July 2, 2011

Prof. Chemerinsky says Justice Ginsburg "has in her power the ability to prevent a real shift in the balance of power on the court."

"On the other hand, there's the personal. How do you decide to leave the United States Supreme Court?"

Wow! How much of this kind of moral pressure is being applied to the venerable Justice?
Democrats and liberals have a nightmare vision of the Supreme Court's future: President Barack Obama is defeated for re-election next year and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 78 the oldest justice, soon finds her health will not allow her to continue on the bench.

The new Republican president appoints Ginsburg's successor, cementing conservative domination of the court, and soon the justices roll back decisions in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action.
Abortion and affirmative action. Abortion and affirmative action. That's the fixed point in constitutional law for a lot of people: it must work out in favor of abortion and affirmative action.
[S]ome on the left say ... Ginsburg needs to put self-interest aside and act for the good of the issues they believe in, Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy wrote recently. Kennedy said 72-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer should leave, too....
Get out, you selfish oldies — say some on the left — Obama needs to appoint some liberal ideologues before its too late!
David Garrow, a Cambridge University historian who follows the court, said Ginsburg's situation points to an institutional problem for the court, "the arguably narcissistic attitude that longer is better."
Narcissist!
Justices sometimes look at electoral projections when considering retirement, he said, adding that Ginsburg probably still could decide to retire next summer if Obama's electoral prospects seem shaky.
The rest of the article is a history lesson about how waiting too long doesn't work. Earl Warren, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Warren Burger and all that. The message is clear. The liberal media want Ruth Bader Ginsburg out now.

I know that sounds mean, but it's not me saying it. I'm just paraphrasing for clarity.

123 comments:

Fen said...

adding that Ginsburg probably still could decide to retire next summer if Obama's electoral prospects seem shaky.

So? We'll just use the Wisconsin model: obstruct and delay until Obama is gone.

Henry said...

These poor liberal justices are so old. The work is so hard. Obama should be allowed to appoint some younger justices to help them out.

The Drill SGT said...

If the polarity of the situation were reversed, and
- the conservative President is behind in the polls on July 1st, 2012
- nominates a young hard right conservative
- with all the recesses running up to an election
- would a Democratic minority in the Senate, allow the nomination to go through, or would it go ballistic with stalls and filibuster?

Fred4Pres said...

She drives them crazy.

Fred4Pres said...

She drives like crazy, with bonus Titus reference!

Roger J. said...

not sure I have any clearly thought out opinions on this--William O Douglas stayed on the bench and kept the bench dry by wearing depends.

I am not sure sure that age, per se, in the appropriate metric. From a political perspective the Dems are projected to get their butts kickd in the senate in the coming elections. The only argument I see is that Justice Ginsburg should step down now so jugears can appoint an even more flaming liberal and might be able to get it thru the confirmation process before november next year.

I love politics--the results are never pretty, but they are entertaining

MadisonMan said...

Some on the left say

If they really think it, they should let themselves be quoted. Otherwise, I think the pundit or the journalist, whoever, is manufacturing the whole thing.

edutcher said...

That's all they are to the Lefties. Just something to advance the agenda.

Maybe she realizes that and resents it.

Rocco said...

Interesting.

So in this article, a woman is being criticized for following her self-interest and not submitting to someone else's opinion of what she should do.

In the Bachmann piece a few posts down, a woman is being criticized for submitting to what someone else thinks she should do and not follow her own self-interests.

Roger J. said...

BTW: I join Madison Man's comment--"some say," "according to unnamed sources," etc--Lousy journalism. But Journalism as a profession is I suspect in even lower approbation than the legal profession. Trooper York nailed it a while back.

Carol_Herman said...

So, let's say, Ginsberg retires?

Does this mean Patrick Fitzgerald is nominated? (Or one of the Chinamen?)

No fight out of Orin Hatch?

You mean Orin Hatch isn't terrified of his upcoming primary battle in Utah?

Since there are political issues on the table ... And, obama is dying to retrieve the American Jews ... why are you assuming a Jew wouldn't be nominated?

Okay. The odds are better if the Jew wears skirts.

But it won't be shirley abrahamson.

And, the fight will be in the senate! Even with the putz, McCain, walking over to Harry Reid's side ...

There may be a brutal, bare knuckled fight ... between 100 egotistical bastards ... worried that their seats can float away just like Teddy Kennedy's did.

Sure. Teddy Kennedy got a Catholic funeral reserved for catholics in good standing. Didn't amount to a hill of beans.

Obama will still need a teleprompter should he be making an announcement.

Hey. He could pick George Soros.

I'll bet there will be lots of other suggestions made, though.

And, for a bonus, the selected person might have some sort of remnant skills left ... from having had to memorize other cases?

Now. What happens when Clarence Thomas leaves the court?

Can the whole justice system go down like the Titanic?

You know the Titanic was advertised as a ship that couldn't sink. And, the luckiest passengers were book on the "second voyage." Get my drift?

Fen said...

