• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Who's the next Supreme Court Justice to retire?

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,084
1,254
126
the next pres will probably be nominating at least 1 justice during his term.

5-4 liberal court again?
or 6-3 conservative and kiss Abortion goodbye?
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
the next pres will probably be nominating at least 1 justice during his term.

5-4 liberal court again?
or 6-3 conservative and kiss Abortion goodbye?
As it stands right now Scalia is the only one that is likely to try to wait until a conservative president is in office before retiring, the others seem to not care as much about politics outside of the court.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,845
325
126
Should retire: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy
Will retire: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,845
325
126
the next pres will probably be nominating at least 1 justice during his term.

5-4 liberal court again?
or 6-3 conservative and kiss Abortion goodbye?
When was the last time the court had 5-4 liberal majority?
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,084
1,254
126
Should retire: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy
Will retire: Ruth Bader Ginsberg
interesting enuf.. if Reagan did what Bush Jr did, Scalia would have been Chief Justice instead of Rehnquist.. <shudder>
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,154
3,848
126
Ideally the court should be conservative. It is the guardian of the Constitution which should be protected from popularity contests and whim. At the time of it's establishment folk didn't live so long and the court was one or a few generations behind the population, sufficient to act as a conservative break against the populist house and a more deliberative senate.

However, the modern conservative Republican has gone off the rails pushing for a fundamentalist Christian state and liberals will now better protect the Constitution.

If you don't like the Taliban don't vote Republican.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,978
14,133
136
any one of Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsberg or Breyer could be the first.

Probably not Scalia- he's too impressed with himself as an asshole to retire voluntarily.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I certainly hope the SCOTUS justice to retire will be Scalia or Clarence the clown Thomas.

But in assuming that when that day finally comes, and that a 2'nd term Obama is the decider on who to nominate, we will never see the end of GOP gridlock to prevent the end of SCOTUS reactionary dominance if Scalia or Thomas are the jutices to be replaced.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,608
211
106
Ginsburg. She has had health issues and Justices like to retire one per term if possible so it can be orderly.
 
Last edited:

hardhat

Senior member
Dec 4, 2011
360
54
91
I can't imagine that there isn't some kind of back room deal when it comes to the SCOTUS. Having either party clearly favored in the court could basically spell doom on any institutional change that the other party is pursuing. To leave something like that to the whimsy of fate doesn't seem logical, and contradicts the most fundamental goal of the parties - the gathering and maintenance of power.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
I think Ginsburg could hang on for a while longer. I would really like to see Scalia go next.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,034
9,487
136
Yeah probably Ginsburg, the country just isn't lucky enough for it to be Scalia or Thomas.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,033
65
91
Yeah, assuming President Obama is re-elected (and perhaps even if he isn't), I would expect Ginsburg to retire in the next four years, and Kennedy might, as well. Scalia will die with his boots on, unless he has a catastrophic health event that renders him incapable of serving. I don't believe he would trust a President Romney to nominate his successor, and honestly I'm not convinced he would trust ANY President because he clearly views himself as one of history's great jurists and doesn't seem to think that there could possibly be a suitable replacement.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I'm not convinced he would trust ANY President because he clearly views himself as one of history's great jurists and doesn't seem to think that there could possibly be a suitable replacement.
I don't want any SCOTUS member to trust any President. That is not their job nor should it influence their actions an any way. A President is irrelevant to their function except where there is a potential conflict between that office and the Constitution That goes for Congress too. In that case trusting that the other branch is antithetical to their function. What is important is the case before them. I'd rather have a group of highly skeptical people doing this than pals.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,033
65
91
I don't want any SCOTUS member to trust any President. That is not their job nor should it influence their actions an any way. A President is irrelevant to their function except where there is a potential conflict between that office and the Constitution That goes for Congress too. In that case trusting that the other branch is antithetical to their function. What is important is the case before them. I'd rather have a group of highly skeptical people doing this than pals.
I mean, trust the President to nominate his successor. The Constitution gives the President that authority, and despite the contentious confirmation hearings that have modernly become the norm, I don't believe the framers intended that the President's nominee would be scrutinized for political reasons - just to determine whether he or she was appropriately qualified. I'm not talking about anything to do with the interaction between the President and the Supreme Court (though Scalia in particular seems to feel it is his job to editorialize in a negative way about Democratic Presidents).
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I mean, trust the President to nominate his successor. The Constitution gives the President that authority, and despite the contentious confirmation hearings that have modernly become the norm, I don't believe the framers intended that the President's nominee would be scrutinized for political reasons - just to determine whether he was appropriately qualified. I'm not talking about anything to do with the interaction between the President and the Supreme Court (though Scalia in particular seems to feel it is his job to editorialize in a negative way about Democratic Presidents).
Gotcha.
For my part I wish that all Presidents would seek to find candidates who base choices more on the Constitution than installing ideological look alikes, but that's a very very difficult thing. Personally I'd like to see a more politically removed process as I believe this is a fundamental flaw. It's become a mechanism by which one who is accountable to the Constitution can circumvent it by choice of candidate. There is an inherent conflict of interest and if Congress and the President belong to the same party then that party decides. I don't care for that much.
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
I'd be happier if Andrew J Napolitano was the next supreme court judge even though I don't agree with him very close to 100% or even as much as I agree with Dr. Paul... trying to not be as anti-pragmatic as I was and I realize that neither half of Rombama would nominate him even though Christie Todd Whitman (kind of a Gary Johnson Republican if you think about it) may have appointed/advanced him in NJ... due to that, I think Obama would be less unlikely to nominate Napolitano than Romney would for various reasons. Maybe I should petition Obama to nominate Napolitano in case one of the assholes on there now steps down. Then I can say I did something. Maybe I'm delusional. Then again, maybe I'm not delusional but simply dumb... or both.

