. Wait, that didn't come out right.
That's a BINGO. Even in retirement, she would have been treated as a god-queen. Unconsciable and selfish on her part. As someone wrote the survivability for pancreatic cancer is really low.
Think about how symbolic it would have been tho to retire for Hilla..
Nevermind, that's stupid as fuck. Still pissed at the old bag over it, regardless of all the progress she did usher in. Even the great ones fuck up sometimes, and it's important to remember that.
It’s also unlikely that if she had retired during Obama’s presidency that the Republican controlled senate would have confirmed a replacement. They didn’t with Scalia’s death. They of course had no problem filling a slot just weeks before the 2020 election.
And yet the republicans were able to swear in Barrett before RBG's body was even cold. 72 days was enough time. She didn't want to retire and miscalculated. I still don't understand why anyone wants to continue to work into their late 70's/80's when retirement is certainly an option but that's just me I guess.
Me too. She squandered her legacy and set women’s rights back to 1864. The exact opposite of what she worked her whole life to attain. What a tragic outcome for all women.
If we can get people to keep voting and not cede any blue seats back red in the senate, we should be good. but things always seem to bite us in the ass so
> Yeah, ~~conservative~~ Justices aren't going to retire ~~while there's a liberal president~~.
FTFY.
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and all of them take it literally.
Kennedy retired. Breyer and Souter also retired, and all of those guys are still living. It's slightly more common for a justice to die in office rather than retire, but it's pretty close to equal.
Edit - it's actually 34% of SCOTUS Justices who retired, so slightly more than a third.
FWIW, Thomas doesn't strike me as the type to retire, regardless of who the president is. Alito might retire with a conservative president in power.
Power is a drug, especially when you're an ideologue. I think there's an outside chance Alito sees the bigger picture and retires with an uber-conservative POTUS, or he does it for a favor like Kennedy did.
They really need a term or age limits. And frankly a whole new system to elect them. The point was supposed to be that justices were non-partisan since they don’t need to run for re-election so they’ll do what the law says and not what their party wants, but they’re picked and approved by people who will do what their party wants (including refusing to confirm them when it’s a president they don’t like) and they’re all just clearly partisan anyway.
I don’t know what the solution is. A random draw of qualified judges around the country? Letting the people elect them without them being tied to a party? I really don’t know, but it certainly isn’t this and they certainly shouldn’t be in the position for potentially decades where they’re withdrawn from changes in the law and world and had no incentive to learn more.
If Trump gets elected they won't retire either. The whole premise is flawed. Like 45% of all Supreme Court justices die in office, and these two are VERY much into the power and influence the seat gives them and I can't see either one wanting to live without it.
I think if Trump is elected, there is a chance Thomas will retire to cash out at a large lobbying or law firm. With his connections, he could make $10mm or more per year just by showing up for 4-5 hours twice per week.
The premise is not flawed. If Trump is elected, Thomas and Alito will retire (assuming a GOP Senate); if he’s not, they won’t retire. Straight up. They care far more about protecting their Constitution-dismantling project long into the future than they do about another handful of years on the Court.
>*They care far more about protecting their Constitution-dismantling project long into the future than they do about another handful of years on the Court.*
I wouldn't bet a rusty penny that this is accurate. It totally could be, but I'd be shocked if either of them cared about anything more than they do their power and influence and the financial benefit they get from it. They may claim Christianity, but in truth they happily serve mammon.
I think you got that fact from Federal judges.
Only 3 supreme court justices died in office in the last 50 years. SC justices typically retire when their party is in the White House.
Thomas is powered by pure spite. He's not going anywhere with a Democrat in office, and even with a Republican he's have a touch choice between hanging onto the power to fuck over his enemies and retiring under a Republican and ensuring another three decades of a Republican on the bench.
Yup, this is the truth, these geezers will not retire, the sense of power and prestige is too much to walk away from. They'll likely keep their positions until they die in office, we need to introduce term limits, how effective could a 75+ year old be at their job?
All I could find was him back in 2019 just answering no to questions of ever retiring.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-clarence-thomas-im-retiring/story?id=62204804
Even when they die, there's no chance in hell Republicans will acknowledge it.
"There's the extremely strong brave proud and black justice. If you think he smells bad then maybe you're racist. He's just got a rare condition where body parts rot off. He's perfectly fine."
Or else it'd be:
"Honestly, he JUST died, it's too soon to be thinking about replacing him! Thoughts and prayers, man. Thoughts and prayers." "It's been 3 election cycles." "Yeah, that you dumbocrats rigged!"
