Should Ginsberg resign?

[Lone Clone]

It would make a lot of sense. She's in her 80s and in very poor health. She resigns now, either Obama or the next president can appoint a conservative and a liberal, so the balance doesn't change. A lot of hassle is thus avoided.

Moreover, if she doesn't resign, the odds are that her slot will became vacant when there is a Republican president or Senate or both.

Probably the politically wise thing from a liberal's point of view.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

She should have resigned a year or two ago but it doesn't matter now. And no, a package deal wouldn't be smart from a liberal perspective if it doesn't change the balance anyway.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm not sure the second point is very certain. Aren't Ds projected to take back the Senate and retain the WH?

 

[The Tradition]

Yeah, we don't have enough drama this election year. Ginsberg needs to stick around.

Hang in there, Ruth!

 

[starbrown]

It would make a lot of sense. She's in her 80s and in very poor health. She resigns now, either Obama or the next president can appoint a conservative and a liberal, so the balance doesn't change. A lot of hassle is thus avoided.

Moreover, if she doesn't resign, the odds are that her slot will became vacant when there is a Republican president or Senate or both.

Probably the politically wise thing from a liberal's point of view.

You really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really don't know libs/Dems.

 

[INXS83]

It would make a lot of sense. She's in her 80s and in very poor health. She resigns now, either Obama or the next president can appoint a conservative and a liberal, so the balance doesn't change. A lot of hassle is thus avoided.

Moreover, if she doesn't resign, the odds are that her slot will became vacant when there is a Republican president or Senate or both.

Probably the politically wise thing from a liberal's point of view.

Shirley you jest.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

In my experience SCOTUS justices don't seem to worry greatly about the future makeup of the court when deciding to retire.

If they did, I think you would see a lot more turnover in the courts.

 

[mstp1992]

It would make a lot of sense. She's in her 80s and in very poor health. She resigns now, either Obama or the next president can appoint a conservative and a liberal, so the balance doesn't change. A lot of hassle is thus avoided.

Moreover, if she doesn't resign, the odds are that her slot will became vacant when there is a Republican president or Senate or both.

Probably the politically wise thing from a liberal's point of view.

Frankly, I'd support some sort of term limits for the justices. Something with an odd number so they wouldn't occur during a presidential election year, but long enough to cover multiple presidential terms.

 

[joelbc1]

Would she have to get permission from McConnell or Grassley? It wouldn't be right that Bernie would get to nominate 2 Justices right away.

 

[Lone Clone]

I'm not sure the second point is very certain. Aren't Ds projected to take back the Senate and retain the WH?

I don't think so. But you may be right. The last polls I saw had several of the GOP contenders beating Hillary. I haven't paid any attention to the Senate...do the Republicans have more seats up for grabs?

You have piqued -- or as some say on HROT, peaked -- my curiosity. I shall investigate and report.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't think so. But you may be right. The last polls I saw had several of the GOP contenders beating Hillary. I haven't paid any attention to the Senate...do the Republicans have more seats up for grabs?

You have piqued -- or as some say on HROT, peaked -- my curiosity. I shall investigate and report.

From memory I think the Rs have 25ish including 7-8 that are in blue states. Ds have just 10 seats to defend. Presidential years favor Ds because of higher turn out.

 

[Lone Clone]

From memory I think the Rs have 25ish including 7-8 that are in blue states. Ds have just 10 seats to defend. Presidential years favor Ds because of higher turn out.

OK, I'm back....the first two projections I found both have the GOP strongly favored to retain control. The best-case for Democrats is this one by Larry Sabato:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/

 

[Lone Clone]

You really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really don't know libs/Dems.

Are you implying they wouldn't do the politically wise thing?

 

[Jakeleg Jake]

I'm not sure the second point is very certain. Aren't Ds projected to take back the Senate and retain the WH?

I seriously doubt it...but you can dream on.

 

[naturalmwa]

I seriously doubt it...but you can dream on.

You are probably getting at something. I think the dreamers will play a big role. If an R gets in there they are screwed.

 

[Jakeleg Jake]

Frankly, I'd support some sort of term limits for the justices. Something with an odd number so they wouldn't occur during a presidential election year, but long enough to cover multiple presidential terms.

