Posted on 11/29/2014 5:42:01 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
...Ruth Bader Ginsburg left the hospital yesterday after having a heart stent implanted and expects to be back at work Monday. Despite various health issues over the years, Ginsburg insists that she is still of sound body at age 81 (her mind isn’t in question) and has no plans to retire before the end of President Obama’s term to ensure a Democratic replacement. If she keeps to that pledge, and presuming there are no other retirements in the next two years, the makeup of the Supreme Court could be a bigger campaign issue in 2016 than ever before.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, keeping involved in work does help keep folks healthier and “younger” than they otherwise would be sitting at home watching Jerry Springer.
It is false advertising.
They are liars.
They are EXEMPT.
"At the foundation of our civil liberties lies
the principle that denies to government officials
an exceptional position before the law and which
subjects them to the same rules of conduct
that are commands to the citizen."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
the number is not unchangeable...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Article III of the United States Constitution leaves it to Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation’s boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[64] where it has since remained.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to pack the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt’s New Deal.[65] The plan, usually called the “Court-packing Plan”, failed in Congress.[66] Nevertheless, the Court’s balance began to shift within months when Justice van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice
I had to read carefully to be sure this wasn't meant as satire.
You are presuming the a Republican Senate would confirm a constitutionalist.
I’m not so sure.
/johnny
I acknowledge your points—but I also think it is true that recent history shows Democrats NEVER appoint winning SCOTUS justices.
Reagan gave us the terrible O’Connor, the wishy washy Kennedy, but the BRILLIANT Scalia.
Bush 43 appointed the sad sack Souter, but also gave us Clarence Thomas.
Was thinking the same. Were she to keel over this moment, I would still consider her body’s functioning in less question than her mind’s.
Romney appointed a gay judge when he was a governor. Republicans aren't going to save you.
/johnny
The Court won’t be the greatest issue of 2016. You say the word Judiciary and most people’s eyes glaze over.
I hope the old witch just lasts until January when the GOP takes control of the Senate. They can stop the Obama appointees from ever sitting on the bench, if they have the ‘nads to do so.
If the gay judge was a constitutionalist, it doesn’t matter.
Republicans have appointed (and still serving) 3 conservatives on the Court and 2 moderates, as follows (by appointment date):
Ronald Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia, conservative, in 1986 and Anthony Kennedy, moderate, in 1988.
George H.W. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas, conservative, in 1991. We should also mention that Bush I appointed David Souter, who turned out to be an arch-liberal, but he is no longer a SCOTUS judge. Of course Obama appointed a well-trained liberal parrot, the “Wise” Latina, to replace Souter.
George W. Bush appointed John Roberts, moderate, in 2003 (and Chief Justice in 2005) and Samuel Alito, conservative, in 2006.
We could say Reagan made a mistake with Kennedy, who is now the deciding vote on most issues, but how would he know, and indeed, how can any conservative know how a so-called conservative will vote as the years go by? The one thing you can say about democrat/leftist presidents, is that they pick reliable leftists to serve the court, and the picks never deviate from the master plan, decade after decade.
Thanks for the very insightful Post. Let me ask you this:
If a SC Justice goes into a coma and lingers on, in the coma, for 3 years and never resigned their Court seat, what action can be taken to remove them, if any?
Beware of leftist ‘conservatives.’
But maybe not in fighting form.
Republicans have a better track record than Democrats. I never said they would “save” me.
That's not much of a recommendation "We suck slightly less".
/johnny
Say what you will about the old bat, but every day she stays on during the BO administration I like her more and more. Long live RBG!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.