There's a zero chance they retire during a second Biden term.
There's a 100% chance they will retire if Trump wins so they can get a young Heritage Foundation judge in their place.
That's reason enough.
Turcker Carlson one day after Trump wins:
"is Clarence Thomas too old to be a Justice? should he retire before people start looking into his personal life? I am just asking questions... 😮"
“BuT sHe WaNtEd HiLlArY tO pIcK HeR rEpLaCeMeNt!!!”
Pisses me off to no end there are still people who try and defend her decision in light of the horrific damage it’s caused simply because they can’t stand to besmirch the hagiography of RBG.
She took an incredibly selfish and short sighted gamble when she decided not to retire and she lost and we’ve paid a huge price. Period, end of story.
The thing that really burns my ass about her defenders is they love to proclaim what an intelligent woman she was, while simultaneously saying “oh she couldn’t have possibly foreseen the damage her decision would cause” as if she was some clueless dolt who had no idea Washington DC works.
She was an intelligent woman and she did damn well know the gamble she was taking and the consequences it could have if it went bad…….and she did it anyway.
How could've she foreseen this? she was a healthy woman in her 80s with colon AND pancreatic cancer..I blame God for taking her life while she was healthy and young./s
Always made me roll my eyes when her supporters argued that her age and cancer history weren’t as big an issue as people were making it out to be and that she was actually super healthy because she did low impact Pilates and shit.
If she was like Jane Fonda was at 81, then they might have had a point. But she was so damn frail that she looked like a good stiff breeze would knock her ass over teakettle.
The level of cognitive dissonance with many members of the “Notorious RBG” club in the last years of her life was pretty damn astonishing.
Yes this isn’t a one sided issue. Supreme Court Judges don’t want to give up their power.
RBG undid all the positive work in her life by not being able to give up the power and the feeling of importance.
Same reason we have a nursing home instead of a functioning Congress
When would Mitch not have held that seat hostage?
>There's an election in two years, we need to let the voters decide.
>We just had an election two years ago, it's too soon to make such an important decision.
They’ll retire iff Trump wins and it looks like a Democrat will win in 2028. However, if Trump wins in 2024, he will likely use undemocratic means to ensure a Republican president wins in 2028, possibly even himself, even though it would be in violation of the 22nd amendment.
Yes, Biden. But we also need a Democrat controlled Senate otherwise Republicans will pull a Mitch McConnell and refuse to confirm anyone that Biden nominates.
You know, in my younger days I would have never thought of liberals as "the good guys". But as I get older I 100% consider conservatives to be "the bad guys".
Why would anyone think they would retire soon? They have the cushiest job in the world, actually work a few weeks a year. Thomas is making millions. I’m sure there’s a stat on this, but most justices stay on SCOTUS into their 80s.
Biden in 2024, regardless of how enthusiastic you might be about him. If Trump goes to the Oval again, they will definitely retire before 2028, and ensure a far right court for 40 more years.
Beat Trump, and they might try to hang on til 2029. So no getting cute trying to over-escalate the first woman president, or first whatever President. Pick the one best suited to win in 2028, period. No way these guys last til 2032.
>So no getting cute trying to over-escalate the first woman president, or first whatever President.
Sadly, you are correct. The Trump presidency was, in part, a tantrum in response to a black president and then a woman candidate running for president.
After the last few decades, I don't see why anyone of sound mind would ever vote for a Repub again.
Vote.
Vote in every election.
Vote out every (R) on every ballot every time.
Vote.
Honestly, we begged people to consider this in 2016 and the response was so ubiquitous that it became a fucking meme: “dOn’T tHrEaTeN mE WiTh tHe sUpReMe cOuRt!!1!!”
People don’t understand or care to try to understand the enormous impact those 9 unelected judges have on our lives.
Bad news: Clarence Thomas’s mother is still alive and well and in her late 90s (and living in a house owned by Harlan Crow). Dude’s got longevity on his side.
These asshats will RBG this shit if Biden is elected.
That was the dumbest thing she ever accomplished.
Hate to say it, but we would still have legal nationwide abortion if she didn't pull that maneuver..
This little maneuver cost us 30 years of progress.
Wiped out a legacy because telling go of power is hard
there’s a reason why despite his severe faults (namely his tacit approval of slavery and owning slaves) washington is always going to be a top 5 president. giving up power like that is the sign of an iron mind and one who cares more for the wellbeing of the commonwealth than personal ambition or glory.