In any event, I don't want to hear any insults from members of the Neo-Johnson cult, because I'm growing out of the Dr. Paul cult. I want to be my very own cult, with some degree of moderation of course... all while still having a massive (but not 100%) bias towards Rothbard and seldom forgetting how much Dr. Paul helped me to think for myself.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I'd be happier if Andrew J Napolitano was the next supreme court judge even though I don't agree with him very close to 100% or even as much as I agree with Dr. Paul... trying to not be as anti-pragmatic as I was and I realize that neither half of Rombama would nominate him even though Christie Todd Whitman (kind of a Gary Johnson Republican if you think about it) may have appointed/advanced him in NJ... due to that, I think Obama would be less unlikely to nominate Napolitano than Romney would for various reasons. Maybe I should petition Obama to nominate Napolitano in case one of the assholes on there now steps down. Then I can say I did something. Maybe I'm delusional. Then again, maybe I'm not delusional but simply dumb... or both.

In any event, I don't want to hear any insults from members of the Neo-Johnson cult, because I'm growing out of the Dr. Paul cult. I want to be my very own cult, with some degree of moderation of course... all while still having a massive (but not 100%) bias towards Rothbard and seldom forgetting how much Dr. Paul helped me to think for myself.
Don't get paranoid. You expressed a preference for a candidate and expressed the realistic opinion that he wouldn't be selected. That's reasonable and if you get hit because of this then you still said something that could be understood and that's good.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,379
0
76
Ideally the court should be conservative. It is the guardian of the Constitution which should be protected from popularity contests and whim. At the time of it's establishment folk didn't live so long and the court was one or a few generations behind the population, sufficient to act as a conservative break against the populist house and a more deliberative senate.

However, the modern conservative Republican has gone off the rails pushing for a fundamentalist Christian state and liberals will now better protect the Constitution.

If you don't like the Taliban don't vote Republican.
I was agreeing with you until the second paragraph. The liberals are pushing for a fundamentalist feminist socialist state, along with other "isms." Rational-thinking people will not allow for a strict religious theocracy you fear, and yet the country is full of know-it-all smartasses who think they can stop gun homicides by outlawing guns, or that it's perfectly fair to rob the rich at gunpoint and redistribute the money to the not-so-rich, or to provide special privileges to women while preaching equality. I don't want a fundamentalist Equalist regime any more than a theocracy.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,978
14,133
136
I don't want a fundamentalist Equalist regime any more than a theocracy.
Neither do the people you disparage.

It's remarkable just how warped Righties' perspectives can get. If incomes were auctioned off by how much a person would pay in taxes, high incomes would pay more than Swedish level taxes. It's the bottom line that counts, and by any measure, America's wealthiest enjoy much better bottom lines than they did pre-Reagan.

Low taxes at the top don't change their lifestyles in the slightest, create jobs or contribute to the economy in any way other than asset inflation. The real world lifestyle difference between taking home $2M/mo and $1.8M/mo is non-existent, because only a small part of such massive incomes is actually spent.

Meanwhile, median families' earinings would be ~40% higher if the income distribution curve of 1980 had been maintained. Median families would be thrilled to pay pre-Reagan taxes on incomes that were 40% larger, bet on that, because they'd be a lot better off than they are today after 30 years of trickledown deception.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,570
1,524
126
I use to worry about (well a little bit) about the makeup of the high court.
But after the last Obamacare ruling, I don't think it really matters that much.
The justices seem to travel in their own world of right and wrong, so you really never know which way the robes will blow.
A full right wing court could still easily uphold roe vs wade, as well as rule against DOMA.
These guys (and ladies) are beholden to no ideology or group or party.
They, the justices, are far above that.
That is... once confirmed and elevated into Saint Hood.
And I'd wager they are highly offended at even the mere suggestion of any political party affiliation or political ideology.
Once confirmed, they become part of the highest of the high. The group above all groups. The voice of the final say.
The voice that moves mountains and parts waters.
In other word, GOD!
God, as far as in the high all mighty, above all, their own brand of immortality.
Especially far beyond the physical world of dirty little politics.
A bumper sticker that might read I AM THE TRUE GOD, GET OVER IT.
.
.
.
 
Last edited:

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,379
0
76
Neither do the people you disparage.

It's remarkable just how warped Righties' perspectives can get. If incomes were auctioned off by how much a person would pay in taxes, high incomes would pay more than Swedish level taxes. It's the bottom line that counts, and by any measure, America's wealthiest enjoy much better bottom lines than they did pre-Reagan.

Low taxes at the top don't change their lifestyles in the slightest, create jobs or contribute to the economy in any way other than asset inflation. The real world lifestyle difference between taking home $2M/mo and $1.8M/mo is non-existent, because only a small part of such massive incomes is actually spent.

Meanwhile, median families' earinings would be ~40% higher if the income distribution curve of 1980 had been maintained. Median families would be thrilled to pay pre-Reagan taxes on incomes that were 40% larger, bet on that, because they'd be a lot better off than they are today after 30 years of trickledown deception.
Why are you comparing us to Sweden? That's like saying "it's not so bad here, just look at the sh!thole that is the EU, and be glad you're not there."

The difference between 1.8M and 2M is actually pretty substantial. People with big incomes tend to have big expenses, and many of them are further in debt than your average middle class household. And even if the rich person didn't "need" all that money, who are you to tell them that they have to share it with the others? You get the government spending back down to 1980's levels, and suddenly your budget problem is under control without excessive taxation. That just means you'll have to cut back on feel-good lefty utopia spending, like Obamaphones.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY