Ruth Bader Ginsburg with pancreatic cancer, 3 weeks radiation therapy

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
She's an 86 year old with multiple bouts of cancer, who remains in office for strictly political reasons. Not that I begrudge her that - that's what our presently empowered supreme court demands. Every time a SCOTUS justice has bad gas we hear about it on CNN.

The SCOTUS is now so powerful that we can't have an 86 year old cancer survivor consider retirement or even get sick without talk of civil war. I'm being wholly honest: If I were her grandson, I would feel bad that the only retirement she'll get is when she dies. It's a shame that after such service she has no prospect of anything other than to work until death or severe incapacity, just as neither Scalia nor Kennedy did. In recent history only Rehnquist managed to get out of the court alive, and then only for a short time.

Of course I'd be pleased for partisan reasons if she retired. I flatly disagree with her on nearly everything. But abstracting myself from politics for a few minutes, it's ridiculous that this is expected of SCOTUS justices, whatever their affiliation. I think that's all that Glenn was communicating.

If this is the case, would you support the eventual Democrat President appointing more overall Supreme Court positions so that it doesn't revolve quite so much around the health of one or two judges? Even if it meant your ideological dreams would be put on the back burner?
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
She's an 86 year old with multiple bouts of cancer, who remains in office for strictly political reasons. Not that I begrudge her that - that's what our presently empowered supreme court demands. Every time a SCOTUS justice has bad gas we hear about it on CNN.

The SCOTUS is now so powerful that we can't have an 86 year old cancer survivor consider retirement or even get sick without talk of civil war. I'm being wholly honest: If I were her grandson, I would feel bad that the only retirement she'll get is when she dies. It's a shame that after such service she has no prospect of anything other than to work until death or severe incapacity, just as neither Scalia nor Kennedy did. In recent history only Rehnquist managed to get out of the court alive, and then only for a short time.

Of course I'd be pleased for partisan reasons if she retired. I flatly disagree with her on nearly everything. But abstracting myself from politics for a few minutes, it's ridiculous that this is expected of SCOTUS justices, whatever their affiliation. I think that's all that Glenn was communicating.

Pretty well said. My exact thoughts as well. I truly wish she could retire right now and not have to worry about the burden of "losing a seat". I wish I didn't have to worry about the supreme court partisan politics in the first place. The SCOTUS should be in such high moral regard that we shouldn't need to even worry about who is appointed.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Did Trump push that birtherism? Anyone there? K. Bye.

It’s interesting that he’s so emotionally invested here and so incapable of criticizing Trump no matter how bad his behavior that he can’t even admit plainly obvious facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
She's an 86 year old with multiple bouts of cancer, who remains in office for strictly political reasons. Not that I begrudge her that - that's what our presently empowered supreme court demands. Every time a SCOTUS justice has bad gas we hear about it on CNN.

The SCOTUS is now so powerful that we can't have an 86 year old cancer survivor consider retirement or even get sick without talk of civil war. I'm being wholly honest: If I were her grandson, I would feel bad that the only retirement she'll get is when she dies. It's a shame that after such service she has no prospect of anything other than to work until death or severe incapacity, just as neither Scalia nor Kennedy did. In recent history only Rehnquist managed to get out of the court alive, and then only for a short time.

Of course I'd be pleased for partisan reasons if she retired. I flatly disagree with her on nearly everything. But abstracting myself from politics for a few minutes, it's ridiculous that this is expected of SCOTUS justices, whatever their affiliation. I think that's all that Glenn was communicating.

It is ridiculous in the abstract sense. In general a justice should be able to retire at anytime and be assured of a reasonable replacement. RBG could have retired back during Obama’s term. Although in reality she would have had to do it while the Dems controlled congress which meant retiring in early 2014 at the latest.

But your concern here seems to put it mildly, naive. Your preferred party has become hyper-partisan. The senate majority leader refused to provide advice and consent as required by the constitution during Obama’s term and then failed again by rubber stamping a justice who was credibly accused of sexual assault and who cried and raged at his job interview.

The other justice picked was one who ruled that in certain cases companies may fire you if you choose to protect your life over company property after the company put their employee in a life threatening situation.

Your preferred president routinely attacks the courts for their constitutional role as a check on executive power as do you here when you opine about “how powerful the court is”. Your president and members of his party have specifically looked for RBG to step down or pass away so those checks can be further diluted.

Any left leaning or center leaning justice would think long and hard about allowing this administration to appoint any other poorly vetted or unqualified justices.