MadisonMan: If they really think it, they should let themselves be quoted. Otherwise, I think the pundit or the journalist, whoever, is manufacturing the whole thing.

On this day, July 2nd 2012, MadisonMan comes out against anonymous sourcing...

traditionalguy said...

Ginsburg is a little old to be the picked Virgin Sacrifice to be thrown into the volcano to empower the Progressives war on America. They should let her alone.

Dad29 said...

Abortion and affirmative action. Abortion and affirmative action.

But if it comes down to it, just abortion will suffice. Bet on it.

Roger J. said...

Ms Justice Ginsburg can, at least as i read the the constitution can stay on the bench as long as she damn well wants to--

EDH said...

Old Liberal.

Roger J. said...

of course, so can Mssr jusices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

That constitution is just a bitch sometimes

Roger J. said...

Mr Obama can, of course, try FDRs court packing scheme--but that didnt work out too well IIRC

Peter Hoh said...

The Republican establishment wants no part in the Supreme Court undoing Roe.

James said...

The flip side of the coin.... Justice Kennedy has said he has no plans of retiring while Obama is president.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/06/2010-07-06_holdin_court_at_73_justice_kennedy_tells_pals_hes_not_retiring_for_years__thats_.html

WASHINGTON - President Obama may get liberal Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, but conservative swing-voter Anthony Kennedy says he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Justice Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least three more years - through the end of Obama's first term, sources said.

That means Kennedy will be around to provide a fifth vote for the court's conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice.

Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, has been on the court 22 years. He has become a bit of a political nemesis at the White House for his increasing tendency to side with the court's four rock-ribbed conservative justices.

Without naming Kennedy, Obama was unusually critical of his majority opinion in the Citizens United case, handed down last January. That 5-4 decision struck down limits on contributions to political campaigns as an abridgement of free speech.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/06/2010-07-06_holdin_court_at_73_justice_kennedy_tells_pals_hes_not_retiring_for_years__thats_.html#ixzz1Qxo70TDE

Hagar said...

Prof. Chemerinsky should keep in mind the old adage that you should be careful what you wish for. Obama's nominee to replace Ginsburg might not be to Prof. Chemerinsky's liking even if s/he does give lip service to abortion and affirmative action.

Carol_Herman said...

It's a slow news weekend.

Doesn't matter what journalists say. Most of their companies are working with skeleton crews.

And, over at the supreme's, Ruth Bader Ginsberg made friends with Antonin Scalia. You don't see this camraderie, however, among Wisconsin's supremes.

Over in wisconsin, as Mark Twain once said, the males and females "are all women."

Meanwhile, Obama will "say" whatever is on the teleprompter. And, the person he picks doesn't even have to play golf.

Hagar said...

Mr. Obama's "liberal agenda" is not necessarily the same as the old school "liberal agenda," and some day they might realize that to their sorrow.

Wv: slynago - 'nuf said.

Roger J. said...

I know, of course, that Mr Obama is a consitutional law expert (snicker)--what he fails to understand from his actions, the our constitution divided power among three COEQUAL branches of government. Sad

edutcher said...

When the Alzheimer's started to take over mind of The Blonde's mom, she could get very contrary when she felt like it.

All her life she had been a good little girl and sublimated herself to everyone else without a peep. Then the truth came out.

Perhaps Mrs Ginsburg is going there, too.

Roger J. said...

If my understanding of the constitution is correct, it was Mr Justice Marshall's Marbury versus Madison case that established the precedent of judicial review--rightly or wrongly, that precedent has stood for a long time--perhaps Mr Obama can put forward a case where the justices might reject the Marbury-Madison precedent--not likely IMO, and it would be interesting to see how the current justices might rule on such a decision.

John Lynch said...

Oh, so they're worried Obama will be a one term President, are they?

I like Ginsberg. She's still doing good work.

Trooper York said...

I think the justice should retire when she still has chance to go on the road with her famous character "Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg."

It will be bigger than the Who's farewell tour for sure.

Sheepman said...

Life appointment for Federal judges is not a good system. You get judges staying too long and presidents often appoint too many and too few Supreme Court justices for their time in office.

The remedy is an 18-year-term with 1/9th retiring every two years. That will allow senators in each session of Congress to confirm one Supreme Court Justice and a President to appoint two every four years.

traditionalguy said...

I bet Ginsberg is getting very sensitive to Obama's "non-existent death panelist's" sounds emanating from the White House basement in a steady chant of "Finish her, finish her, finish her."

nevadabob said...

"Democrats and liberals have a nightmare vision of the Supreme Court's future: President Barack Obama is defeated for re-election ..."

There is, of course, a way around that little problem. And that is for Barack Obama to skip his vacation and announce that he won't take another vacation until the 17 million Americans who can't find a full time job are able to be employed.

I don't think he'll do that. I think he's basically a weak man taking orders from his abrasive wife. A man with poor leadership skills.

So instead of getting to work getting America working, I predict that Barack Obama will take yet another fucking vacation (with YET MORE golf!).

