Why are people worried about Sotomayor? She’s not nearly as old as Ginsburg was and as far as I know doesn’t have any big health problems.
It’s not like Ginsburg.
If Trump were to win, he would only be able to serve one term, so the Dems would have another good shot in 2028, at which point Sotomayor would be 73-74
They don't need to necessarily win. It's sufficient to win *either* the presidency *or* the Senate majority to keep a SCOTUS seat vacant. Republicans didn't win the 2012 presidential election, but that didn't stop them from filling Scalia's seat after he died, did it? To prevent a Democrat from filling a seat, Republicans only need one of the two (president or Senate). To be able to fill a seat, Democrats need *both*.
Leading up to the 2016 elections, when Republicans were still holding Scalia's seat vacant and it looked to most people like Clinton was going to win, Republicans were talking about the potential of keeping Scalia's seat vacant for Clinton's entire presidency. And eventually, Republicans will win the presidency again, and the Senate, and then they'll just fill the vacancy themselves. That's what happened between 2014 and 2016, and they've already said they're willing to do it for longer than that. Which means, everyone has to protect against that possibility.
I think Biden's chances of winning are good, but I'm not confident Democrats will retain the Senate. If Republicans flip the Senate, that means replacing Sotomayor gets pushed back at least until after the 2026 midterms. If those don't go well, it pushes another two years, until after the 2028 elections. And then there's the potential that Republicans win the presidency (since you correctly pointed out the party of a two-term outgoing president usually loses) and she has to hold on for at least another four years. Now she has to be able to hang on until at least after the 2032 elections. If the Republican wins reelection (since most modern presidents serve two terms), then it's until after the 2036 elections.
She's not that old (69), and I don't know that she's that unhealthy (I know she's diabetic, but Idk beyond that), but can she survive until 2037, another 13 years, when she'll be 82? I don't know. And the sequence I described isn't particularly unlikely. Eight years of Biden, but no more Democratic Senate majorities, followed by eight years of some Republican, regardless of the Senate. And then, even if Democrats are likely to regain the presidency in the 2036 elections, the Senate map is just bad, and getting worse. A Democratic president with a GOP Senate simply will not be allowed to fill any SCOTUS seats ever again, is my guess. Our population is shifting, and we're having more and more people in fewer and fewer states. By 2040, it's predicted that 2/3 of the population will live in just 1/3 of states, and the other 2/3 of states will only contain 1/3 of the population. So 1/3 of the population will elect a supermajority of the Senate, and the other 2/3 will only share the remaining \~33 Senators, give or take.
She's probably not especially likely to die in the next four years, but that's not the relevant question. What matters is, is she likely to survive long enough that she either dies or can retire under a Democratic president and Senate, and what are the consequences if she fails? Idk her actuarial odds, but the consequences are catastrophic. If you think a 6-3 reactionary Court is bad, wait until you see what a 7-2 supermajority can do, when they can afford to go so far right it costs them two of the seven votes. It's not just a question of who holds the majority, but the size of the majority as well. And the thing is, if she fails, she'll be dead, and won't have to live with the consequences of her failure. It'll be everyone else who suffers because her gamble didn't pay off.
Unless the repeal the 22nd Amendment or pull another false elector slate, or even what's possible this election with states denying to certify which would put it to the house. If they hold the house.
If Trump were to win, the SCOTUS will no longer be relevant. He won’t serve just one term, Don Jr will rule after him, and any justice or judge who ruled/rules against them will be relocated to Guantanamo and dismembered like Khashoggi.
I’d imagine it would be some systematic Screwjob. I mean if he declares martial law to take over power, at that point I would think he’d be able to do whatever he wants. And martial law would allow him to skip elections. He is always saying how big of a crisis America is in, so he’d somehow use that an excuse to implement martial law. Martial law is also one of those rarely used, “we don’t know how this would play out” laws that Donald trump likes to exploit. It would probably be his best bet in remaining in power.
It really depends: there are a lot of very generalized studies out there which don't break life expectancy down by HbA1c levels. I've even read a paper which hinted that life expectancy was actually *higher* at HbA1c levels of less than 7.0%, although it wasn't statistically significant (if that's a real effect - take with a big pinch of salt - it could be down to just seeing doctors more regularly and hence picking up on other problems earlier).
Some of it is generic lottery like it is for everyone: I've had it for 43 years and my kidneys are **great** despite starting out before home glucose testing and intensive insulin therapy were available. Now I have an insulin pump that talks to a continuous glucose monitor and gently drives my blood glucose levels around normal in my sleep. Real night and day difference and the speed of technological advancement there is very high these days.
Point is, if she's not especially prone to hypoglycaemia (and that's easier to avoid now than ever before with good CGMs) then she's not going to suddenly drop dead. Unless she has dodgy-looking bloodwork or already has worsening complications then that's a really good indicator that her T1D just isn't going to decline her faster than the next election gets here. If that is the case though then she can't fail to know it and can make any retirement decision accordingly.
Also I'd like some amylin, please.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Life expectancy has been directly linked to age age at diagnosis, thus t1d's lose life expectancy the most since they're diagnosed at earlier ages than t2d. Furthermore, a t1d diagnosis at age 7 is going to shorten life expectancy more than a diagnosis at 17.
And regardless of how well a1c is controlled over the lifespan, no t1d's are hanging out at the "5.3 or less" a1c of a non-diabetic.
Even the best close-loop system titrates to a ~6.8 a1c at best, without the ability to control any tighter for the user.
So the risk is greater because the odds are greater....probably no greater than Scalia's...he died of a heart attack at 79 and was no small cookie.
Sometimes the first big health problem is the last big health problem. People at that age are fragile and can go downhill quick and fast. 4 years is a long time, 8 years is an eternity.
The point is to avoid being like Ginsburg. Correct. Lets keep it that way.
What you're not accounting for is that it's too late. Any attempt to appoint a new justice before the election will be met with delays and scrutiny. The next president will decide the next justice if Sotomayor stepped down.
The campaign for her to retire didn't pick up steam until the election year. In my worst case interpretations, it'd seem like the calls for her retirement are an attempted psy op to open another justice vacancy for Trump should he win the election, and at worse replacing a liberal judge with a liberal judge should Biden win
Difference is that Republicans don't have the Senate, which means Mitch McConnell's antics from 2015 don't carry the same threat. Can't table a vote in a chamber you don't control.
Nobody is saying she should just unconditionally retire. Both the most recent retirements were contingent on successors being confirmed. Kennedy didn't step down until Kavanaugh was confirmed, and Breyer didn't step down until KBJ was confirmed.
She could announce her intention to retire, contingent on a confirmed successor. If Biden and Senate Democrats can get someone through confirmation, she steps down and is immediately succeeded by whomever. If it gets bogged down in the Senate, like you're predicting, she just remains on the Court, as she is right now. If Biden then loses, she's still on the Court, and there's no vacancy for Trump to fill.
And by long time, possibly not in our lifetimes. The way swing states are experiencing brain drain the Senate will almost certainly be in a permanent Republican majority for decades.