This really shouldn’t be a surprise to you. This is the administration you wanted.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
It’s interesting that he’s so emotionally invested here and so incapable of criticizing Trump no matter how bad his behavior that he can’t even admit plainly obvious facts.
That line along with a couple of embarrasing vids having his idol metaphorically fellating Putin stops him dead in his tracks every single time... Its those couple of subjects his troll team cant come up with a counter to! ie. Birtherism. Did Trump push it? Yes? Does that make him a racist? No? Explain. Trollfactory cant. So he dodges.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,732
28,908
136
She's a tough old cookie, that's for sure. Though I disagree with much of what she stands for, I will not celebrate her passing like the liberals did with David Koch.

"When they go low, we go high." BAHAHAHA
If I recall a Trump staffer made jokes earlier this year about RBG dying while on the court.

Wrong again, quiz kid.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
Yea, because if she retired another Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh could be nominated. Oh, the horror. :rolleyes:

Idiots:
Screen-Shot-2018-10-06-at-5.49.39-PM.jpg

I won’t hire anyone that looks like this at a job interview.

uploads%252Fcard%252Fimage%252F853904%252Ffb4cf226-6daa-42b7-b177-be7dbeabee93.jpg%252F950x534__filters%253Aquality%252880%2529.jpg
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
FTFY


You're not her grandson. Your sudden tender concern rings hollow to me.

And YOU DON'T KNOW that RBG isn't doing exactly what she most wants to do, gladly and with a fierce and fulfilling sense of purpose.

Ruth Ginsberg has been her own woman her entire life . . . a life of service to our country.

You and glenn, staining the page with your crocodile tears, want to portray this amazing American as some sort of victim. It's BS patronizing, and I'm not buying it.
7G3zITG.png

You can obviously believe whatever you wish. I can't prove a counterfactual but I daresay if this was Clarence Thomas who was potentially this sick during a Dem admin I'd give him the same advice. No court seat is worth literally killing yourself over if you're no longer physically up to the task. If that means that some bad ruling like Kelo v. New London or something results because he stepped down then so be it. Court decisions can be reversed, you can't bring a dead SCOTUS justice who's also a spouse, parent, sibling, etc back from the grave. Feel free to bookmark this post and quote me for hypocrisy if in a few years something similar comes to pass and I'm a thread like this saying "please don't retire conservative justice X so your seat doesn't get filled by a liberal."


If this is the case, would you support the eventual Democrat President appointing more overall Supreme Court positions so that it doesn't revolve quite so much around the health of one or two judges? Even if it meant your ideological dreams would be put on the back burner?

I've supported a quasi "term limits" for SCOTUS justices for long time. 18 years on the "active" bench then lifetime in reserve status in cases where an active justice recuses him/herself, etc. That way each POTUS gets 2 nominations per term. As for "appointing more overall positions" I'm not locked into 9 but am wary of doing so to "restore political balance" or similar lines of reasoning, mostly because it will just lead to retaliation and further court packing.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,568
9,937
146
I've supported a quasi "term limits" for SCOTUS justices for long time. 18 years on the "active" bench then lifetime in reserve status in cases where an active justice recuses him/herself, etc. That way each POTUS gets 2 nominations per term. As for "appointing more overall positions" I'm not locked into 9 but am wary of doing so to "restore political balance" or similar lines of reasoning, mostly because it will just lead to retaliation and further court packing.
Well agreed on your first point. And . . . while I am wary of retaliation in the form of further court packing should the Dems get someday to pack the court, what Mitch McConnell pulled seriously needs to be addressed.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Well agreed on your first point. And . . . while I am wary of retaliation in the form of further court packing should the Dems get someday to pack the court, what Mitch McConnell pulled seriously needs to be addressed.

Absent an amendment saying something like "a nominee not put forward for a vote within X days is considered confirmed by the Senate" I don't see how you can fix that. There's very few ways of compelling performance/execution of their duties from Congress.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
I won’t hire anyone that looks like this at a job interview.

uploads%252Fcard%252Fimage%252F853904%252Ffb4cf226-6daa-42b7-b177-be7dbeabee93.jpg%252F950x534__filters%253Aquality%252880%2529.jpg


I don't know the truth about what happened in his past, if he acted inappropriately or not. But, I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with him letting some emotion out if he's innocent. For argument's sake assume he was innocent, if it were you and a partisan made up attack was put in place that may stop you from achieving your life's dream, a very lofty dream at that, how would you feel?
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,568
9,937
146
uploads%252Fcard%252Fimage%252F853904%252Ffb4cf226-6daa-42b7-b177-be7dbeabee93.jpg%252F950x534__filters%253Aquality%252880%2529.jpg


I want my con con confirmation! Daddy promised!!
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
I don't know the truth about what happened in his past, if he acted inappropriately or not. But, I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with him letting some emotion out if he's innocent. For argument's sake assume he was innocent, if it were you and a partisan made up attack was put in place that may stop you from achieving your life's dream, a very lofty dream at that, how would you feel?