The nightmare is being made possible by Barack Obama himself.

nevadabob said...

This entire post is proof that Justice in the United States has nothing whatsoever to do with the law or the Constitution.

That the law is made up by courts based not on precedent or what the Constitution says, but which ideologue appointed them to the court.

There is no "right" to an abortion in the Constitution. The only reason we have that "right" is that a certain set of people decided to make it so and if we replace those people, then the right can be made to go away.

OK.

If that's the game and that's how its played, then conservatives should start playing the same game, on every level.

By repealing civil service protections so that we can get rid of the Democrats, liberals, Socialists and Communists that infect our government in every office in Washington, D.C.

Let them have abortion.

Give conservatives the ability to fire these motherfuckers and watch how fast we can change this country.

David said...

Send her to the death panel. Her time of utility to the cause has ended.

How many lefties do you suppose are secretly wishing that she has a nice, debilitating but not life threatening stroke? And if the stroke is a little stronger than hoped for? Well, the good old girl got to serve on the Supreme Court. Time for her to move on, one way or another.

Gahrie said...

I don't remember arguments like this while Justice Stevens was hanging on

G Joubert said...

It's RVG's life, career, and legacy. I'd imagine she resents the pressure. SCOTUS is not just another political hack patronage appointment, or at least it ought not be.

John Lynch said...

Conservatives like to bash on the courts but they have been the greatest bulwark of civil liberties in this country.

Without the court speech restrictions would be very prevalent and the country would be less free.

The courts don't always do what we want but they are a good institution.

Alex said...

Obama replacing Ginsburg and Breyer would not change the balance of the court. What's the ruckus?

Carol_Herman said...

Hey! Moochelle is a lawyer.

Maybe, obama will nominate Moochelle?

But first, he needs to get Rahm on board. And, Rahm's promised the next slot opening to Patrick Fitzgerald.

Americans have already discovered Obama doesn't care one wit what most people "think."

On the other hand?

Shirley Abrahamson has become contagious. She won't get nominated, now.

If anyone wants to know the "pick" in advance ... they need to take a look at the teleprompter. After first plugging it in.

I'm sure the "pick" is ready.

Chemerinksy, however, has lost his clout. He didn't write this one for it to be buried during a slow news cycle.

I'd bet Chmerinsky is mighty pissed off.

Ruth Bader Ginsbert? Not so much.

edutcher said...

David said...

Send her to the death panel. Her time of utility to the cause has ended.

Yes, she may be looking a little shaky on the ZeroCare vote.

virgil xenophon said...

nevadbob beat me to the punch. If ever there was proof that the SCOTUS is no longer a court but nothing more than an undemocratic super legislature in disguise, this thread, as HB points out, is living proof. The old saw that the Constitution is nothing more than what 5 justices say it is has never been truer--except today we have TOTAL despotic rule by judicial ukase in the form of the opinion of but a single individual who rules us all--Justice Kennedy.

Fred4Pres said...

Ruth Buzzi patted my wife's belly when she was carrying our youngest.

Old Dad said...

Perhaps, Justice Ginsburg sees that the President despises the Court. Perhaps, she's voting no confidence on the President, and his two appointees.

Fred4Pres said...

I have seen Scalia say essentially what nevadabob has said. Scalia says he hates flag burning cases and opposes abortion, but free speech means free speech and the Constitution is silent on abortion (meaning it is a matter left to the states to regulate).

I blame this mess on FDR.

Trooper York said...

Fred4Pres said...
Ruth Buzzi patted my wife's belly when she was carrying our youngest.

Ruth Buzzi GInsberg was a rabid Republican who completely changed to ultra liberal Democrat when President Nixon spurned her advances when he appeared on Laugh In in 1968.

virgil xenophon said...

Picking up on the point that Roger J makes @11:08, the late poli-sci professor Duane Lockard of Princton opined in his 60s seminal work, The Perverted Priorities of American Politics that Marbury v. Madison was a fraud and nothing but a the individual view of a single individual--John Marshall--who manufactured the concept of judicial review of legislative/executive acts out of thin air as if sprung fully-armed like Athena from the forehead of Zeus; a judicial ukase rammed thru by the force of personality of John Marshall alone and totally illegitimate as a Constitutional OR historical concept.

Phil 3:14 said...

Our main concern is abortion...

Abortion and affirmative action...

Our two main concerns are abortion and affirmation action...

abortion, affirmative action and corporate power....

our THREE main concerns are abortion, affirmation and corporate power....

and dangerous speech!

Amongst our concerns are...

XWL said...

Suppose this, President Obama, getting killed in poll after poll in the summer of 2012, gets an opportunity for one last Supreme Court appointment just before the Democratic Convention with Ginsburg acceding to liberal will for her to step aside for someone younger.

Who better to appoint than himself? Taft went from the Oval Office to the Court (though, he didn't appoint himself, and there were years between), why not Obama?

