U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

fucking libs

take your fucking testosterone-driven blurting of whatever nonsense your emotions tell you is real and shove it up your nostrils, sir. I reject your innuendoes and bullshit imputations. go sit on something sharp.

I've taken ten minutes to step away and cool down a bit. But, jesus christ, kev, if I am a fucking liberal, does that make you some kind of fire-breathing radical? a revolutionary? a political savant?

Talking smack on the internet as if you have anything to offer but your anger and you get to direct it at anyone you please on whatever slender disagreement sets you off is goddamn tiresome. And it's not just you. It's half the clowns on the internet and I get fucking tired of it. It isn't radical or revolutionary, it's just as reactionary and stupid as it sounds, but you can't hear yourself.

Aimless, a real chance exists that we'll re-elect Donald Trump. If so -- well, I don't need to explain a thing. Sotomayor's health also means that a real chance exists that she'll die or become incapacitated. Better for her to resign now.

Is there any guarantee Biden gets Sotomayor's replacement through before the election? Or even gets to choose the replacement?

Biden has the power to nominate, the Senate (with Democrats in control) confirm.

Thanks Alfred

be very surprised if she resigned. gerontocracy/entitlement stuff in politics transcends ideological boundaries, methods of gov't, etc. some fantasy scenario in which a dear friend gently engages her on the question and her conscience responds is probably yr best bet here, good luck

I mean, piss on this guy:

In any event, agreement or disagreement, joke or no joke, in my 28 years on the court I did not hear a voice raised in anger in that conference, nor were snide or personal remarks ever made. The discussion was professional, disagreements reflected legal differences on the merits, and the justices tried to find ways to reach court agreements.

Justice O’Connor maintained that a highly important informal court rule was this: You and I may disagree strongly in respect to Case 1, but that fact has nothing to do with our positions in respect to (not legally related) Case 2, where we may be the strongest of allies. That is, no horse-trading.

After conference we would have lunch, often talking about sports or trading so-called jokes and other nonlegal matters. I remember once saying to Chief Justice Rehnquist that I thought it amazing that we were about to have a pleasant lunch when just 20 minutes before at conference we strongly disagreed about applicable law. His reply suggested that he thought only a short time earlier that half the court thought the other half had lost its mind.

What works for nine people with lifetime appointments won’t work for the entire nation, but listening to one another in search of a consensus might help.

Seriously. Fuck comity, who cares if they get along, or go hunting together, or play chess or go birdwatching. I'd rather they all realize the damage being done to the country and its institutions, including theirs.

I don't know what the point of the Breyer piece was. I kept waiting for a transitioh ("But on today's court...") that never came.

The next person to mention Nino 'n' Ruth loving opera gets a pillow to the face. I keep hearing wonders about their friendship; I watch videos of their public appearances where he snaps at her, talks over her, and grimaces in her direction while she takes it.

I don't know what the point of the Breyer piece was. I kept waiting for a transitioh ("But on today's court...") that never came

My take is that was point, that nothing from prior generations has any bearing on the present in U.S. politics and certainly not the future, albeit one Breyer accidentally stumbled upon?

It was a eulogy for "things just working"

Nostalgia for a time when Democrats and Republicans could get along to “end welfare as we know it”.

the Senate (with Democrats in control) confirm

As pointed out previously, Senator Manchin has already announced he will not vote to confirm any judicial nominee who doesn't also get a Republican vote. Recent history teaches that the current 49 Republican senators will vote on SCOTUS nominations as a solid phalanx. If that holds true again (and I'm sure it will) then it would require all 50 remaining Democratic senators to vote to confirm. That includes Senator Sinema. Only then could VP Harris cast the tie-breaking vote.

The politics of this stand-off ensure that the chances that any notably progressive nominee getting confirmed are very remote. Unless the senate confirms someone, Sotomayor's seat would remain vacant after her resignation took effect. In contrast, Sotomayor is a known quantity and a reliable justice, her position is notoriously a lifetime appointment, and she could fill the seat until her death and that could be a decade or more away.

There's plenty of reasons why her resignation right now should be viewed as a massive gamble that could swing the court even further right. But the whole Ginsburg debacle has traumatized people and they are unwilling to see this situation a anything but a reprise, when it is in fact its own dilemma requiring fresh calculations based entirely on today's politics.

That's my insane take on it.

Unless the senate confirms someone, Sotomayor's seat would remain vacant after her resignation took effect.

I'd like to enlarge on that. Since the pro-resignation position is that Biden must fill her vacancy before the election in November, Sotomayor's resignation would certainly be dated to occur after the current SCOTUS session ends in June and before the next session begins in October. This would inevitably make the confirmation of her replacement be 100% about the presidential election.

McConnell would understand this and use it to maximum advantage -- and the greatest possible advantage his party could derive would be if Sotomayor's seat was still vacant on the day of the election. Conventional wisdom about this presidential election is that voters aren't highly motivated by either candidate. Turnout is seen as the key. If the election hinges on reproductive rights, as the Democrats prefer, then they already have a great motivator in their hands for their voters to turn out. If the Republicans can force the election to be about filling a vacant SCOTUS seat, that fight would eclipse reproductive rights and hand the Republicans who dislike Trump a get-out-of-guilt free pass to vote for him.