I’d be angry. But what I wouldn’t do was show that anger, in front of the Senate, on national TV, interviewing for job that famously requires a sober rational demeanor, especially after the Bar Association had concerns about my demeanor at my last confirmation.

Otherwise 2400 Law Professors would say I was unqualified risking my dream and indicating I was only chosen for partisan reasons.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
If this is the case, would you support the eventual Democrat President appointing more overall Supreme Court positions so that it doesn't revolve quite so much around the health of one or two judges? Even if it meant your ideological dreams would be put on the back burner?

Im conflicted on that. If it weren't such a blatant power grab I'd sign on to it I think. But packing the court isnt what I had in mind, whether it works in my political favor or not. What I'd prefer is to reduce the number of justices to an even number. More ties means more reliance on legislatures and less on the oligarchy. With less prospect of getting a SCOTUS decision in your favor, voting incidence would certainly increase. Less 5-4 landmark decisions would do us well I think.

The simple act of forcing the court to rule by 5/8ths majority instead of 5/9ths would serve to reduce its power.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
Im conflicted on that. If it weren't such a blatant power grab I'd sign on to it I think. But packing the court isnt what I had in mind, whether it works in my political favor or not. What I'd prefer is to reduce the number of justices to an even number. More ties means more reliance on legislatures and less on the oligarchy. With less prospect of getting a SCOTUS decision in your favor, voting incidence would certainly increase. Less 5-4 landmark decisions would do us well I think.

The simple act of forcing the court to rule by 5/8ths majority instead of 5/9ths would serve to reduce its power.

Yeah, I know what you mean... although I think I'd rather increase the number of justices to make it even than to decrease it. That'd further reduce the dependence on individual members and theoretically increase the diversity of opinions that affect a final decision.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
This is what makes her and her “best buddy “ stand out, and shows how far this country has declined, today it is considered taboo to be seen let alone mingle with someone who has opposing political viewpoints.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...g-justice-antonin-scalia-we-were-best-n518671
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Justice Antonin Scalia: 'We Were Best Buddies'

160214-ginsburg-scalia-230p_d8c1506bab17a5efb1e0e2577595d371.nbcnews-fp-1200-630.jpg


And how many would be seen on holiday/vacation with their “political opposite” this would be considered heresy and political treason in today's intolerant climate.
HT_scalia_ginsburg_trip_mm_150215_4x3_992.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: qliveur and kage69

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Yeah, I know what you mean... although I think I'd rather increase the number of justices to make it even than to decrease it. That'd further reduce the dependence on individual members and theoretically increase the diversity of opinions that affect a final decision.

The problem is his plan to reduce the count of judges to an even number would lead to a legal nightmare for the country. Generally speaking SCOTUS steps in when circuit courts disagree, making US law apply differently in different parts of the same country. If you have an even number of justices that means any 4-4 split leaves that discrepancy in place.

Imagine trying to run a business where you have to comply with different interpretations of the same law simultaneously. Not different laws, the same law that just means different things depending on where you are. It would be a bonanza for lawyers though, you would then need specialists in law for eleven different interpretations of one federal code across the country. As time goes on the number of discrepancies would only grow too.

Again though, regardless of what Republicans do Democrats should expand the court. It would not only move the court away from the radical right, it would make filling each vacancy less consequential if there were, say, 27 justices.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
The problem is his plan to reduce the count of judges to an even number would lead to a legal nightmare for the country. Generally speaking SCOTUS steps in when circuit courts disagree, making US law apply differently in different parts of the same country. If you have an even number of justices that means any 4-4 split leaves that discrepancy in place.

Imagine trying to run a business where you have to comply with different interpretations of the same law simultaneously. Not different laws, the same law that just means different things depending on where you are. It would be a bonanza for lawyers though, you would then need specialists in law for eleven different interpretations of one federal code across the country. As time goes on the number of discrepancies would only grow too.

Again though, regardless of what Republicans do Democrats should expand the court. It would not only move the court away from the radical right, it would make filling each vacancy less consequential if there were, say, 27 justices.