Let Hillary wheel and deal herself to a backroom presidential nod at the convention, and Obama can spend the next 30-40 years screwing us repeatedly on the bench.

Much more attractive end game (from Obama's perspective, not the country's, and given that the Senate would still be under Dem control, he would probably get confirmed easily). It's that, or be Jimmy Carter II, and travel the globe telling everyone how awful the United States is.

gadfly said...

Being old does not make Ginsberg "venerable."

SukieTawdry said...

I actually expected Ginsburg to retire some time ago and thought perhaps she didn't want Bush choosing her replacement.

Maybe she doesn't think much of Kagan, who seems to have structured her entire career on the premise that one day she'd be tapped for SCOTUS, or the wise Latina. Maybe, as a life-long advocate for women's equal rights who broke a few glass ceilings herself, she doesn't like a bunch of men trying to push her out. Maybe she likes being a SC justice and, having lost her husband last year, can't imagine being "in retirement."

We could do worse than Ginsburg. Not much worse, but worse (and we already have thanks to Obama). Since she's apparently an abortion "absolutist," I bet a lot of people don't know she was opposed to Roe v Wade as she felt the issue was being handled appropriately and satisfactorily by the states.

Anyhow, she's a colon cancer survivor and a recent survivor of pancreatic cancer. Odds are she doesn't have a whole lot of life left. I wish her continued good health at least until such time as Barack Obama is a memory.

gadfly said...

She gets no R-E-S-P-E-C-T (from me) ... even if she sings along with Aretha.

Oh (sock it to me, sock it to me,
sock it to me, sock it to me)

A little respect (sock it to me, sock it to me,sock it to me, sock it to me)

Whoa, babe (just a little bit)

A little respect (just a little bit)

I get tired (just a little bit)

Keep on tryin' (just a little bit)

You're runnin' out of foolin' (just a little bit)

And I ain't lyin' (just a little bit)

(re, re, re, re) 'spect

When you come home (re, re, re ,re)

Or you might walk in (respect, just a little bit)

And find out I'm gone (just a little bit)

I got to have (just a little bit)

A little respect (just a little bit)

Coketown said...

I'm not so sure it's within Ginsburg's power to prevent a shift in the court's balance. Whether she retires under Obama or kicks the bucket under a Republican president, the question isn't whether the balance shifts but how far rightward it shifts. The Democrats no longer have the superpower they had in 2009 and 2010 when Sotomayor and Kagan were confirmed. The Republicans won't allow anyone through who isn't at least equal, if not to the right, or Ginsburg. Obama couldn't get his Asian radical confirmed to a circuit court, so I doubt he's going to get Ginsburg's ideological equal confirmed, either.

Coketown said...

Also, my sense is that abortion and affirmative action balance each other out. If you're black, you have a greater chance than a similarly qualified white of getting into college, but you also have a lower chance of making it into your second trimester. So take your pick, idiots.

Kevin said...

But Obama says he still has five and a half more years! There's lots of time for Court appointments!

Prof. Chemerinsky presides over the new law school at the University of California - Irvine, which is designed to address the tragic undersupply of lawyers in California. **In-State** tuition is more than $40,000 a year - out of state tuition is more than $50,000 a year. (Because the school is new, the first year was free, and they have been phasing in the tuition since, but next year the hammer falls fully.)

It's fun being a liberal, and ripping law students off!

Unknown said...

Once again the Left confesses its "by any means necessary" philosophy. When democracy kicks yer butt, switch your efforts over to the least democratic branch of government and skew the courts!

Of course, when every poll indicates that liberals are at most 20% of the population, what is the basis of their assumption that they are owed 4/5ths of the Supreme Court?

Vesparado said...

I never thought I'd find myself thinking and writing this: "Hang in there, Ruth! Don't abandon Obama and left!"

Vesparado said...

I never thought I'd think or write this: "Hang in there, Ruth! Don't abandon Obama and the left!"

gregq said...

What makes those buffoons think that the Senate Republicans will let Obama appoint another SC Justice this term?

President Obama has spent the two and a half years of his term sowing the bipartisan grounds with salt. He's spent the last six month pouring gasoline on it and torching it. If Ginsberg quits, expect a year and a half filibuster, and the Senate never going in to recess (no recess appointment to the Court).

Obama is already in campaign mode. You don't let Presdients of the other Party appoint SC members during teh election campaign.

5ac81c9e-a3ec-11e0-ad71-000bcdcb8a73 said...

I can think of a number of Republican appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court who turned out to be massive disappointments to the administrations that nominated them:
~Earl Warren (Eisenhower)
~William Brennan (Eisenhower)
(Those two gave rise to Ike's saying something like, "I only have two regrets from my time as President, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court.")
~Reagan nominated Bork, but got stuck with Kennedy; and before that, he nominated O'Connor.
~George H. W. Bush nominated the leader in the clubhouse for worst SCOTUS cipher in modern history, Justice David Souter.