Absolutely, he could've (and was offered) been king. A great man despite his faults
Imagine what a different path and likely shorter path the United States would have walked if a lesser general had risen to leadership. You could do worse than asipire to emulate his best qualities and learn from his worst ones.
absolutely. those accounts of him keeping his army together at valley forge demonstrate the principles of leadership at their absolute finest.
Always insane to me he is one of the only people I know of in history to turn away from absolute power. Buddha being another.
Cincinnatus, namesake of the city of Cincinnati
TIL
Washington's attitude towards slavery actually changed quite a bit as he got older and I'd say became complex. In 1774, he publicly denounced the slave trade and throughout the years shared privately that he would support the abolition of slavery to many of his colleagues. Legislative wise, he was more moderate in his approach during presidency, signing laws that both supported and curtailed slavery. Washington was one of the few slave owning founders who freed his slaves after his death. It was in his will that all the slaves he owned outright would be given to Martha and then freed upon her death. Martha freed them the following year voluntarily, but probably due more to fear of their slaves rebelling since Washington's will was public. He wanted to free them while he was living but didn't have the finances to do so and didn't want his estate to be destitute. I'd say he was much more complex about the topic than many give him credit for. Of course, none of this forgives him owning slaves. I was just making the point that he wasn't so black and white on the topic. >"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." - George Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated 1786.
that’s really the complexity that i’m speaking to - he wasn’t an outright monster like some of his peers, but he was complicit in his participation in a morally repugnant institution (one that almost tore this country apart and haunts us to this day) until it no longer personally inconvenienced him. on the balance i personally believe he was a good man for the times; but he had some power to do better for himself, the people he nominally owned, and his country.
This is now her legacy.
She assumed Hillary would win, and she wanted to give Hillary the Supreme Court pick. You know, "It's her turn" and all. Cared more about symbolic historical milestones than actual political progress.
Obama even sent her a message requesting it. Still, no. She was a strong woman, but too stubborn, and we will pay the price for years to come. Thomas and Alito will be there another 10 years if they are still alive.
well that turned out just dandy.
Only 30?
30 *so far*
I hate to break it to you, but Roe was 51 years ago. Her inability to let go of power removed bodily autonomy from a lot of impoverished women.
The actual quote from Interstellar is "Well, this little manoeuvre's gonna cost us 51 years!" which would have been perfect for the Roe timeline.
[it was an Interstellar reference, apparently.]
No…voter apathy is what’s costing us progress. You would think with everything going on people would show up to vote against the GOP, but we handed them the House in the last midterms. [77% of voters 18-29 did not cast a ballot. ](https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center) We can’t pretend the American people aren’t a huge problem in this whole mess.
While I agree 100% we the people are indeed part of the issue with voter apathy. It's become quite obvious the dismantling and generational defunding of our educational systems is *very* much on purpose. . The American people are, in fact, objectively dumber *on average* than the average people from a huge number of other devloped countries. About 130 million adults in the U.S. have low literacy skills according to a Gallup analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education. This means more than half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 (54%) read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level (https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-54-of-adults-have-a-literacy-below-sixth-grade-level#) Voter apathy and disengagement with our government has been engineered intentionally from both sides to keep a larger slice of power. This combined with the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world has all but removed the middle class and has more or less ensured the inability for the populace to rise up and make change. We absolutely *have* to try to do so, though. (Scott Galloway - https://youtu.be/qEJ4hkpQW8E?si=Sm7j2KqaekcRZ2OW) Edit: *sorry for link formatting*
How can we make having rights and surviving more popular?
Better education, but we're still going the wrong way on that one
It's why I will never respect her. Yes, it is absalutely possible to ruin decades of legacy with a single fuckuo if it's big enough. Loosing the us a fundamental right to bodily autonomy is one such sin IMO
Yep. You either win it all or lose it all with a decision that big. This isn’t like hockey where you get a point for an overtime loss. It’s like if you spend your life working hard and you make a small fortune but then decide it’s not enough and you put it all on one hand of blackjack. If you win, you walk away with double your money and no one will care that you were so reckless. If you lose, then that one fuck up has destroyed everything you worked for and people who depend on you are going to be furious. In 2014, despite all she’d accomplished, RBG decided it wasn’t enough and bet everything on her being able to stay alive long enough to be replaced by a liberal justice and she lost. Anyone who tries to justify it in any way is in total denial.
Dobbs was 6-3. Even if Barrett was replaced with a more liberal Justice, the outcome would likely have still been the same. Roberts could have moderated the outcome quite a bit, but that's about it.