Don't fuck with rules in an unfair way (e.g. make the court more judges and appoint a bunch from only your party).

Republicans will beat you over the head with it with joy .... See Nuclear Option and Gerrymandering heh. Both originated from Democrats. Both ended up crying foul when the opposing party used it better.

If you want to do something fair and sensical, then fine. I'm all for reforming SCOTUS in many ways. Examples: Term limits, or require bi-partisan support in order to appoint any.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
Don't fuck with rules in an unfair way (e.g. make the court more judges and appoint a bunch from only your party).

Republicans will beat you over the head with it with joy .... See Nuclear Option and Gerrymandering heh. Both originated from Democrats. Both ended up crying foul when the opposing party used it better.

If you want to do something fair and sensical, then fine. I'm all for reforming SCOTUS in many ways. Examples: Term limits, or require bi-partisan support in order to appoint any.

Technically, gerrymandering started with the Democratic-Republicans!

You're right in that the long-term solution needs to be fair and avoid simply see-sawing between imbalances. With that said, I don't think we could expect any kind of viable reform effort from modern Republicans (not that I'd expect Dems to be perfectly compliant, but they at least have a chance of being open to it). The GOP's goal is explicitly to stack the SCOTUS for decades to come, and damn the consequences. I can't help but wonder if the best option is to counter that stacking effort in the short term with new appointments in addition to reforming the system to ensure balance.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Don't fuck with rules in an unfair way (e.g. make the court more judges and appoint a bunch from only your party).

It’s the best solution and it should be done EXPLICITLY in an unfair way. See below. At the moment we aren’t looking at what the best governance structure is, we are trying to create incentives for Republicans to stop engaging in destructive behavior.

Republicans will beat you over the head with it with joy .... See Nuclear Option and Gerrymandering heh. Both originated from Democrats. Both ended up crying foul when the opposing party used it better.

They most certainly did not. It’s amazing how twisted history gets when it wasn’t even that long ago. Here is the actual history of the nuclear option:

1) under GWB Democrats filibustered a number of judges republicans wanted to appoint so Republicans threatened to nuke the filibuster.

2) after negotiations both parties came to a deal where the judges would be confirmed and in the future judges would only be filibustered in ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

3) under Obama Republicans broke the deal, rampantly filibustering judicial appointments. The straw that broke the camel’s back was when Republicans said they would filibuster all appointments to the DC circuit regardless of who the nominee was.

4) Democrats fulfilled the terms of the deal, nuking the filibuster as was originally agreed on because the other party broke the agreement.

That’s what ACTUALLY happened. Republicans made a deal that ensured they got their way (GWB judges) and then as soon as the deal no longer gave them their way they broke it. Democrats cried foul because...it was foul. That’s why bipartisan reforms to the court now are not useful. You don’t reward someone breaking the last deal by making a new deal that they will also break.

If you want to do something fair and sensical, then fine. I'm all for reforming SCOTUS in many ways. Examples: Term limits, or require bi-partisan support in order to appoint any.

This is the most fair and sensical way. Republicans have already shown they cannot be trusted to keep their word when it comes to the courts so the best way forward for everyone is to show them that doing this carries a price. Since appeal to good government doesn’t work we have to try a different way.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
This goal should be to pack the court at the first available opportunity and start generating large amounts of liberal rulings. Then you go to the Republicans and say ‘this can stop at any time’. Once you make them see that their previous actions have consequences you give them a reason to enter into a deal that’s both bipartisan and one we have a prayer of them honoring.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
This goal should be to pack the court at the first available opportunity and start generating large amounts of liberal rulings. Then you go to the Republicans and say ‘this can stop at any time’. Once you make them see that their previous actions have consequences you give them a reason to enter into a deal that’s both bipartisan and one we have a prayer of them honoring.


In support of that idea notice that the republicans in Congress have passed a deal to lift the debit ceiling for two years.

They got burned badly trying to play that game in the past and so they’ve learned a lesson.

We need to teach them another one.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
In support of that idea notice that the republicans in Congress have passed a deal to lift the debit ceiling for two years.

They got burned badly trying to play that game in the past and so they’ve learned a lesson.

We need to teach them another one.

Exactly. As another good example of all this do you doubt for even a second that if there is a SCOTUS vacancy in 2020 that the republicans will fill it? The same majority leader that sincerely, sincerely felt that the American people should be able to weigh in on something so important will decide it’s not so important after all.