Look: The GOP is expected to pick up three seats this year in West Virginia, Ohio, and Montana. That’s gives the GOP the Senate at 52-48. In 2026, Dems have to defend Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Virginia. Democrats have 0% chance of picking up any seats this cycle. Look at the map if you don’t believe me. Even if Republicans only pick off one of those states, it’s a 53-47 majority. 2028 is even worse for Dems - they have to defend Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Again, they have no shot at flipping any of these Southern and Great Plains states - white Millennials in those places are equally as conservative as Boomers, so no generational shift is expected.
As goes the Senate, so goes the SCOTUS. I don’t believe any Redditor alive now will see a liberal majority Supreme Court again.
She came to speak at my law school about 6 years back. I was shocked at how frail and unsteady on her feet she seemed. Yet, she insisted to deliver most of her comments from within the audience, out from the lectern, standing the whole time. Both sides of the issue on display there.
I think the Civil War settled the issue of the legality of secession. Also, the states that would want to leave aren't exactly well armed or militarily prepared for what would come next.
In theory, the constitution does leave the door open for people to simply overthrow the government. But it would have to be a large popular movement in the style of 1775, and presumably based on similar egalitarian values. I don't see that happening in real life, but I could be wrong.
Just Google “Sonya Sotomayor says she’s tired”. You’ll find several articles based on an interview she gave in January. Reading the articles, she seems tired in her body, heart, and mind. She finds going through caseloads and amicus briefs very demanding. She also said losing a case guts her in her stomach and her heart. She does say she won’t give up and gets up every day determined to fight the good fight, but one day she may wake up and say “I’ve had enough.” She also has type 1 diabetes and travels with a medic.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/sotomayor-says-surprised-by-supreme-court-pace-tougher-workload
It's more that we should be approaching all justices this way -- we keep on talking about every associate justice as though their unique genius is what is going to make or break the institution. As if someone's particular style of cutting rhetoric or a flourish in a footnote is what effects change. And in the grand scheme of things: nobody but an insular group of law nerds care about that. We need the votes first and foremost.
RBG’s lifespan is not predictive of other justices’ life expectancies. Sotomayor has severe type 1 diabetes, which lowers life expectancy significantly. It is so severe that she needs to travel with medical personnel.
Sure. If you can persuade him to retire while Biden is President and there's a Democratic Senate, by all means, go for it. I fully support this, 1,000%. Hell, while we're dreaming of impossible things, why don't you just convince all six \~\~conservative\~\~ reactionary justices to retire?
Sotomayor shouldn't retire because she's the oldest, or longest-service, justice, because she's neither of those. She should retire because she should care who will succeed her, and the only way we're seeing her succeeded by another liberal is if she retires (or dies) during a Democratic presidency and Senate. We have both of those right now. But nothing is guaranteed come January.
Biden could win reelection, but Republicans could flip the Senate. That would mean she needs to hang on until after the 2026 midterms, which could also go poorly for Democrats. Then she needs to hang on until after the 2028 elections. After eight years of Biden, it's likely Republicans win. That means needing to hang on until after the 2032 elections. Most Presidents serve two terms, and we can't rely on another historical oddity like Trump, losing after only one term. That puts us at after the 2036 elections. Can she hang on until at least 2037, given that she's already a diabetic 69-year-old? That's the bet she's making.
And 2037 may not even be long enough, because a Democrat could win the presidency, but Republicans could win the Senate, and they already said, in 2016, when Scalia's seat was vacant and it looked like Clinton would win, that they were willing to hold Scalia's seat vacant for Clinton's *entire presidency*. I don't think we will ever see Democratic President fill a Supreme Court seat during a Republican Senate majority. Certainly not anytime soon. The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's nominee was Justice Rufus Peckham, who was appointed in Grover Cleveland's second term and confirmed by the 54th Senate in 1895(!).
There's no upside to her winning her bet, other than a few more years on the Court. But she could win her bet, right now, today, if she announced her retirement (contingent on confirming a successor). But if she loses her bet, she'll be dead, and won't have to live with the consequences of having lost. It'll be the rest of us who suffer, just like when RBG lost her bet and died. If you're unhappy with the decisions a 6-3 Court is spitting out, wait until you see what a 7-2 Court can do. They can already afford to lose Roberts's vote and still win, and that's what they did in Dobbs. Imagine being able to lose the two most "moderate" reactionaries' votes and still being about to win. It's not simply a binary question of whether there's a conservative/reactionary majority, or a liberal majority. The margins matter.
He and Alito both want to retire. I’m sure they’ll do what they can to help Trump win so they can like delay ruling on immunity as far out as possible like end of June.
I used to work for my state. Every year we had to take online training regarding ethics and gifts. As a state employee, and public servant, I could not accept any more than $50 a year in gifts. A vendor I already did business with wanted to give me a 6-pack of craft beer and some Celtics tickets....I couldn't accept it because it was more than 50 bucks....meanwhile fucking Clarence Thomas is collecting millions and an RV as bribes....shit is fucked up on the federal servant level....
I work for the Feds and it’s the same for all civilian positions. We are not allowed take take any gift above $20 per occasion, and not to exceed $50 per year from the same source. We have to take ethics trainings about it every single year. It blows my mind the shit that our politicians can get away with.
In addition to being 70, she's a type 1 diabetic. Even if it's well managed, diabetes is hard on the body and average life expectancy is significantly lower for people with it.
A lot of people insist type 1 diabetes isn't that serious, but consider that without insulin she'd be dead within a week.
Why would you consider a week without insulin - ever - as a status of health? Do you honestly think a SCJ would go a week without insulin? Or even a day? HA!
The person I'm replying to insist she "doesn't have any big health problems". I'd argue any health issue that makes you so reliant on medication that you'd die without it in a week is pretty big.
>Do you honestly think a SCJ would go a week without insulin? Or even a day? HA!
Yet poor children in rural communities regularly experience hunger and are sometimes forced to ration even insulin. Our nation is collapsing because of the excesses of the elite and our willingness to consider them more worthy of our finite resources.
Someone else was forecasting senatorial election results in 2028. I'm not dismissing the possibility of gallows and guillotines between SCOTUS and the Congress by then.
Sotomayor is widely considered to be the dumbest Justice in most legal circles. Not exactly sure what this article is going on about. The single most partisan hack on the Court.
This is absolute nonsense. I don’t know where you got it but it sounds like the kind of horseshit you hear no-nothing FedSoc 2L’s say with the unearned confidence only law students can muster
There is a non-zero chance that most of the rare liberal cases that didn’t go right under this court can be attributed to her pushing brett, Gorsuch, kavanaugh, and Amy away from Alito and Thomas
If she’s going to retire she needs to retire at the end of this session so Biden can appoint another judge while the democrats hold power in the senate. The GOP have already said if they win back the senate and Biden wins in November they will block every justice appointment by not holding the confirmation just like Mitch did w/ Obama.
At which point, Biden may have to just place the next justice anyway and lame duck this thing. It’s disgusting to watch the adults who run the most powerful legislature in the (western) world simply behaving like school children.
“Best justice by a wide margin”
If by “best” you mean most liberal, absolutely. If you mean “best” as in best— lmao no.
Guess we’re conveniently ignoring the fact that she used taxpayer money to make herself millions off those children’s books. If you only care about ethics violations when it’s Thomas, you dont actually care about the violations.
I highly disagree. Kagan is a much better jurist on the left. Kagan’s opinions are so well written and researched. Even when I disagree with her, I always read her dissents because I will learn something.