I can't think of any similar Democrat-disappointments. SCOTUS diappointments seem to be a uniquely Republican phenomenon.

jayemarr said...

Yeah, because Obama's policies have been so successful they need to be enshrined in the Supreme Court for decades.

Let's hope she's got more sense.

Michael said...

More evidence for the logic of appointing SC justices to 18-year terms.

There would be confirmation every 2 years, so there'd be less pressure driven by uncertainty of how many an administration gets to appoint. Older judges would be retired at reasonable ages; younger ones could get a second 18-year term, if the president then wanted them to continue. (There'd have to be some mechanism for replacing ones who die during their term, admittedly.) In all, it would tend to reduce the politicking over judges, which will always exist, but be less driven by fear of your side getting screwed.

Kevin said...

SCOTUS diappointments seem to be a uniquely Republican phenomenon.

That's because the full weight of the Government Class is brought to bear to whip Republican SCOTUS appointments into supporting the Party Line. Want the Washington Post to publicly praise you for "growing in office", and be the toast of Washington? It's pretty obvious what you need to do on SCOTUS.

You need the strength of character of a Thomas or Scalia to resist that.

gutless said...

"the arguably narcissistic attitude that longer is better."

That's odd. I thought this was common wisdom. Oh, you're talking about Supreme Court tenure. Sorry.

nevadabob said...

"Without the court speech restrictions would be very prevalent ..."

No, they wouldn't but killings of people implementing speech restrictions would be WAAAAAAY up.

The court doesn't protect our rights. They merely enumerate and enshrine them.

Bullets and guns - and molotov cocktails if necessary - protect our rights.

We are the keepers of our rights and if we allow the Socialist Democrats to take them away from us without a bloody killing fight, then we don't fucking deserve them in the first place.

F said...

The Justices only need to look to the House and Senate for stellar examples of people putting principle ahead of personal selfishness! Oh wait. . .

wv: horick: "alas poor Horick, I knew yim well"

TANSTAAFL said...

[S]ome on the left say ... Ginsburg needs to put self-interest aside and act for the good of the Borg Collective.

TFTFY

AmenHammer said...

I bet her opinion in AEP vs Conn where she expressed a belief that global warming has not been proven did not ease the left's anxiety.

Mwalimu Daudi said...

Obama should appoint Bradley from the WI Supreme Court. That would lock up the bitch vote in 2012, and its likely she is going to jail anyway for attacking Judge Prosser.

Cedarford said...

Then again I doubt Ginsburg's fellow progressive Jew Chemerinsky was authoring essays urging "bored with it all" Souter and "old codger" Stevens to step down while Bush was still President and make room for "fresh blood".

That is why the Fed Courts and the lawyers dressed in robes merit a lot less "worship" than liberals and conservative "Sacred Parchment is the Holy Word that the Temple Priests Interpret" claim they do as the final wise word on all matters in America they elect to take a case to lay down the Final Word on. SIMPLY - THEY DO NOT MERIT THE CURRENT DEFERENCE AND RESPECT WE ARE TOLD WE MUST GIVE UNACCOUNTABLE FED JUDGES FOR LIFE.

They are political appointees. If they function well and have the honor not to betray the person appointing them or the donors and special interest groups that got the Appointer elected, they advance the politics of who appointed them. Some go rogue. A few of frequently muddled and contradictory thinking or power relishers (O;Connor the former, Kennedy the latter) set themselves up as THE DECIDER - when other judges hew to the political ideology confines and lines they agree to operate in.

Judges ensure that Carterism lasted 30 years after Carter was repudiated. The neocon/Grover Norquist types Dubya installed and the Greens Obama gave lifetime power over the American public to, will also bedevil us for decades to come.

Mike said...

Ah replacing Ginsburg! But the advice of The Rolling Stones is always useful. "You can't always get what you want, but if you try real hard, sometimes you get what you need."

Appointing Supreme Court justices is a real crap shoot. Lotsa unpleasant surprises in the process. But I suppose the most unpleasant surprise of all would be a Supreme Court Justice Obama! Aarrgggh!!!! But I doubt he'd want to do it. He might actually be called upon to do some work. And the prospect of Chief Justice John Roberts chewing on his lazy backside to actually produce a piece of legal writing can't be attractive. You can get elected President of the Harvard Law Review without writing anything--but you have to do a bit better as a sitting Supreme Court justice.

Kevin said...

It's interesting that a prominent Leftist wrote this - panic is really starting tp set in over Obama's reelection prospects, isn't it?

Bill said...

SukieTawdry said, 'Maybe she likes being a SC justice and, having lost her husband last year, can't imagine being "in retirement."'

Particularly now that she's the senior liberal, with the power to decide who writes their opinions when in the majority.

No Name said...

all federal judges should be term-limited

Jim said...

What makes those buffoons think that the Senate Republicans will let Obama appoint another SC Justice this term?

THIS. THIS and more THIS.

There is NO WAY that Obama would get a nominee on the Supreme Court before the 2012 election - at least not one that he would have any interest in nominating.