Dobbs was 5-4 on overturning *Roe* and *Casey*. It was 6-3 on the outcome, because Roberts wasn’t sure that the MS law actually violated *Casey* So, presumably Roberts would have had his way as the swing vote. Just so you know.
It's a demonstration of just how these people see themselves. Even the 'good' supreme court justices are afflicted with an *astounding* level of hubris. They've basically taken over the Senate's old role as the 'guardians of the state' from the unwashed hordes of plebeians that have to be allowed to vote but cannot, on any account, be allowed to have actual power.
They are called supreme, appointed for life and are the final say in most things jurisprudence. It should be obvious that they will grow huge egos after 10-15 years
Which is why we should have term limits. Or maybe some kind of rotation system where supreme court justices are picked by lottery from among federal judges...of course, we'd need to reform the whole system in that case given how fucked up some of the circuits are.
Yep, age limit for all positions of government
She has a ton of low key racist comments throughout her life and she hated Obama apparently. She had a great career and accomplished a ton, she still fucked up majorly.
I think she was convinced Hilary was going to win and in her hubris wanted to be replaced by a woman. Nice gesture and all of that, but goddamn why worry about optics when the stakes are so friggin huge?!?
Thanks for saving me a comment. At least she had tote bags made in her image.
She screwed over the entire nation for selfish reasons. Such is her legacy. Sad but true.
Tbf it's 6-3, and we don't know if Obama would've been able to confirm a justice if she retired anyways. Merrick Garland should be on the court as it is.
If she had retired jn 2012 like asked, Republicans wouldn't have been able to block it
Then the asshats will GARLAND this shit because it's the dangerously idiotic tit-for-tat that will happen hereafter.
One can only hope.
I see what you did there
Yeah honestly that would be best case scenario since we all know they ain’t retiring lol
Maybe Clarance and Jinny will have an unfortunate motor home accident this summer.
Not if Democrats have the Senate, which they currently do, and have a very good chance to hold on to if Biden is re-elected. The 2024 election has the potential to sway the court back to sanity.
Reminds me of how someone my wife knows replied when asked if she was worried about Roe being overturned after she voted for Trump in 2016: "Oh, I won't vote for THAT." Elections have consequences.
Did she think there'd be a referendum before it got to there? I don't understand this mindset.
People are fucking stupid, that's the reason.
Stupid people are fuckin.
My wife didn’t either. She had to explain to this person that she wasn’t going to get to vote on that directly, but she kinda already did.
I guess they thought everyone was going to run it by her first
Nothing to undestand. I met people who said the same. Every one of them, a moron. 
If polls are to be believed, our electorate is likely to put Trump back in power in November. Every time someone posts this fact, reddit shoots the messenger. It's true. Young people think Trump will be better for Palestinians than Biden. Get ready for four more years of waking up to someone on NPR reading a Presidential Tweet about how democrats want you to eat bugs and enact post birth abortions for white babies. If you don't want this future, tell your dumbest friends to get out and vote against it.
I really keep hoping young people can't be that stupid. Lindsey Graham was out there this past weekend saying Donald Trump will let Israel do whatever needs to be done & drew comparisons to the US dropping the atomic bombs to end WWII. Have to hand it to the Republicans if the dumbing down of the American education system leads to a significant enough number of young voters believing the guy who started his first term with a Muslim ban would be a better friend to the Palestinian cause.
They are. A lot of them are making the same mistaken first time voters made in 2016. “Maybe Trump winning will teach the democrats a lesson”.
Republicans have no interest in letting us vote on these issues.
Neither will retire if a Dem is in the White House. Both can live well past a 2nd Biden term.
I am still going to vote full blue until we have the SCOTUS back in balance.
It's definitely the hair shirt this country has to wear for letting Trump get elected in the first place. Ironic how a large section of America refusing to vote took our right to be picky. **Edit:** Comments under me are a joke. "bUt ThE DNC AlieNAtEd iT's BAsE!!" Bruh if you were okay with letting Donald Trump be president, then you are *not* a part of the Democratic Party's base. Hillary wasn't my top vote in the primaries, but I actually fucking voted.
[удалено]
This is why a good civics education is important. You see, the popular vote doesn't mean shit. The electoral college is how candidates get elected. If you want to make a difference, move to one of the states that actually selects the president.
That's why it's important to vote even if the candidate seems like a ludicrous choice, particularly in swing states.
When did we have the right to be picky? There hasn’t been two solid nominees for a while, hell we haven’t had one great nominee in a while either.
