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?