He's proven over and over again that he's only interested in naming Leftist ideologues to the bench - at all levels. And there's no way that the Republican base would forgive the Republicans in the Senate from allowing one of his extremist nominees to get out of the Senate.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

But I suppose the most unpleasant surprise of all would be a Supreme Court Justice Obama!

No way he could be approved by the Senate...especially in an election year.

Nothing Republicans would LOVE more than to spend months raking him over the coals in confirmation hearings about his dubious knowledge of the Constitution.

Not to mention how many cases coming before the court in the next decade from which he would, by federal law, be forced to recuse himself.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chardin said...

MadisonMan probably has it right. See also: Some argue.

LarsPorsena said...

Ginsburg "has in her power the ability to prevent a real shift in the balance of power on the court.""

Yes, it's all about the power. The law, justice, constitutionality are mere pretexts.

autothreads said...

the our constitution divided power among three COEQUAL branches of government.

This is a common misconception. The people, represented by the House of Representatives, are sovereign. The House can impeach the executive and it can impeach a supreme court justice. It also controls the purse strings.

Whiskey Jim said...

It's that, or be Jimmy Carter II, and travel the globe telling everyone how awful the United States is.

Fascinating observation.

Jimmah helped frame and rewrite his Presidency with his post-presidency pronouncements.

Obama will clearly do that as well; including a UN stint no doubt.

Fred said...

And they told me Chemerinsky was anything other than a lefty hack, not at all a political partisan of the worst kind when in fact he is anything but an honest student of the law.

The Crack Emcee said...

Our message back to the liberal media hasn't changed either:

Fuck you.

And mind your own Gawd-damned business. Since when is it their job to dictate how anything in this country is supposed to work?

somefeller said...

Sorepaw says: I found it amusing that Randall Kennedy, known for his promulgation of Critical Legal Studies, has called for the retirements of both Ginsburg and Breyer, so Obama has time to appoint younger Leftists to the Supreme Court.

I think you're confusing Randall Kennedy with Duncan Kennedy. Duncan Kennedy was a big Critical Legal Studies proponent. I'm not sure Randall Kennedy is or was, he's basically more of a mainstream liberal.

somefeller said...

nevadabob says:Bullets and guns - and molotov cocktails if necessary - protect our rights. We are the keepers of our rights and if we allow the Socialist Democrats to take them away from us without a bloody killing fight, then we don't fucking deserve them in the first place.

You really are a sad case, aren't you, nevadabob? Either you are (a) a really dumb right-winger, the type of right-winger that other, smarter right-wingers distance themselves from and declare to be a liberal moby, or (b) you are a liberal moby who thinks it is a useful endeavor to spend lots of time writing inane, internet tough guy commentary to somehow discredit conservatives. In either case, a total waste of time and skin. Your parents must be terribly disappointed with you.

somefeller said...

And the last point - yes, I think it's safe to assume that some Democrats are beginning to wonder whether Obama is likely to get re-elected, and are acting accordingly with regard to spots on the Supreme Court. However, it may be to Obama's political advantage to have Souter and Ginsburg stay on the Court, in that he can then use that issue (what if they retire soon, under a GOP administration?) as a talking point for his re-election campaign. Obama might be thinking that if that specter has been addressed, it might actually discourage some people from being motivated to come out and vote for him.

Skookum John said...

@Alex: "Obama replacing Ginsburg and Breyer would not change the balance of the court. What's the ruckus?"

The ruckus is, we want to extirpate the collectivists from our public life. We want both of the Justices you named to be replaced by a President Bachmann or Palin or or Pawlenty, and dismantle everything the Democratic Party has done for the last fifty years.

It will be a ruckus, oh yes it will, but we're going to shove it down your throat with a seven-vote Supreme Court bloc and there won't be anything you can do about it.

Ralph L said...

FDRs court packing scheme--but that didnt work out too well IIRC
It cost him politically, but the Court stopped overturning the New Deal, to the taxpayers' sorrow.

BEK477 said...

Ginsburg will stayt on because she can't trust Obama as being either a stalwart liberal values defender or as a defender of Israel.

Notwithstanding Kagan and Breyer being on the court, Ginsburg will stay on as long as there is a chance that theliberal cause and the state of ISrael need a friend in high places.

Obama can not be trusted to nominate a reliable and effective liberal replacement who is also a friend of Israel. Besides Obama is such a ditz he screw up Ginsburg's successors nomination.

docweasel said...

"Ginsburg probably still could decide to retire next summer"

Probably still could? Oh, the many layers of editors and the fine education of the professional journalists in our country!

Cedarford said...

BEK477 said...
Ginsburg will stayt on because she can't trust Obama as being either a stalwart liberal values defender or as a defender of Israel.