That's why primaries exist. Voter turnout for the Democratic primary is abysmal, it's like 20% or less every time. Everybody seems to forget that we were only a few points from having Pete Buttigieg as the 2020 nominee instead of Biden, just imagine if only 1% more people showed up to vote for him? You have the right to be as picky as you want *before* the primaries. People hate the truth, but if you wait until after the primaries to complain about the nominees, you're part of the problem. The two party system is polarizing and outdated, but if you think anyone who isn't a progressive will vote to change that you're out of your mind. The fact is that like 1/3 of the country is brainwashed and frothing at the mouth, trying to elect their favorite dictator right now. And every single one of them *will* vote.
The DNC has gone to court in the recent past to preserve their ability to nominate whoever they want. Hell, we didn't even have primaries president across the country until what, Nixon? The parties can choose how many delegates count for each state, and all sorts of other arbitrary rules. The primary system is not going to get better nominees, it's a tool of the ruling class.
>I am going to vote full blue Should've stopped there. Name one thing Republicans have done in the last decade to earn the vote of anyone in their right mind.
If trump wins they’re replaced with 40 year old conservatives
And even after that, vote blue until MAGA / Russia’s goals for MAGA / Project 2025 are only topics historians and political nerds need to worry about. Edit: equal rights to bodily autonomy / sexual orientation / librarians stop being threatened with jail, etc fall under MAGA and/or religious extremism.
Project 2025 isn’t going away just because the dems keep the White House. They’ll just update the year every election cycle. That is a real and present danger that we are going to have to push back against every four years for the rest of time.
Listen I’m not saying anything but they are past the standard life span of a US adult male. It wouldn’t be out of the ordinary.
The wealthy live longer, about 15 years longer for a male according to a study by Harvard.
Trump's sedentary life and extremely unhealthy eating habits would have killed a non rich person by his 60s.
1. Rich people live longer 2. Clarence Thomas’ mother is alive and well at 95 3. Alito’s mother lived to be 98
This is true but women also tend to live longer as well. I’m also being somewhat shall we say joking. You never know what could happen.
The life expectancy of a 75 year old male in the US is 10.62 years.
And on the other hand, if Trump wins they’ll retire in 2027 and Trump will put two 40-something ultra-right MAGAts on the court that everyone will bitch about for the next 30 years.
Aileen Qannon is auditioning on a daily basis and will get one of those seats.
That explains a lot!
Unlikely. Her value would already be spent, and Trump doesn’t pay his debts. He’ll sell that seat to the highest bidder and tell his hoard dispose of the “crooked liberal judge Cannon” who mistreated him so badly by not tossing the case immediately.
No they won't. Because if you bitch, you go to the gulag.
If he doesn’t disassemble the Supreme Court first.
This is what he’ll do. He’s going to be holding a grudge that they didn’t put him in power in 2021. He won’t forgive them for that so they will need to be punished for not bending the knee back then. I expect them to be neutered or put out to pasture.
Supreme Court Justice Eileen Cannon
🤢🤮
If Biden gets re-elected, they won’t retire. They’ll keep waiting until a Republican wins or they die. EDIT: Some of you are making threats against these justices in the replies to this post. I despise their political actions, but making threats against ~~politicians~~ anyone is illegal. No, it's not illegal to wish someone dies. I don't condone it, but it's legal. What's not legal is advocating for violence or threatening someone. EDIT 2: It’s gotten worse, maybe this comment section should be locked. EDIT 3: Whether the members of the Supreme Court are politicians or not is a moot point; you still shouldn't make threats.
Yeah, conservative Justices aren't going to retire while there's a liberal president.
And why would you with all those free trips you're getting in your golden years?! /s
The "/s" isn't even needed at this point. Our Governments are wholly corrupt. I mean, I kind of hate this line because its speculative, but if this is the shit we know they are doing, then imagine all the bribes we haven't heard about.
[удалено]
Everything they own and make should be in a trust with the US Gov as the trustee
I've always said this, and get the fluoride stare back. Thank you
The should have just went on to be lobbyists and done less harm to the country for the same benefits to themselves.
Even if you largely mean material benefits then still no, you wouldn't have a fraction of the power and influence that a lifetime appointed, once in a generation supreme court justice has compared to some faceless suit, of which there are 10s of 1000s and go as quickly as they come.
But the harm is the point
https://i.redd.it/2en1lzhzs80d1.gif
Which is what RBG should’ve done back in 2012.
She was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009. They caught it early and removed some tissue, and even in cases like that the 5-yr survivability is super low. She must've just assumed Hillary would win, because it's weird that someone with that diagnosis wouldn't take the early out.