But even if the nominee is confirmed in a 50-50 vote with tie-breaker so that Sotomayor's seat is filled by October 1, the brouhaha over confirmation would dominate the election cycle and hand the opposition a lovely, fresh, new grievance to harp on. My sense is that forcing Sotomayor to resign would put Biden's re-election hopes into a paper boat and launch it into some heavy rapids. It's not worth the risk.

"a massive gamble" not really

It is both allowed and common for Justices to announce their retirement contingent on confirmation of a successor. In fact, Biden could nominate and the Senate could confirm a new SCOTUS Justice *without* an announced retirement, and just stockpile it until a vacancy arose. https://t.co/elXUnPXcP2

— Matt Glassman (@MattGlassman312) April 8, 2024

Totally sounds like something Joe Biden would do

just because Joe Biden is a fucking idiot I have to pretend aimless is right?

Biden could nominate and the Senate could confirm a new SCOTUS Justice *without* an announced retirement, and just stockpile it until a vacancy arose.

I can recall SCOTUS confirmations going back to the withdrawal of the Abe Fortas nomination during the LBJ administration. I cannot recall a Senate-confirmed justice ever being "stockpiled" just in case a sitting justice ever felt like resigning. If this is so common as all that, perhaps Matt Glassman might have cited some recent examples.

the stockpiling scenario is an observation about how the rules are written, not a suggestion. conditional retirement is the thing he's saying is common.

in any case your post rests on a procedural assumption that is not true, and the reality is the tautological argument for not doing this is "Sotomayor and Biden would not do it".

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKmLwV-WMAEbo33?format=jpg&name=large

Can you condition your retirement on your replacement being picked by the current President?

Or withdraw your retirement if the wrong guy wins the Presidency?
Maybe. But these are not things Washington people do.

i'm not saying Biden and the democratic majority would *actually* do something that might appear gauche to like 4 columnists (3 NYT, 1 WaPo). I'm just saying they *should*, and the excuse aimless gives for their inaction is bs.

President Keyes is putting his finger on some excellent questions. I'll step aside and see if there are any good answers before offering any of the further questions I have in mind.

🙄

That Matt Glassman tweet is responding to an argument that Senators like Manchin and Sinema might not play ball by proposing an idea that they absolutely would reject.

manchin sure. sinema maybe not. the cost of putting her on the spot is not high unless you care a lot about what oped columnists who have no object permanence think of your ethics.

Yeah, that’s what I mean. The people making these decisions do care about that stuff.

Recent precedent also suggests that a sitting Justice can be threatened, persuaded or coerced into sudden retirement if the party establishment is sick and tired enough of him bucking the party line on key issues, and if the current president is familiar and comfortable with mob tactics, in a “favor for a favor” sort of way, if you will.

I'll step aside and see if there are any good answers before offering any of the further questions I have in mind.

You sure the president will nominate your successor?

Can't say. I'm not sure anyone else would want to put up with the snide comments.

Never mind. I'm convinced now. Nate brought the Maths.

Yes, Sotomayor should retire. Not a remotely close call if you want to avoid a 7-2 conservative majority. I work through some of the math here.https://t.co/SVRdt8MSVY

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 8, 2024

Another question is how moderate Democrats — particularly Manchin and Kirsten Sinema, who is also retiring — would feel about replacing a Supreme Court justice in an election year. But Republicans just did exactly that with Barrett. Manchin and Sinema, meanwhile, have generally been loyal to Biden on court appointments, both having voted for Ketanji Brown Jackson, for instance. And if need be, Sotomayor could make her retirement contingent on the confirmation of a suitable replacement.

What an argument. "Suitable" not doing a lot of unclear work there.

just want to point out for future historians, who may very well be civility mongers so favored by our current rulers, that aimless’s first stumbling into this discussion was to defend sotomayor’s right as a public servant to personal self-determination against “political calculation”, then after a bit of googling pivoted to political calculation of his own.

I mistakenly glanced at Silver's comments section.

What happened to Five Thirty Eight?

What happened to Five Thirty Eight?

Silver sold it to become a full-time Twitter crank, and ABC News assimilated it.

future historians will be able to consult the source material on their own and decide how to characterize it, but no doubt they will appreciate the courtesy

cmon man you completely outed yourself with that humiliating post

should decide it on her own terms or whatever lol

At least alfred caught the joke. I see it flew right by you.

Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.

"future historians" *snort*

Let future historians wonder how ilx reacted when you broke its heart

how do u mend
a broken thread

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/12/billionaire-leonard-leo-rejects-senate-subpoena-supreme-court-gifts?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=edit_2221&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1712920683

The big-money rightwing donor Leonard Leo said he would not comply with a subpoena issued by the US Senate judiciary committee, as it investigates undisclosed gifts to conservative supreme court justices that have stoked an ethics crisis at a court already held in historically low public esteem...
Referring to Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who chairs the committee, Leo said: “I am not capitulating to his lawless support of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [a Democrat from Rhode Island] and the left’s dark money effort to silence and cancel political opposition.”
Progressive groups welcomed the Leo subpoena but protested the lack of one for Crow.“The entire country has been waiting too long for Durbin to take action, and subpoenaing Leonard Leo without simultaneously subpoenaing Harlan Crow is a half-baked attempt at doing his job as judiciary chair.”

Interesting use of the word "lawless" there