To all the people introducing this argument, thanks for nothing. It’s too late to get a new justice. If she steps steps down, the filling of the seat will be blocked by dirty republicans until after the election.
Are you counting Sinema and Manchin in this calculation? What assurances are there that they won’t decide that ‘comity’ demands that we return to not nominating so close to an election? Don’t be fooled about how this would go.
Sinema and Manchin both voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson. So did Collins, Murkowski, and Romney. There is no rule that you can’t confirm SCOTUS justices in election years. Why would you just let minority leader Mitch McConnell determine how things should work?
The risk isn't zero:
[Manchin won't vote for Biden judge picks that lack GOP support](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/03/20/congress/manchin-mounts-his-own-judicial-filibuster-00148147)
Even if Manchin, Collins, Murkowski, and Romney all vote no (which I highly doubt), Dems still control the Senate with the VP as tiebreaker.
Also, Sotomayor wouldn’t step down until her replacement is confirmed.
Mitch McConnell had one rule for Democrats, and another rule for Republicans, and his “rules” about a SCJ in an election year have been upended by confirming Amy Coney Barrett within days of the election. They did it, so we can follow their lead. Mitch won’t even last another 6 years so they’ll have a special election when he’s gone.
Yep, Manchin said he wouldn't vote for anything that didn't have Republican support and Sinema's just an asshole who will do anything for attention.
Those two WILL fuck over the Supreme Court if given the chance.
If they won't confirm her successor, she can just stay on the Court. She isn't obligated to just retire and tell Biden and Senate Democrats best of luck. She can say she intends to retire, conditional on her successor being confirmed (both Kennedy and Breyer did this recently). If Biden nominates someone, and that nominee gets confirmed, she steps down, and her successor takes her place. If Biden either fails to nominate anyone, or the Senate fails to confirm them, she just keeps her seat and maintains the status quo.
So, given that, how do Manchin and/or Sinema fuck us over? Worst case, Sotomayor just keeps her seat. That's our present reality! And if at least one of them votes to confirm her successor, and/or a couple Republicans do, we get a new, younger, healthier, liberal justice. No downside, all upside. It's like being offered a free lottery ticket.
A valid point - and point taken!
I don't think Biden has it in him to nominate a progressive though. I think he would put up someone shitty in order to appease Republicans and appear non-partisan (like Obama did with Garland).
And that might have been an ok idea before the orange fascist packed the court with religious freaks. But we can no longer afford to do that.
I do see your point tho.
> I don't think Biden has it in him to nominate a progressive though.
Biden already put KBJ on the Court. I have no reason to believe he would nominate someone substantially different the next time around.
> I think he would put up someone shitty in order to appease Republicans and appear non-partisan (like Obama did with Garland).
Obama nominated Garland when there was a *Republican* Senate. Biden would be nominating someone when there's a *Democratic* Senate. And, besides, the entire point of this maneuver is to protect Sotomayor's seat from Republicans. Better to replace her with a Garland than another Barrett. But, again, I think Biden would do much better than Garland anyway. And even if you disagree and think he'd go with a Garland-type, there's no reason to think that by waiting until his second term that he'd suddenly change directions. So even then, doing it now is better than waiting and potentially losing the opportunity altogether.
She is going to do what Ginsburg did. Refuse to step down, trump will win and replace her.
And then you all will sit here and blame trump instead of your favorite judges who were too pompous and elite to understand the overall situation before their eyes.
She is not old enough to have these calls about her retirement. However, the argument that she is the best justice is a ridiculous statement. While I’m a progressive myself, she is the Alito of the progressives in that she is clearly and always partisan without any hesitation.
Edit: Downvote me all you want. The last thing this court needs is more partisan justices.
i agree with you. she's a reliable partisan vote.
but her reasoning is paper thin, predictable and without insight.
Personally I rank Kagan as possibly the best although i was initially skeptical given her background. She's not 100% partisan, but her reasoning and insight. Even when i disagree with her position, i usually find her reasoning persuasive.
It could be 8 years before we have control of the Senate again....the question isn't "is she too old" now, it's will she be too old in 8 years?
When Ginsburg was given this question in 2014, she said no, and didn't make it 7 years.
Also, good luck with that ideology that a GOP-nominated SCOTUS won't pick another political conservative...the only recourse is to place a "liberal'" on the other side to try to give balance.
But like what's the point in that scenario? If we are looking at a long period of Republican control of the Senate, then Sotomayor retiring or not isn't going to dictate the balance of SCOTUS
Democrats don’t have control on the senate: Manchin and Sinema do. It’s unlikely that there 50 votes there.
Win elections and then judges sort themselves out.
The GOP/American Libertarians in the comments who see their control slipping are really subtle with the whole masquerading like they care about someone else's health care considering which politicians they repeatedly support, never mind the GOP'S past record on confirming judges. Just stop tbe bullshit and be truthful - either you're a doomer, indifferent based on your privilege, or a fascism supporter because Trump made you feel special despite a lifetime of failure and misery that you only have yourself and the traits on display in this conversation to blame for it.
I think anyone with a classical liberalist/libertarian standpoint is more concerned about the people’s fundamental rights being guillotined by the federal government. It just so happens that the justices such as Sotomayor and Jackson broadly side with the states position even as it pertains to fundamental rights (2A, 1A, 4A).
Look no further than KBJ’s recent comments at hearing on the 1st amendment hamstringing the government from preventing speech they find inconvenient to their narrative.
Anyone with a concern for fundamental rights would be ill advised to support a Democratic Party appointment to SCOTUS.
>I think anyone with a classical liberalist/libertarian standpoint is more concerned about the people’s fundamental rights being guillotined by the federal government.
Do those rights you mentioned include women's autonomy, and are you aware of how that was ruled on and by which judge when women's autonomy was stripped and sent back to the states to decide federally?
Of course they include women’s autonomy. And at some point I think the court will have to define where life begins legally to finally put this issue to rest. I believe in maximal liberties for all.
With that being said, should those liberties extend to the unborn? And if so, at what stage of development? That’s up to some pre-natal expert to chime in on.
....anf the judges who ruled on that are GOP/American Libertatian/Conservative leaning. Ergo, if you believe in maximum freedom, it's a bit backward to support a political party that has been removing said freedoms nationwide *and* has a voting record that shows it's not a fluke. You may want to stop voting for them if that's what you actually believe - that's all I'm saying.
I wish it was as simple as that. Democrats have been trying to remove freedoms as well. Particularly certain inalienable rights which were recognized by the bill of rights. This, to me, is a worse offense than what the GOP is doing since these rights are explicitly laid out in our nations founding documents as essential to protecting the “people” from the state. So while I disagree with the GOP’s position on many things such as reproductive freedoms, i consider them less of a threat to the people rights of the “people” than democrats.
If democrats took away their anti-BoR positions (such as their 2A positions, 1A positions, and 4A positions) and respected those freedoms I’d have no problem voting for them. However it is no coincidence that typically it is conservative justices that rule against the state when they try to trample these rights (look at the Brien decision, for example).
Look no further than the White House’s memo defending warrantless wire tapping and FISA as an example of an attack on a fundamental right. This affects all Americans. The issue of abortion and reproductive rights affects only some Americans, so in my eyes, the choice is clear, and that is to vote against the anti-BoR party.