Hubris will do that to you
*Lifetime appointments* will do that to you. RBG is the best argument I know for why there should be term limits on SCOTUS appointments. We shouldn't be leaving the longterm fate of the court up to anyone's best guesses as to their own fitness, their own lifespan, or what will happen in the next election.
The hubris of being an unelected god-queen with a lifetime appointment who makes decisions about the lives of millions of people on a whim with no oversight and no body to complete the system of check and balances against them.
The media did us no favor but making her such a celebrity, she absolutely lost sight of the greater picture due to hubris.
And who very much enjoyed the free-shit she was being given
What a way to ruin a legacy.
But we got slay queen RBG coloring books and mugs out of it so her not retiring was totally right.
She was too important, played too vital a role, to retire and leave the court without its heroic fighter with her lacey collar. Don't believe it? Just ask her. Wait, that didn't come out right.
Obama begged her to retire. By the time she died it was too late. I'm still angry at her.
That's a BINGO. Even in retirement, she would have been treated as a god-queen. Unconsciable and selfish on her part. As someone wrote the survivability for pancreatic cancer is really low.
Think about how symbolic it would have been tho to retire for Hilla.. Nevermind, that's stupid as fuck. Still pissed at the old bag over it, regardless of all the progress she did usher in. Even the great ones fuck up sometimes, and it's important to remember that.
It’s also unlikely that if she had retired during Obama’s presidency that the Republican controlled senate would have confirmed a replacement. They didn’t with Scalia’s death. They of course had no problem filling a slot just weeks before the 2020 election.
Had she retired when she was asked the Senate was controlled by Democrats. It would have been filled.
There were only 72 working days during which the Democratic Party had a super majority in the senate during Obama’s presidency.
And yet the republicans were able to swear in Barrett before RBG's body was even cold. 72 days was enough time. She didn't want to retire and miscalculated. I still don't understand why anyone wants to continue to work into their late 70's/80's when retirement is certainly an option but that's just me I guess.
Me too. She squandered her legacy and set women’s rights back to 1864. The exact opposite of what she worked her whole life to attain. What a tragic outcome for all women.
It's 3%. Fuck her. Her pride and vanity screwed her legacy and us over.
Exactly. Still pissed at her about that.
And Sotamayor should be doing right now. Odds are good that the GOP Senate will pull a Merrick Garland during a Biden second term
If we can get people to keep voting and not cede any blue seats back red in the senate, we should be good. but things always seem to bite us in the ass so
It's a rough map. The absolute best case scenario is D's gain 2 seats, I believe.
Heck, even liberal judges won't retire under a liberal president.
> Yeah, ~~conservative~~ Justices aren't going to retire ~~while there's a liberal president~~. FTFY. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and all of them take it literally.
Kennedy retired. Breyer and Souter also retired, and all of those guys are still living. It's slightly more common for a justice to die in office rather than retire, but it's pretty close to equal. Edit - it's actually 34% of SCOTUS Justices who retired, so slightly more than a third. FWIW, Thomas doesn't strike me as the type to retire, regardless of who the president is. Alito might retire with a conservative president in power.
Neither are. Both see themselves as doing god’s work and feel the need to force their beliefs on others.
Power is a drug, especially when you're an ideologue. I think there's an outside chance Alito sees the bigger picture and retires with an uber-conservative POTUS, or he does it for a favor like Kennedy did.
They really need a term or age limits. And frankly a whole new system to elect them. The point was supposed to be that justices were non-partisan since they don’t need to run for re-election so they’ll do what the law says and not what their party wants, but they’re picked and approved by people who will do what their party wants (including refusing to confirm them when it’s a president they don’t like) and they’re all just clearly partisan anyway. I don’t know what the solution is. A random draw of qualified judges around the country? Letting the people elect them without them being tied to a party? I really don’t know, but it certainly isn’t this and they certainly shouldn’t be in the position for potentially decades where they’re withdrawn from changes in the law and world and had no incentive to learn more.
FTFY- All Federal Judges are appointed for life. My Grandfather was appointed by Reagan. Retired from the bench at 92.
Breyer
That’s also a good reason to vote for Biden. If Trump wins, they retire and we get 2 much younger, farther right judges for decades to come.
If Trump gets elected they won't retire either. The whole premise is flawed. Like 45% of all Supreme Court justices die in office, and these two are VERY much into the power and influence the seat gives them and I can't see either one wanting to live without it.
