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.You have to remember that for liberals the courts are as important, if no more so, than elected office because one judge can overturn the will of millions of Americans. If they end up on the wrong side of a 5-3-1 court (with Kennedy being the one swing vote) they won't win any of the big battles coming up.
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.
But Ginsburg could retire now and allow Obama to name a like-minded successor whose confirmation would be in the hands of a Democratic-controlled Senate. "She has in her power the ability to prevent a real shift in the balance of power on the court," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine law school. "On the other hand, there's the personal. How do you decide to leave the United States Supreme Court?"
For now, Ginsburg's answer is, you don't.
As Obama's re-election hopes fade, look for increasing pressure on Ginsburg to retire before he's voted out and can't appoint a successor.
Posts
2 comments:
Ageist b******s!
This is exactly what the supreme court is NOT supposed to be about.
That said, I can imagine strategists strongly advocating "Freshening up" the "progressive" end of bench so that the current line of buzzards don't, as the article suggests, retire or die at an inopportune time for progressive politics.
On the other hand, they were one vote, one person away from having free reign to ban private ownership of firearms in Heller, it's no wonder they are so focused on the power offered by control of the Supreme court.
Post a Comment