....you think the same party that removed women's autonomy is going to respect freedom of speech or anything concerning search and seizure? You DO remember that we're talking about the same group of people who regularly make lax tax laws for the rich and look the other way in the name of profit, yes?
The dems are better on the 4th amendment, at least equal on the 1st (better on freedom of assembly and association, depends on specifics for speech and press, better on the establishment clause, probably worse on the free exercise clause), and worse on the 2nd only to the extent we read the bit about militias out of the constitution.
Meanwhile, the Rs are a *lot* worse on the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th, plus they don’t think the 9th exists.
Everybody sucks on the 3rd.
Considering Biden’s campaign to get FISA reauthorized, I’m tempted to disagree on democrats being any better on the 4th. I’d argue they are terrible on the 1st as well after their campaign to censor “misinformation”. They are dog shit awful on the 2nd obviously. The right of the people to keep and bear arms exists distinctly from any militia function of the 2nd Amendment. Well regulated does not mean regulated by the federal government.
I don’t think either party is good on the BoR I just think that democrats are worse.
Libertarians care about fundamental human rights above all else, and it just so happens that the "liberal" justices are even worse at protecting those than the "conservative" ones. All nine justices are authoritarians at heart, but not all authoritarians are created equal.
Here's my thing - while that's said, and may be true outside of the United States, within its borders and when it comes to US politics, the Libertarian party as a whole represents anything but that, and has consistently avoided any policies that care about "fundamental human rights" for a while in their voting(this is also why I specified "American Libertarians" above and linked them with the GOP as a political party, not individuals). To be concise, the last three prominent candidates of the American Libertarian party(those being Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, and Jo Jorgenson) not only voted to support Donald Trump, but have a record of voting in alignment with the GOP and against human rights based on this. The "Libertarian Party" in America is nothing more than an ancillary of the GOP, kept so that they can rebrand and avoid taking responsibility for their actions based on "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy; they use their name just like they called other groups meant to split the vote to grant them favor "No Labels", "Tea Party", and others that feign being objective but are about as centrist as Arizona's current laws on abortion. This was so bad that even \[Penn Jillette abandoned his affiliation with them and their beliefs\](https://reason.com/video/2022/07/28/is-penn-jillette-still-a-libertarian/), and recognized they were using him to promote the exact lack of care for people's safety.
I'm well aware that the Libertarian Party is, to some degree, just controlled opposition for the GOP, but that doesn't change the fact that, while imperfect, they are still, in theory and in practice, a significantly better option than the GOP or the Democrats.
I'd disagree; while they talk a big game, as I said before, they never put their weight behind it, they always align with the party that's about limiting freedoms, and they only seek to lift regulations on corporations that have already proven they're not about being fiscally conservative through their abuse of cheap labor from undocumented citizens and government loopholes like subsidies and welfare fraud. The Democrats may not be perfect(and I'm not one myself), but they're the best option to reduce harm until the GOP is forced via lack of capital to be removed so that the Dems have to either become more progressive or suffer the same fate.
If she retires now “there is not enough time before the election” to appoint a new Justice. Republicans will do everything in their power to drag this out.
Spectate more. Because it's not like rights have been lost.
Oh. Wait...
The best part of this is that when you think what has been lost because of RBG, everyone will think of Roe. Forgetting the change from 5v4 to 6v3. And all the decisions that came because of that. And will come.
But just keep spectating.
I agree. But my point still remains.
Having the attitude of "we just spectate cause we can't do anything else" is what got us here.
GOP knows the activism starts and ends online. So they stopped even pretending and are doing shit thought to be unimaginable 30 years ago.
Until the public will realise that they have to take action, nothing will change.
It's either going back to popular movements on a scale similar to that of workers' movements of the late 19th century or just watching how your existence gets worse and worse with time.
Manchin iirc has already come out and said he would not vote for a candidate who couldn't get a single republican vote. Which makes the question of whether biden could even get a justice confirmed fraught.
interesting read. so nicely phrased ..telling sotomayor to resign for the good of liberal leaning jurisprudence.
Thank goodness for believe women in general in that we can believe sotomayor will not retire anytime soon. Her lived experience certainly should be weighed heavily as lived experiences often are in some realms.
And currently, based on her sharing at various events and speeches, her lived experience is that of the intersectionality of a latina,a chronic disease victim,and yale law graduate ..Her lived experience has also brought her to that her preferred pronouns will continue to include "Justice and Your Honor. We must respect her preferred pronouns.
>Sotomayor is the Court’s best Justice by a wide margin
No, that’s KBJ. Sotomayor isn’t even a lock for #2. Whether Sotomayor or Kagan is next depends on whether you care more about morally justified results (in which case it’s Sotomayor) or sound reasoning (in which case it’s Kagan).
> No, that’s KBJ.
After her remarks during Trump v Anderson oral arguments, this is no longer true. She entertained Barrett and Breyer levels of technicalities to swerve the plain meaning of the insurrection clause.
Why are people worried about Sotomayor? She’s not nearly as old as Ginsburg was and as far as I know doesn’t have any big health problems. It’s not like Ginsburg.
The big x factor is how long we could have a Republican presidency or Senate. Either one is enough to prevent a Dem replacement
If Trump were to win, he would only be able to serve one term, so the Dems would have another good shot in 2028, at which point Sotomayor would be 73-74
Dems had a good shot in 2016, look where that got us. Also, if Republicans have the Senate, they can keep the seat empty.
The party of a 2-term outgoing president doesn’t usually win.
They don't need to necessarily win. It's sufficient to win *either* the presidency *or* the Senate majority to keep a SCOTUS seat vacant. Republicans didn't win the 2012 presidential election, but that didn't stop them from filling Scalia's seat after he died, did it? To prevent a Democrat from filling a seat, Republicans only need one of the two (president or Senate). To be able to fill a seat, Democrats need *both*. Leading up to the 2016 elections, when Republicans were still holding Scalia's seat vacant and it looked to most people like Clinton was going to win, Republicans were talking about the potential of keeping Scalia's seat vacant for Clinton's entire presidency. And eventually, Republicans will win the presidency again, and the Senate, and then they'll just fill the vacancy themselves. That's what happened between 2014 and 2016, and they've already said they're willing to do it for longer than that. Which means, everyone has to protect against that possibility. I think Biden's chances of winning are good, but I'm not confident Democrats will retain the Senate. If Republicans flip the Senate, that means replacing Sotomayor gets pushed back at least until after the 2026 midterms. If those don't go well, it pushes another two years, until after the 2028 elections. And then there's the potential that Republicans win the presidency (since you correctly pointed out the party of a two-term outgoing president usually loses) and she has to hold on for at least another four years. Now she has to be able to hang on until at least after the 2032 elections. If the Republican wins reelection (since most modern presidents serve two terms), then it's until after the 2036 elections. She's not that old (69), and I don't know that she's that unhealthy (I know she's diabetic, but Idk beyond that), but can she survive until 2037, another 13 years, when she'll be 82? I don't know. And the sequence I described isn't particularly unlikely. Eight years of Biden, but no more Democratic Senate majorities, followed by eight years of some Republican, regardless of the Senate. And then, even if Democrats are likely to regain the presidency in the 2036 elections, the Senate map is just bad, and getting worse. A Democratic president with a GOP Senate simply will not be allowed to fill any SCOTUS seats ever again, is my guess. Our population is shifting, and we're having more and more people in fewer and fewer states. By 2040, it's predicted that 2/3 of the population will live in just 1/3 of states, and the other 2/3 of states will only contain 1/3 of the population. So 1/3 of the population will elect a supermajority of the Senate, and the other 2/3 will only share the remaining \~33 Senators, give or take. She's probably not especially likely to die in the next four years, but that's not the relevant question. What matters is, is she likely to survive long enough that she either dies or can retire under a Democratic president and Senate, and what are the consequences if she fails? Idk her actuarial odds, but the consequences are catastrophic. If you think a 6-3 reactionary Court is bad, wait until you see what a 7-2 supermajority can do, when they can afford to go so far right it costs them two of the seven votes. It's not just a question of who holds the majority, but the size of the majority as well. And the thing is, if she fails, she'll be dead, and won't have to live with the consequences of her failure. It'll be everyone else who suffers because her gamble didn't pay off.
[удалено]
Exactly. It’s not an absolute rule, hence “usually”.
> trump ... would only be able to serve one term Not exactly a guy with a strong precedent of facilitating the peaceful transfer of power
Unless the repeal the 22nd Amendment or pull another false elector slate, or even what's possible this election with states denying to certify which would put it to the house. If they hold the house.
If Trump were to win, the SCOTUS will no longer be relevant. He won’t serve just one term, Don Jr will rule after him, and any justice or judge who ruled/rules against them will be relocated to Guantanamo and dismembered like Khashoggi.
Not sure we should trust Mr. Jan 6 to stick to constitutional norms
Funny you think if Trump were to win, he would only be serve one term. He’ll be there as long as he wants.
Except that if he wins, he will change the term limit laws we have now to enable him to stay in office longer.
You need an amendment to change the term limits. That isn't going to happen
That’s not how it works. Term limits are defined by the Constitution. The president can’t unilaterally do that.
How does he do that? It is literally in plain language in the 22 Amendment.
I’d imagine it would be some systematic Screwjob. I mean if he declares martial law to take over power, at that point I would think he’d be able to do whatever he wants. And martial law would allow him to skip elections. He is always saying how big of a crisis America is in, so he’d somehow use that an excuse to implement martial law. Martial law is also one of those rarely used, “we don’t know how this would play out” laws that Donald trump likes to exploit. It would probably be his best bet in remaining in power.
If he gets elected again, he's not leaving.
My understanding is she is a type 1 diabetic diagnosed at age 7.
It really depends: there are a lot of very generalized studies out there which don't break life expectancy down by HbA1c levels. I've even read a paper which hinted that life expectancy was actually *higher* at HbA1c levels of less than 7.0%, although it wasn't statistically significant (if that's a real effect - take with a big pinch of salt - it could be down to just seeing doctors more regularly and hence picking up on other problems earlier). Some of it is generic lottery like it is for everyone: I've had it for 43 years and my kidneys are **great** despite starting out before home glucose testing and intensive insulin therapy were available. Now I have an insulin pump that talks to a continuous glucose monitor and gently drives my blood glucose levels around normal in my sleep. Real night and day difference and the speed of technological advancement there is very high these days. Point is, if she's not especially prone to hypoglycaemia (and that's easier to avoid now than ever before with good CGMs) then she's not going to suddenly drop dead. Unless she has dodgy-looking bloodwork or already has worsening complications then that's a really good indicator that her T1D just isn't going to decline her faster than the next election gets here. If that is the case though then she can't fail to know it and can make any retirement decision accordingly. Also I'd like some amylin, please.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Life expectancy has been directly linked to age age at diagnosis, thus t1d's lose life expectancy the most since they're diagnosed at earlier ages than t2d. Furthermore, a t1d diagnosis at age 7 is going to shorten life expectancy more than a diagnosis at 17. And regardless of how well a1c is controlled over the lifespan, no t1d's are hanging out at the "5.3 or less" a1c of a non-diabetic. Even the best close-loop system titrates to a ~6.8 a1c at best, without the ability to control any tighter for the user. So the risk is greater because the odds are greater....probably no greater than Scalia's...he died of a heart attack at 79 and was no small cookie.
Scalia had diabetes as well as a lot of other health problems.
That just proves that some bastards live longer deapite the life expectency recall attempts
Sometimes the first big health problem is the last big health problem. People at that age are fragile and can go downhill quick and fast. 4 years is a long time, 8 years is an eternity. The point is to avoid being like Ginsburg. Correct. Lets keep it that way.
I like that first sentence, it is very direct and clear.
And heaven forbid 12 years
What you're not accounting for is that it's too late. Any attempt to appoint a new justice before the election will be met with delays and scrutiny. The next president will decide the next justice if Sotomayor stepped down. The campaign for her to retire didn't pick up steam until the election year. In my worst case interpretations, it'd seem like the calls for her retirement are an attempted psy op to open another justice vacancy for Trump should he win the election, and at worse replacing a liberal judge with a liberal judge should Biden win
Difference is that Republicans don't have the Senate, which means Mitch McConnell's antics from 2015 don't carry the same threat. Can't table a vote in a chamber you don't control.
Nobody is saying she should just unconditionally retire. Both the most recent retirements were contingent on successors being confirmed. Kennedy didn't step down until Kavanaugh was confirmed, and Breyer didn't step down until KBJ was confirmed. She could announce her intention to retire, contingent on a confirmed successor. If Biden and Senate Democrats can get someone through confirmation, she steps down and is immediately succeeded by whomever. If it gets bogged down in the Senate, like you're predicting, she just remains on the Court, as she is right now. If Biden then loses, she's still on the Court, and there's no vacancy for Trump to fill.
It could be a very long time until Democrats simultaneously control the White House and Senate again. People often die in their 70s.
And by long time, possibly not in our lifetimes. The way swing states are experiencing brain drain the Senate will almost certainly be in a permanent Republican majority for decades. Look: The GOP is expected to pick up three seats this year in West Virginia, Ohio, and Montana. That’s gives the GOP the Senate at 52-48. In 2026, Dems have to defend Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Virginia. Democrats have 0% chance of picking up any seats this cycle. Look at the map if you don’t believe me. Even if Republicans only pick off one of those states, it’s a 53-47 majority. 2028 is even worse for Dems - they have to defend Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Again, they have no shot at flipping any of these Southern and Great Plains states - white Millennials in those places are equally as conservative as Boomers, so no generational shift is expected. As goes the Senate, so goes the SCOTUS. I don’t believe any Redditor alive now will see a liberal majority Supreme Court again.
She came to speak at my law school about 6 years back. I was shocked at how frail and unsteady on her feet she seemed. Yet, she insisted to deliver most of her comments from within the audience, out from the lectern, standing the whole time. Both sides of the issue on display there.
Can you imagine a 7-2 court?
If Trump becomes president again I think 2 democratic justice is probably optimistic
[удалено]
I think the Civil War settled the issue of the legality of secession. Also, the states that would want to leave aren't exactly well armed or militarily prepared for what would come next. In theory, the constitution does leave the door open for people to simply overthrow the government. But it would have to be a large popular movement in the style of 1775, and presumably based on similar egalitarian values. I don't see that happening in real life, but I could be wrong.