Notwithstanding Kagan and Breyer being on the court, Ginsburg will stay on as long as there is a chance that theliberal cause and the state of ISrael need a friend in high places.
=====================
I don't care for Ginsburg or her progressive transnationalist Jewish philosphies...but I do credit her with the integrity to have 1st loyalty to America and her misplaced vision for it over 1st loyalty to Israel.
Otherwise her decisions would reflect the bidding of the neocons, Zionists, and many Christian Zionists that the vital interests if Israel come before America's.
And her decisions don't reflect that philosophy.

Ginsburg - transnationalist but with loyalty to America over Israel.
Kagan - Not a transnationalist, loyal to America all the way.
Breyer - Transnationalist. Loyalty not to American or Israel, but international Ruling Elites.

PETER V. BELLA said...

They want everyone out so Obama can appoint some younger justices who will decide the fate of the nation for the next several decades. A fate worse than death.

Abortion and affirmative action are the only real issues progressives have left. They are the only issues that can generate so much hatred.

At the end of the day do they really matter? Affirmative action is nothing more than reverse discrimination. Laws are on the books to remedy the rest.

In a world going to economic hell in a hand basket does abortion really matter that much?

People are finally realizing that there is only one over riding issue they really care about- their own self interest.

It is finally all about us. Not some elitists who would grant the right to abortion or the right to life while stripping away the right to prosperity and opportunity. Who would give rights to "minorities", groups of people who only exist in make believe law.

Now it is about us. All of us.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ralph L said...

I would think blue state pols would want Roe overturned so that knocked-up red staters would have to spend money in their states instead of back home. Something like the old Nevada divorce racket.

I wonder if the price of an abortion varies much across the country. I haven't heard if the new Rep-controlled NC legislature has changed the state's abortion subsidies. The Dem Gov. vetoed the voter ID bill, the bitch.

ricpic said...

Get my drift?

That's all you do, Carol.

JAL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jelink said...

Roger J. said...

not sure I have any clearly thought out opinions on this--William O Douglas stayed on the bench and kept the bench dry by wearing depends.

--------------

Didn't the African-American Justice Thurgood Marshall do the same thing?

Didn't his clerks call him "The Dark Incontinent"?

JAL said...

If she were truly one of the Faithful, she would put herself on an ice floe.

Sacrificial lamb and all that.

Wait for the death panels. It will be narcissistic not to die for the greater good -- abortion and affirmative action included.

Gary Rosen said...

What significant Supreme Court decision has had anything to do with Israel????

One thing you can count on with C-fudd is that he lies. A lot. F'rinstance he keeps claiming to be a "Gen X-er" but in reality he is an

Aging

Boomer

Disclaimer: I'm also an aging boomer, but I don't lie about it like a used-up tranny hooker desperately trolling the boulevard for just one more trick.

Robin said...

Chemerinsky is a real piece of work. I've disliked the smarmy little **** since I had to take constitutional law from his ex wife.

antidrudgereport.com said...

I've created a website for progressives and the people who love them at www.antidrudgereport.com
check it out and let me know what you think.

antidrudgereport.com said...

I've created a website (www.antidrudgereport.com) for progressives and the people who love them. Please check it out and let me know what you think.

murgatroyd666 said...

I think it sucks.

I think it sucks.

caseym54 said...

At 58 years old, I guess that the bench isn't clearing fast enough for Prof. Chemerinsky.

soxfan4life said...

Why bother having a President nominate someone, and have them go through the approval process? Let's just let the douchebag liberal professors decide who sits on the Bench, might as well let them choose Federal judges too.

JohnnyT1948 said...

antidrudgereport.com

I don't think your website will be much of a success if you can't even spell the name of the Treasury Secretary successfully.
"Geitner Thinking about Leaving."
(Just as a hint, his name is spelled correctly in the headline of the article you linked to.)

stonemaster said...

God damn a buffalo,the Democrats are cannibalizing each other!!! Get the cook pot out O'bama & have a cook-out on the White House Lawn. Yum, Old Par-boiled Activist Judge :O

Steve Koch said...

We produce computer software to do our judicial work. The computer would be way less corrupt and way less activist than our human judiciary. Since the computer would just be checking for conformance to the constitution rather than inventing laws and rights out of thin air, the need for human creativity would be eliminated (thus tremendously simplifying the judicial software).

The problem with humans is that we are inherently political and corrupt. This has ruined our legal system and totally distorted our government.

On a different topic, it is way past time to get rid of Hatch.

Every single time a federal judge commits judicial activism, he should be impeached.

Carol_Herman said...

Okay. Obama picks Russ Finegold.

You think I'm kidding?

You got a better Ouija board?

Carol_Herman said...

Johnny T 1948 10:18 PM

Hey, You!

I just checked one of my dollar bills and the tax cheat spells his name: Timothy F. Geithner.

How can Obama stop him from leaving?

Perhaps, the problem is that no one on Wall Street wants him?

What's the good of having the White House on your resume. And, your name on dollar bills. If people think you stink at handling investments?

I've seen Larry Summers name on some of my dollar bills. And, he landed on his feet.

Carol_Herman said...