In their present state of being the true power in America I think they should also be elected by the people. Never understood why the founders didn't appreciate this fundamental idea.

 

[Jakeleg Jake]

You are probably getting at something. I think the dreamers will play a big role. If an R gets in there they are screwed.

I would say the realists are the genuine "dreamers"...if this camp is further turned into a liberal/socialist cesspool the futures of our young people are screwed.

 

[naturalmwa]

I would say the realists are the genuine "dreamers"...if this camp is further turned into a liberal/socialist cesspool the futures of our young people are screwed.

Your camp has been enabling socialism for Europe for decades. My camp just wants to keep what we earn and stop giving it away to foreigners.

 

[starbrown]

Are you implying they wouldn't do the politically wise thing?

Get an easel. Put some canvas on it. Then paint a picture of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Hussein Obama and Chuck Schumer and Lois Lerner and Eric Holder and Barbara Boxer and Gloria Allred and the Black caucus and the Hispanic caucus with them all wearing a T-shirt with this vvv printed on it.

See how unrealistic I was with that assignment?

 

[starbrown]

You are probably getting at something. I think the dreamers will play a big role. If an R gets in there they are screwed.

Democrats are rooting for the vvvvv Dreamers.

 

[naturalmwa]

Democrats are rooting for the vvvvv Dreamers.

It's a little more sophisticated than that, but for your mind that is probably close enough.

 

[86Hawkeye]

I see no reason for her to resign unless she has political motives.

And that would tarnish her legacy forever.

 

[starbrown]

I see no reason for her to resign unless she has political motives.

And that would tarnish her legacy forever.

You do realize every thought in her brain is political, as it is with every justice. If she understood what the court's purpose was she would resign for the damage she has done. But her brain doesn't understand that our court system is NOT supposed to be a legislative branch of the gov't. So she, nor any other justice, will resign because they all have an agenda to enact. The left must destroy what the founders created, and the cons will fail like impotents to stop them. The days of classy are far in the past.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I'm not sure the second point is very certain. Aren't Ds projected to take back the Senate and retain the WH?

who on earth is projecting that?

 

[joelbc1]

I don't think so. But you may be right. The last polls I saw had several of the GOP contenders beating Hillary. I haven't paid any attention to the Senate...do the Republicans have more seats up for grabs?

You have piqued -- or as some say on HROT, peaked -- my curiosity. I shall investigate and report.

I think I have heard Lone, that it is conceivable the Dems regain Senate control this election with a strong election.

 

[joelbc1]

I did find it interesting that according to CBS this AM, she and Scalia were "best of friends" on The Court. Frequent lunch buddies.

 

[Lone Clone]

I think I have heard Lone, that it is conceivable the Dems regain Senate control this election with a strong election.

Well absolutely it's conceivable.

 

[Lone Clone]

I did find it interesting that according to CBS this AM, she and Scalia were "best of friends" on The Court. Frequent lunch buddies.

Yeah, they -- and her late husband -- have hung out for many years.

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

She will not resign at this point, the court is split 4-4 currently. She resigns then it is a 4-3 conservative lean.

 

[Lone Clone]

She will not resign at this point, the court is split 4-4 currently. She resigns then it is a 4-3 conservative lean.

That would be the point. The Bamster, the Senate pooh-bahs and Ginsberg get together and strike a deal; she resigns, the president appoints a conservative and a liberal, the Senate approves both.

 

[2facedboonefan]

Condolences to his family, but it was a good day for America when Scalia died. His views simply don't belong in the 21st century. Appointing a conservative along with a liberal just to appease the anti-human rights crowd isn't a logical move. Better to just let those views die with the generations that held them. A Missouri Compromise only delays the inevitable.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I did find it interesting that according to CBS this AM, she and Scalia were "best of friends" on The Court. Frequent lunch buddies.

Sadly, some people on this site probably do only spend time with people who completely agree with them, but most people don't, especially the more intelligent ones.

Not sure why this would surprise anyone.

 

[theIowaHawk]

That would be the point. The Bamster, the Senate pooh-bahs and Ginsberg get together and strike a deal; she resigns, the president appoints a conservative and a liberal, the Senate approves both.

Yeah right on both counts. Why would either party be on board? They'd both prefer majority, and a significant one if possible. Pointless move for a silly purpose.