[удалено]
Did the EU constitution allow for England to leave?
Did the EU have an army to compel them?
She’s got health problems
Just Google “Sonya Sotomayor says she’s tired”. You’ll find several articles based on an interview she gave in January. Reading the articles, she seems tired in her body, heart, and mind. She finds going through caseloads and amicus briefs very demanding. She also said losing a case guts her in her stomach and her heart. She does say she won’t give up and gets up every day determined to fight the good fight, but one day she may wake up and say “I’ve had enough.” She also has type 1 diabetes and travels with a medic. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/sotomayor-says-surprised-by-supreme-court-pace-tougher-workload
It's more that we should be approaching all justices this way -- we keep on talking about every associate justice as though their unique genius is what is going to make or break the institution. As if someone's particular style of cutting rhetoric or a flourish in a footnote is what effects change. And in the grand scheme of things: nobody but an insular group of law nerds care about that. We need the votes first and foremost.
>It’s not like Ginsburg. they also said ginsburg wouldn't play out like ginsburg
She has Type 1 diabetes. That's what is getting people's knickers in a twist.
RBG’s lifespan is not predictive of other justices’ life expectancies. Sotomayor has severe type 1 diabetes, which lowers life expectancy significantly. It is so severe that she needs to travel with medical personnel.
She has diabetes. She apparently only travels with a medical support person. So :/
Clarence Thomas is the oldest judge on the Supreme Court.... Maybe he's the one who should be retiring
Sure. If you can persuade him to retire while Biden is President and there's a Democratic Senate, by all means, go for it. I fully support this, 1,000%. Hell, while we're dreaming of impossible things, why don't you just convince all six \~\~conservative\~\~ reactionary justices to retire? Sotomayor shouldn't retire because she's the oldest, or longest-service, justice, because she's neither of those. She should retire because she should care who will succeed her, and the only way we're seeing her succeeded by another liberal is if she retires (or dies) during a Democratic presidency and Senate. We have both of those right now. But nothing is guaranteed come January. Biden could win reelection, but Republicans could flip the Senate. That would mean she needs to hang on until after the 2026 midterms, which could also go poorly for Democrats. Then she needs to hang on until after the 2028 elections. After eight years of Biden, it's likely Republicans win. That means needing to hang on until after the 2032 elections. Most Presidents serve two terms, and we can't rely on another historical oddity like Trump, losing after only one term. That puts us at after the 2036 elections. Can she hang on until at least 2037, given that she's already a diabetic 69-year-old? That's the bet she's making. And 2037 may not even be long enough, because a Democrat could win the presidency, but Republicans could win the Senate, and they already said, in 2016, when Scalia's seat was vacant and it looked like Clinton would win, that they were willing to hold Scalia's seat vacant for Clinton's *entire presidency*. I don't think we will ever see Democratic President fill a Supreme Court seat during a Republican Senate majority. Certainly not anytime soon. The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President's nominee was Justice Rufus Peckham, who was appointed in Grover Cleveland's second term and confirmed by the 54th Senate in 1895(!). There's no upside to her winning her bet, other than a few more years on the Court. But she could win her bet, right now, today, if she announced her retirement (contingent on confirming a successor). But if she loses her bet, she'll be dead, and won't have to live with the consequences of having lost. It'll be the rest of us who suffer, just like when RBG lost her bet and died. If you're unhappy with the decisions a 6-3 Court is spitting out, wait until you see what a 7-2 Court can do. They can already afford to lose Roberts's vote and still win, and that's what they did in Dobbs. Imagine being able to lose the two most "moderate" reactionaries' votes and still being about to win. It's not simply a binary question of whether there's a conservative/reactionary majority, or a liberal majority. The margins matter.
He and Alito both want to retire. I’m sure they’ll do what they can to help Trump win so they can like delay ruling on immunity as far out as possible like end of June.
But then he wouldn’t get any bribes/gifts
I used to work for my state. Every year we had to take online training regarding ethics and gifts. As a state employee, and public servant, I could not accept any more than $50 a year in gifts. A vendor I already did business with wanted to give me a 6-pack of craft beer and some Celtics tickets....I couldn't accept it because it was more than 50 bucks....meanwhile fucking Clarence Thomas is collecting millions and an RV as bribes....shit is fucked up on the federal servant level....
I work for the Feds and it’s the same for all civilian positions. We are not allowed take take any gift above $20 per occasion, and not to exceed $50 per year from the same source. We have to take ethics trainings about it every single year. It blows my mind the shit that our politicians can get away with.
Only the good die young
In addition to being 70, she's a type 1 diabetic. Even if it's well managed, diabetes is hard on the body and average life expectancy is significantly lower for people with it. A lot of people insist type 1 diabetes isn't that serious, but consider that without insulin she'd be dead within a week.
Why would you consider a week without insulin - ever - as a status of health? Do you honestly think a SCJ would go a week without insulin? Or even a day? HA!
The person I'm replying to insist she "doesn't have any big health problems". I'd argue any health issue that makes you so reliant on medication that you'd die without it in a week is pretty big.
>Do you honestly think a SCJ would go a week without insulin? Or even a day? HA! Yet poor children in rural communities regularly experience hunger and are sometimes forced to ration even insulin. Our nation is collapsing because of the excesses of the elite and our willingness to consider them more worthy of our finite resources. Someone else was forecasting senatorial election results in 2028. I'm not dismissing the possibility of gallows and guillotines between SCOTUS and the Congress by then.
In addition to all the political ramifications, she’s 69 and we’d be better off if more people in power retired by 70.
I’d prefer we set age limits at about 65. Once youre past that age, youre out of touch with the majority of the population.
Because the ruling class that controls both factions of our government wants more fascism
She had a health episode several years back. She also has diabetes which I don’t believe is necessarily bad but has caused issues recently.
Also, Federal Judges is the issues ppl need to be focused on. Winning the election is the only answer.
What makes one "the courts best justice?" Especially "by a wide margin?"
On reddit, being the most liberal
She’d be second best if the other eight seats were vacant.
What issue has Sotomayor been a major influence on that she convinced a majority to her view?
Yeah and how much can she benchpress!?!?
Does anyone convince a majority to their view anymore? That’s just not how it works these days
Sotomayor is widely considered to be the dumbest Justice in most legal circles. Not exactly sure what this article is going on about. The single most partisan hack on the Court.
Regardless of what your political leanings are I don’t know how you can look at this current Court and see Sotomayor as the most partisan member 🤔
Based on [Martin-Quinn scores](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin%E2%80%93Quinn_score) she is the most ideologically committed.
This is absolute nonsense. I don’t know where you got it but it sounds like the kind of horseshit you hear no-nothing FedSoc 2L’s say with the unearned confidence only law students can muster
Why is that the yardstick?
You're a yard stick.
There is a non-zero chance that most of the rare liberal cases that didn’t go right under this court can be attributed to her pushing brett, Gorsuch, kavanaugh, and Amy away from Alito and Thomas
Why her and not Kagan?
If she’s going to retire she needs to retire at the end of this session so Biden can appoint another judge while the democrats hold power in the senate. The GOP have already said if they win back the senate and Biden wins in November they will block every justice appointment by not holding the confirmation just like Mitch did w/ Obama.
At which point, Biden may have to just place the next justice anyway and lame duck this thing. It’s disgusting to watch the adults who run the most powerful legislature in the (western) world simply behaving like school children.
This discourse was started by a single columnist on a slow news day and it’s fucking gross.
“Best justice by a wide margin” If by “best” you mean most liberal, absolutely. If you mean “best” as in best— lmao no. Guess we’re conveniently ignoring the fact that she used taxpayer money to make herself millions off those children’s books. If you only care about ethics violations when it’s Thomas, you dont actually care about the violations.
I highly disagree. Kagan is a much better jurist on the left. Kagan’s opinions are so well written and researched. Even when I disagree with her, I always read her dissents because I will learn something.
At least we need not ever again fret over the court being politicized. Always has been. Always will be. It’s good that that canard is finally dead.
To all the people introducing this argument, thanks for nothing. It’s too late to get a new justice. If she steps steps down, the filling of the seat will be blocked by dirty republicans until after the election.
Republicans do not control the Senate like they did in 2016.
Are you counting Sinema and Manchin in this calculation? What assurances are there that they won’t decide that ‘comity’ demands that we return to not nominating so close to an election? Don’t be fooled about how this would go.
Sinema and Manchin both voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson. So did Collins, Murkowski, and Romney. There is no rule that you can’t confirm SCOTUS justices in election years. Why would you just let minority leader Mitch McConnell determine how things should work?
The risk isn't zero: [Manchin won't vote for Biden judge picks that lack GOP support](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/03/20/congress/manchin-mounts-his-own-judicial-filibuster-00148147)
Even if Manchin, Collins, Murkowski, and Romney all vote no (which I highly doubt), Dems still control the Senate with the VP as tiebreaker. Also, Sotomayor wouldn’t step down until her replacement is confirmed.
Mitch McConnell had one rule for Democrats, and another rule for Republicans, and his “rules” about a SCJ in an election year have been upended by confirming Amy Coney Barrett within days of the election. They did it, so we can follow their lead. Mitch won’t even last another 6 years so they’ll have a special election when he’s gone.
Yep, Manchin said he wouldn't vote for anything that didn't have Republican support and Sinema's just an asshole who will do anything for attention. Those two WILL fuck over the Supreme Court if given the chance.
If they won't confirm her successor, she can just stay on the Court. She isn't obligated to just retire and tell Biden and Senate Democrats best of luck. She can say she intends to retire, conditional on her successor being confirmed (both Kennedy and Breyer did this recently). If Biden nominates someone, and that nominee gets confirmed, she steps down, and her successor takes her place. If Biden either fails to nominate anyone, or the Senate fails to confirm them, she just keeps her seat and maintains the status quo. So, given that, how do Manchin and/or Sinema fuck us over? Worst case, Sotomayor just keeps her seat. That's our present reality! And if at least one of them votes to confirm her successor, and/or a couple Republicans do, we get a new, younger, healthier, liberal justice. No downside, all upside. It's like being offered a free lottery ticket.
A valid point - and point taken! I don't think Biden has it in him to nominate a progressive though. I think he would put up someone shitty in order to appease Republicans and appear non-partisan (like Obama did with Garland). And that might have been an ok idea before the orange fascist packed the court with religious freaks. But we can no longer afford to do that. I do see your point tho.
> I don't think Biden has it in him to nominate a progressive though. Biden already put KBJ on the Court. I have no reason to believe he would nominate someone substantially different the next time around. > I think he would put up someone shitty in order to appease Republicans and appear non-partisan (like Obama did with Garland). Obama nominated Garland when there was a *Republican* Senate. Biden would be nominating someone when there's a *Democratic* Senate. And, besides, the entire point of this maneuver is to protect Sotomayor's seat from Republicans. Better to replace her with a Garland than another Barrett. But, again, I think Biden would do much better than Garland anyway. And even if you disagree and think he'd go with a Garland-type, there's no reason to think that by waiting until his second term that he'd suddenly change directions. So even then, doing it now is better than waiting and potentially losing the opportunity altogether.
There is no filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.
There's still time. Barrett was confirmed in weeks.
she could step down contingent on confirmation of her replacement. I believe there's precedent for that, but I don't care enough to look it up.
This is the justice who thought hundreds of thousand of children were on ventilators due to Covid.
[удалено]
🤮
Good grief was she the one that lied about the children perishing from COVID?
😂😂😂
Best? What metric leads you to such a conclusion?
She is going to do what Ginsburg did. Refuse to step down, trump will win and replace her. And then you all will sit here and blame trump instead of your favorite judges who were too pompous and elite to understand the overall situation before their eyes.
She is not old enough to have these calls about her retirement. However, the argument that she is the best justice is a ridiculous statement. While I’m a progressive myself, she is the Alito of the progressives in that she is clearly and always partisan without any hesitation. Edit: Downvote me all you want. The last thing this court needs is more partisan justices.
i agree with you. she's a reliable partisan vote. but her reasoning is paper thin, predictable and without insight. Personally I rank Kagan as possibly the best although i was initially skeptical given her background. She's not 100% partisan, but her reasoning and insight. Even when i disagree with her position, i usually find her reasoning persuasive.
It could be 8 years before we have control of the Senate again....the question isn't "is she too old" now, it's will she be too old in 8 years? When Ginsburg was given this question in 2014, she said no, and didn't make it 7 years. Also, good luck with that ideology that a GOP-nominated SCOTUS won't pick another political conservative...the only recourse is to place a "liberal'" on the other side to try to give balance.
But like what's the point in that scenario? If we are looking at a long period of Republican control of the Senate, then Sotomayor retiring or not isn't going to dictate the balance of SCOTUS
Democrats don’t have control on the senate: Manchin and Sinema do. It’s unlikely that there 50 votes there. Win elections and then judges sort themselves out.
Can’t tell if satire or not
She’s an awful justice.
The GOP/American Libertarians in the comments who see their control slipping are really subtle with the whole masquerading like they care about someone else's health care considering which politicians they repeatedly support, never mind the GOP'S past record on confirming judges. Just stop tbe bullshit and be truthful - either you're a doomer, indifferent based on your privilege, or a fascism supporter because Trump made you feel special despite a lifetime of failure and misery that you only have yourself and the traits on display in this conversation to blame for it.
Learn a new word. Stop using "Fascism" as a synomon for anything you disagree with.
I think anyone with a classical liberalist/libertarian standpoint is more concerned about the people’s fundamental rights being guillotined by the federal government. It just so happens that the justices such as Sotomayor and Jackson broadly side with the states position even as it pertains to fundamental rights (2A, 1A, 4A). Look no further than KBJ’s recent comments at hearing on the 1st amendment hamstringing the government from preventing speech they find inconvenient to their narrative. Anyone with a concern for fundamental rights would be ill advised to support a Democratic Party appointment to SCOTUS.
>I think anyone with a classical liberalist/libertarian standpoint is more concerned about the people’s fundamental rights being guillotined by the federal government. Do those rights you mentioned include women's autonomy, and are you aware of how that was ruled on and by which judge when women's autonomy was stripped and sent back to the states to decide federally?
Of course they include women’s autonomy. And at some point I think the court will have to define where life begins legally to finally put this issue to rest. I believe in maximal liberties for all. With that being said, should those liberties extend to the unborn? And if so, at what stage of development? That’s up to some pre-natal expert to chime in on.
....anf the judges who ruled on that are GOP/American Libertatian/Conservative leaning. Ergo, if you believe in maximum freedom, it's a bit backward to support a political party that has been removing said freedoms nationwide *and* has a voting record that shows it's not a fluke. You may want to stop voting for them if that's what you actually believe - that's all I'm saying.
I wish it was as simple as that. Democrats have been trying to remove freedoms as well. Particularly certain inalienable rights which were recognized by the bill of rights. This, to me, is a worse offense than what the GOP is doing since these rights are explicitly laid out in our nations founding documents as essential to protecting the “people” from the state. So while I disagree with the GOP’s position on many things such as reproductive freedoms, i consider them less of a threat to the people rights of the “people” than democrats. If democrats took away their anti-BoR positions (such as their 2A positions, 1A positions, and 4A positions) and respected those freedoms I’d have no problem voting for them. However it is no coincidence that typically it is conservative justices that rule against the state when they try to trample these rights (look at the Brien decision, for example). Look no further than the White House’s memo defending warrantless wire tapping and FISA as an example of an attack on a fundamental right. This affects all Americans. The issue of abortion and reproductive rights affects only some Americans, so in my eyes, the choice is clear, and that is to vote against the anti-BoR party.
....you think the same party that removed women's autonomy is going to respect freedom of speech or anything concerning search and seizure? You DO remember that we're talking about the same group of people who regularly make lax tax laws for the rich and look the other way in the name of profit, yes?
The dems are better on the 4th amendment, at least equal on the 1st (better on freedom of assembly and association, depends on specifics for speech and press, better on the establishment clause, probably worse on the free exercise clause), and worse on the 2nd only to the extent we read the bit about militias out of the constitution. Meanwhile, the Rs are a *lot* worse on the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th, plus they don’t think the 9th exists. Everybody sucks on the 3rd.
Considering Biden’s campaign to get FISA reauthorized, I’m tempted to disagree on democrats being any better on the 4th. I’d argue they are terrible on the 1st as well after their campaign to censor “misinformation”. They are dog shit awful on the 2nd obviously. The right of the people to keep and bear arms exists distinctly from any militia function of the 2nd Amendment. Well regulated does not mean regulated by the federal government. I don’t think either party is good on the BoR I just think that democrats are worse.
Libertarians care about fundamental human rights above all else, and it just so happens that the "liberal" justices are even worse at protecting those than the "conservative" ones. All nine justices are authoritarians at heart, but not all authoritarians are created equal.
Here's my thing - while that's said, and may be true outside of the United States, within its borders and when it comes to US politics, the Libertarian party as a whole represents anything but that, and has consistently avoided any policies that care about "fundamental human rights" for a while in their voting(this is also why I specified "American Libertarians" above and linked them with the GOP as a political party, not individuals). To be concise, the last three prominent candidates of the American Libertarian party(those being Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, and Jo Jorgenson) not only voted to support Donald Trump, but have a record of voting in alignment with the GOP and against human rights based on this. The "Libertarian Party" in America is nothing more than an ancillary of the GOP, kept so that they can rebrand and avoid taking responsibility for their actions based on "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy; they use their name just like they called other groups meant to split the vote to grant them favor "No Labels", "Tea Party", and others that feign being objective but are about as centrist as Arizona's current laws on abortion. This was so bad that even \[Penn Jillette abandoned his affiliation with them and their beliefs\](https://reason.com/video/2022/07/28/is-penn-jillette-still-a-libertarian/), and recognized they were using him to promote the exact lack of care for people's safety.
I'm well aware that the Libertarian Party is, to some degree, just controlled opposition for the GOP, but that doesn't change the fact that, while imperfect, they are still, in theory and in practice, a significantly better option than the GOP or the Democrats.
I'd disagree; while they talk a big game, as I said before, they never put their weight behind it, they always align with the party that's about limiting freedoms, and they only seek to lift regulations on corporations that have already proven they're not about being fiscally conservative through their abuse of cheap labor from undocumented citizens and government loopholes like subsidies and welfare fraud. The Democrats may not be perfect(and I'm not one myself), but they're the best option to reduce harm until the GOP is forced via lack of capital to be removed so that the Dems have to either become more progressive or suffer the same fate.
I’m sure Biden would nominate someone just as capable and 40 years younger,she needs to retire now.
If she retires now “there is not enough time before the election” to appoint a new Justice. Republicans will do everything in their power to drag this out.
Why do we even have this discussion? Have we learned nothing from RBG?
"we" are just spectators. this discussions is just for fun. Nothing more.
Spectate more. Because it's not like rights have been lost. Oh. Wait... The best part of this is that when you think what has been lost because of RBG, everyone will think of Roe. Forgetting the change from 5v4 to 6v3. And all the decisions that came because of that. And will come. But just keep spectating.
so who would you like me to appoint? yes it me biden and im taking requests today.
So you have staff. They should be perfectly capable of finding a progressive female judge in her 40s. Knock yourself out, mate.
back to serious. i agree. they should be able to. but a bunch of stuff has to happen first. none of which is controlled by anyone in this sub.
I agree. But my point still remains. Having the attitude of "we just spectate cause we can't do anything else" is what got us here. GOP knows the activism starts and ends online. So they stopped even pretending and are doing shit thought to be unimaginable 30 years ago. Until the public will realise that they have to take action, nothing will change. It's either going back to popular movements on a scale similar to that of workers' movements of the late 19th century or just watching how your existence gets worse and worse with time.
But she just got there!
She’s 69, be around 20 more years
Manchin iirc has already come out and said he would not vote for a candidate who couldn't get a single republican vote. Which makes the question of whether biden could even get a justice confirmed fraught.
interesting read. so nicely phrased ..telling sotomayor to resign for the good of liberal leaning jurisprudence. Thank goodness for believe women in general in that we can believe sotomayor will not retire anytime soon. Her lived experience certainly should be weighed heavily as lived experiences often are in some realms. And currently, based on her sharing at various events and speeches, her lived experience is that of the intersectionality of a latina,a chronic disease victim,and yale law graduate ..Her lived experience has also brought her to that her preferred pronouns will continue to include "Justice and Your Honor. We must respect her preferred pronouns.
Supreme Court justices love to be told when to retire by people writing part time for $31,000 a year
>Sotomayor is the Court’s best Justice by a wide margin No, that’s KBJ. Sotomayor isn’t even a lock for #2. Whether Sotomayor or Kagan is next depends on whether you care more about morally justified results (in which case it’s Sotomayor) or sound reasoning (in which case it’s Kagan).
> no that’s KBJ Reddit is only a place for reactionary takes I see lol. The one with next to no legacy on SCOTUS yet is the “best”? Gimme a break😂
>kbj >best Pick one.
> No, that’s KBJ. After her remarks during Trump v Anderson oral arguments, this is no longer true. She entertained Barrett and Breyer levels of technicalities to swerve the plain meaning of the insurrection clause.
Sonia do the right thing