Gregg @ 2:13 PM

One reason Obama doesn't have to worry about the senate confirming a pick for SCOTUS, is that the stupid party, over there, is "managed" by the chinless wonder, Mitch McConnell.

What will McConnell do? Wave his effeminate fingers around?

McCain's gonna stand with Harry Reid!

While James Webb stands alone.

To win battles you need leaders.

Or you go back to how stunned Lincoln was at the incompetence of McLellan. (Who wrote to his wife, in a letter, he thought Lincoln was a monkey.)

When McLellan got nominated by democraps, back in 1864 ... they lost.

Sure. We saw Obama win.

But he was racing against McCain. Who is still a putz.

And, unfortunately, Karl Rove is still considered a republican player.

If this was Monopoly, nobody would pass GO and collect $200.

I wish Ruth Bader Ginsberg well.

She's got congeniality on her side. This is not true for the Wisconsin Supreme's, though.

The lack of congeniality on Wisconsin's supreme's ... is that Shirley Abrahamson may play "grandma" in 30-second TV spots. But that's not how she operates.

murgatroyd666 said...

Wow! How much of this kind of moral pressure is being applied to the venerable Justice?

Althouse, there are other kinds of pressure than moral pressure. Consider how many of the people in this administration are from Chicago. Ginsburg might retire "for health reasons" and really mean it.

Now I'm not saying that Our President would ever use a little Chicago muscle to get his way. Heavens, no! But I find it possible that Mr. Obama might muse to himself some fine summer day, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent Justice?" and some White House aide might overhear him and misinterpret his remark.

Accidents do happen.

SoCalCMH said...

a better way would be to fix all SCOTUS justice terms at 18 years, that's a new justice coming to the bench every two years, in an odd number year so that election year politics is minimized. every one term president would get two nominations. every two president would get four. the compulsion to have to nominate a youngish justice so that they can stay on the bench for a good long time would be diminished, yet turnover would be greater, more orderly and more natural. like i said above, a better way.

Micha Elyi said...

Carol_Herman said...
"You know the Titanic was advertised as a ship that couldn't sink."

No, I don't know that. It never happened. That claim was media-invented hype. The ship was never advertised as unsinkable.

Saint Croix said...

Marbury v. Madison was a fraud and nothing but a the individual view of a single individual--John Marshall--who manufactured the concept of judicial review of legislative/executive acts out of thin air as if sprung fully-armed like Athena from the forehead of Zeus

Hardly.

If the Constitution is law, then Courts have to follow it. Yes?

Saint Croix said...

The Supremes can withstand controversy if they can point to a provision of the Constitution and argue in good faith that they are merely following the law.

There was no good faith in Roe v. Wade. Witness Justice Blackmun's memo that viability and the trimester system were "arbitrary." Or his determination that it is irrelevant if the baby is alive or not alive. ("We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.") Or read Carhart or Carhart II for graphic (and cold-blooded) discussion of abortion as infanticide.

Roe v. Wade is toast, just like Lochner is toast and Dred Scott is toast. Not this year. Not next year. But it will happen in my lifetime.

An unenumerated rights opinion (a "law" that invents a right that is not specified in the Constitution) is always dubious as a matter of Constitutional law.

As a practical matter, this sort of case will only stand if both parties accept it. For instance, the unenumerated right to birth control, or the unenumerated right to live with your grandmother.

Nobody is pissed off about those rights. So they aren't going anywhere.

Roe v. Wade is the most controversial opinion the Supreme Court has ever written. Millions of Americans, several world religions and one political party are convinced that innocent babies have died as a result of it.

As a result, the Republicans continue to nominate pro-life Presidents, Senators, and Congressmen. And Republicans are vetting our own nominees for the judicial system (you betcha).

Sooner or later, we will have five. And then Roe will be gone.

Nolanimrod said...

And when "Roe" is gone it won't make one bit of difference except to the rent-seekers who have been living off it or getting elected because of it for 50 years.

Had it been left where it should the abortion issue would have been long settled and without Time reporters offering Bill Clinton a blow job.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

That claim was media-invented hype. The ship was never advertised as unsinkable.

False. The ship was indeed advertised as unsinkable.

I would cut-n-paste the relevant portion for you, but some idiot over there has disabled the ability to copy text:

http://www.snopes.com/history/titanic/unsinkable.asp

Saint Croix said...

And Lochner ought to be toast, because...?

You're missing the point. I don't actually like Lochner, but it doesn't matter what I think. The Democrats hate it. So it's dead.

One side cannot invent an unenumerated right if the other side hates it. Sooner or later the opponents of the new "right" will get five votes, and it's overruled.

And once it's dead, they don't bring it back. It's just too damn political at that point, and they know it.

WenRey said...

Great article,lots of intersting things to digest. Very informative

buspar no prescription

Akai_Tsuki said...

Ginsburg is a little old to be the picked Virgin Sacrifice to be thrown into the volcano to empower the Progressives war on America. They should let her alone.
exhibition boothsBuy Marine Phytoplankton