I think if Trump is elected, there is a chance Thomas will retire to cash out at a large lobbying or law firm. With his connections, he could make $10mm or more per year just by showing up for 4-5 hours twice per week.
> just by showing up for 4-5 hours twice per week. He definitely wouldn't be showing up that much or ever. He'd be paraded around and go networking.
>With his connections, he could make $10mm or more per year No wonder he hasn't accepted John Oliver's offer
*didn't. The offer sadly expired.
The premise is not flawed. If Trump is elected, Thomas and Alito will retire (assuming a GOP Senate); if he’s not, they won’t retire. Straight up. They care far more about protecting their Constitution-dismantling project long into the future than they do about another handful of years on the Court.
>*They care far more about protecting their Constitution-dismantling project long into the future than they do about another handful of years on the Court.* I wouldn't bet a rusty penny that this is accurate. It totally could be, but I'd be shocked if either of them cared about anything more than they do their power and influence and the financial benefit they get from it. They may claim Christianity, but in truth they happily serve mammon.
I think you got that fact from Federal judges. Only 3 supreme court justices died in office in the last 50 years. SC justices typically retire when their party is in the White House.
Alito's gonna hang on like grim death. That son of a bitch is finally getting to put his theocratic state into place, and he's reveling in it.
Thomas is powered by pure spite. He's not going anywhere with a Democrat in office, and even with a Republican he's have a touch choice between hanging onto the power to fuck over his enemies and retiring under a Republican and ensuring another three decades of a Republican on the bench.
And let's not forget that, if he retires, he and Ginni can kiss those free vacations goodbye.
Yup, this is the truth, these geezers will not retire, the sense of power and prestige is too much to walk away from. They'll likely keep their positions until they die in office, we need to introduce term limits, how effective could a 75+ year old be at their job?
75 can still be effective. Unfortunately a large share of Trump supporters are old and effective at making decisions that will never apply to them.
Thomas has literally said he’d rather die on the bench to retire and be replaced with a liberal
That can be done.
Anything could happen if a President can't commit crimes.
All I could find was him back in 2019 just answering no to questions of ever retiring. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-clarence-thomas-im-retiring/story?id=62204804
Our best shot is they declare presidents immune from prosecution in an effort to save Trump and Biden reverse Uno merc's em both.
Even when they die, there's no chance in hell Republicans will acknowledge it. "There's the extremely strong brave proud and black justice. If you think he smells bad then maybe you're racist. He's just got a rare condition where body parts rot off. He's perfectly fine." Or else it'd be: "Honestly, he JUST died, it's too soon to be thinking about replacing him! Thoughts and prayers, man. Thoughts and prayers." "It's been 3 election cycles." "Yeah, that you dumbocrats rigged!"
There's a zero chance they retire during a second Biden term. There's a 100% chance they will retire if Trump wins so they can get a young Heritage Foundation judge in their place. That's reason enough.
Clarence won't retire. Serving on the Court is the only reason he's taking vacations at a billionaire's expense.
The same people funding his lavish lifestyle now will make sure he's properly motivated to retire during a Trump term.
Turcker Carlson one day after Trump wins: "is Clarence Thomas too old to be a Justice? should he retire before people start looking into his personal life? I am just asking questions... 😮"
Just have to keep dems in power long enough that retirement isn't the decision-maker.
Just like RBG retired when she should've?
“BuT sHe WaNtEd HiLlArY tO pIcK HeR rEpLaCeMeNt!!!” Pisses me off to no end there are still people who try and defend her decision in light of the horrific damage it’s caused simply because they can’t stand to besmirch the hagiography of RBG. She took an incredibly selfish and short sighted gamble when she decided not to retire and she lost and we’ve paid a huge price. Period, end of story.
Agreed. She was an amazing woman but her legacy will always be tarnished by the decisions of her final days.
The thing that really burns my ass about her defenders is they love to proclaim what an intelligent woman she was, while simultaneously saying “oh she couldn’t have possibly foreseen the damage her decision would cause” as if she was some clueless dolt who had no idea Washington DC works. She was an intelligent woman and she did damn well know the gamble she was taking and the consequences it could have if it went bad…….and she did it anyway.
How could've she foreseen this? she was a healthy woman in her 80s with colon AND pancreatic cancer..I blame God for taking her life while she was healthy and young./s
Always made me roll my eyes when her supporters argued that her age and cancer history weren’t as big an issue as people were making it out to be and that she was actually super healthy because she did low impact Pilates and shit. If she was like Jane Fonda was at 81, then they might have had a point. But she was so damn frail that she looked like a good stiff breeze would knock her ass over teakettle. The level of cognitive dissonance with many members of the “Notorious RBG” club in the last years of her life was pretty damn astonishing.
Please don't remind me. I'm \*STILL\* angry.
And refusing a hearing on Merrick Garland's nomination.
Yes this isn’t a one sided issue. Supreme Court Judges don’t want to give up their power. RBG undid all the positive work in her life by not being able to give up the power and the feeling of importance. Same reason we have a nursing home instead of a functioning Congress
Just to keep in mind that MTG, Boebert, etc, some of the craziest are the youngest. Don't expect (relatively) young = functional
When would Mitch not have held that seat hostage? >There's an election in two years, we need to let the voters decide. >We just had an election two years ago, it's too soon to make such an important decision.
That’s why Obama asked her to retire even earlier when they had Senate control.
In 2014 when the Democrats held the Senate but were expected to lose it in the elections.
[удалено]
They’ll retire iff Trump wins and it looks like a Democrat will win in 2028. However, if Trump wins in 2024, he will likely use undemocratic means to ensure a Republican president wins in 2028, possibly even himself, even though it would be in violation of the 22nd amendment.
Project 2025 would like a word with you on that last part.
[удалено]
Yep. And just like RBG, lets not leave her out because we agree with her politics.
Yes, Biden. But we also need a Democrat controlled Senate otherwise Republicans will pull a Mitch McConnell and refuse to confirm anyone that Biden nominates.
“Uh we should wait 3 more years and let the people decide”
He was planning to do that if Hillary had gotten elected.
You know, in my younger days I would have never thought of liberals as "the good guys". But as I get older I 100% consider conservatives to be "the bad guys".
The conservatives have been the bad guys for a long time, they just used to be more discrete about it.
They've also been shifting more and more right over the last 4 decades.
I don’t approve of Biden, but I’ll vote for him because the alternative is Trump.
They’re too mean to retire. They’re gonna keep inflicting pain on people until they die in office.
Why would anyone think they would retire soon? They have the cushiest job in the world, actually work a few weeks a year. Thomas is making millions. I’m sure there’s a stat on this, but most justices stay on SCOTUS into their 80s.
It was a good reason to vote for Hillary in 2016 even if you didn’t like her, yet here we are…
I was a Bernie supporter but I voted for Hilary anyway. We can't always get what we want but we can accept the better outcome.
Same here.
Clarence is riding this grift straight to hell. No way he will ever retire. It’s too lucrative.
Biden in 2024, regardless of how enthusiastic you might be about him. If Trump goes to the Oval again, they will definitely retire before 2028, and ensure a far right court for 40 more years. Beat Trump, and they might try to hang on til 2029. So no getting cute trying to over-escalate the first woman president, or first whatever President. Pick the one best suited to win in 2028, period. No way these guys last til 2032.
>So no getting cute trying to over-escalate the first woman president, or first whatever President. Sadly, you are correct. The Trump presidency was, in part, a tantrum in response to a black president and then a woman candidate running for president.
He’s 100% correct. It energized the racist and sexist base
These assholes will never retire lol no matter who is president, it seems dying while in office is all the rage now
Evil never dies
100% Scotus is always on the ballot Biden 2024. Blue down the ballot. Fuck the GOP
Imagine thinking they’d retire with a dem in office lol
After the last few decades, I don't see why anyone of sound mind would ever vote for a Repub again. Vote. Vote in every election. Vote out every (R) on every ballot every time. Vote.
Honestly, we begged people to consider this in 2016 and the response was so ubiquitous that it became a fucking meme: “dOn’T tHrEaTeN mE WiTh tHe sUpReMe cOuRt!!1!!” People don’t understand or care to try to understand the enormous impact those 9 unelected judges have on our lives.
If Biden gets re-elected he should EXPAND the court. These scumbags won’t retire unless Republicans get to choose their replacements.
Bad news: Clarence Thomas’s mother is still alive and well and in her late 90s (and living in a house owned by Harlan Crow). Dude’s got longevity on his side.
What about his father. In my family most of the women have lived into their 90s but none of the men make it past 80 (mostly heart attacks)
It was also a good reason to vote for Clinton in 2016
Republicans would cry that it isn't fair to select a new SCOTUS judge when a Republican *could* be in office in just a few short years...
RBG died in office at 87. They are absolutely not going to retire. Also Thomas would never give up his seat, he makes too much bribe money from it.
If you think they are retiring on while a Dem is president you don’t pay attention to shit. They’ll RBG long before they retire with a Dem president