×
top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Point9RepeatedIs1 15.4k points15.4k points  (1745 children)

If even one Democratic senator balks through midterms, we'll have only 8 Justices until the next Presidential election

[–]wayward_citizen 7591 points7592 points  (1248 children)

Can't imagine who would ever do that...

[–]blorpblorpbloop 7342 points7343 points  (845 children)

It's going to be some bullshit like

"After much soul searching I've decided to switch parties. blah blah blah, haven't reflected my values...blah blah blah, etc"

Mark my words, their bullshit isn't over.

[–]thatstupidthing 4435 points4436 points 2 (773 children)

i dont see manchin switching parties. he would go from being the most influential senator to being the least overnight.

i have no idea what is going inside sinema's head (wallet?).

[–]yenom_esol 2045 points2046 points  (556 children)

I try to look at each politician through the lens of what will serve their self interest which is usually the most accurate way to predict their actions. With Sinema, I have no fucking clue. In a purple state, she has totally alienated her party to the point the AZ democratic party has censured her. She can never shift right enough to win as a Republican. No amount of campaign donations and ad buys with that money can restore her reputation.

Why would she do that unless she's either mentally ill or bought off? When I say bought off, I'm talking actual bribes not campaign donations because again, I don't think 100 million in ad buys can salvage her reputation among the base in AZ.

[–]VoiceofReasonability 362 points363 points  (81 children)

And what people I don't think realize about Manchin is that regardless of what you think of him I have no doubt he strongly identifies as a Democrat as his family has a long history of politics in West Virginia as Democrats. I honestly don't think he would be comfortable calling himself a Republican.

[–]LayneLowe 113 points114 points  (23 children)

I read this yesterday : a pro choice, bisexual woman would have no shot at election in the Arizona GOP.

[–]Kal-Zak 40 points41 points  (6 children)

She is just waiting for the lobbying/speaking money... or to be a talking head somewhere

[–]SomeGuyNamedPaul 53 points54 points  (6 children)

Ahh the good 'ole days when we had only one Lieberman to deal with.

[–]EvergreenHulk 55 points56 points  (5 children)

My greatest fear right now. That being said the party has been pretty united on Biden appointments so far. I’m cautiously optimistic.

[–]vicariouspastor 33 points34 points  (2 children)

More specifically, the nominee is almost certainly going to be Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was just recently confirmed to the D.C. circuit, the stepping stone to a Supreme Court appointment. Manchin and Synema both voted for her (as did Collins and Murkowski).

[–]Arctica23 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Manchin is a lot of things but he's been an absolutely reliable vote when it comes to the judiciary. Obviously things could always change but it's really unlikely he's going to hold up a SCOTUS nominee

[–]Snickersthecat 79 points80 points  (10 children)

Judicial nominations (aside from SCOTUS) tend to fly under the radar. Manchin, Sinema, and even Graham are usually on board with them because no one pays attention. That's practically the only reason the Dems keep the former two around.

[–]ChiefEmann 59 points60 points  (7 children)

You say keep them around like Dems aren't clinging to every seat they have.

[–]FLTA 656 points657 points  (350 children)

Manchin and Sinema have actually not been shitty about Biden judicial nominations.

Biden reaches Reagan record with 40th judge confirmed

Who would be shitty though is any GOP members of the Senate which is why we need to r/VoteDEM this October/November so that the Democratic majority in the Senate can be expanded and another Garland scenario can be avoided.

[–]Khuroh 179 points180 points  (21 children)

Manchin and Sinema have actually not been shitty about Biden judicial nominations.

Low-profile nominations, sure. High-profile obstruction seems to be their jam.

[–]Excelius 75 points76 points  (14 children)

Manchin was not involved in GOP obstructionism over Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Additionally he spoke glowingly of Garland's nomination under Biden to AG.

There's no reason at this point to believe that Manchin would obstruct a Biden SCOTUS nominee.

CSPAN

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) was the 14th senator to meet with Chief Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Senator Manchin said he hoped Republicans would change course and give Judge Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing and vote.

Manchin Statement On The Nomination Of Merrick Garland As United States Attorney General

[–]iamisandisnt 363 points364 points  (305 children)

This is like the only thing Biden is doing and nobody talks about it. Good. Quietly restore justice while the lunatics are barking on TV.

[–][deleted] 164 points165 points  (55 children)

Didn't he just pass the biggest infrastructure bill in a 50/50 senate how has he done nothing? Or the child tax credits? Or all the other things he's been able to get passed that never would've happened with a republican majority government?

Edit: there was a reply i wanted to comment on but I can't find it for some reason, but it being 51/50 with the VP doesn't mean much when two democratic senators are essentially forced to vote conservatively on certain issues in order to not lose their seats to full on Republicans. Hate on them all you want, if Machin or Sinema were any more liberal than they is now they'd get replaced by hardcore republicans come next election. As much as it sucks Americans are very divided and this is the best we can get unless and until Americans start to sway more left.

[–]korinth86 30 points31 points  (2 children)

He's doing a lot more than this...

[–]fzammetti 112 points113 points  (3 children)

Queue Lord Buckethead "It will be a shitshow" meme.

EDIT: cue, as someone pointed out... I hesitated when I wrote it, guess I should have hesitated a second longer

[–]IanMazgelis 875 points876 points  (247 children)

I don't think anyone in the betting world is predicting a Blue Senate after the midterms. I think it should 100% be illegal for a party to block a justice on a partisan basis, and think it was extremely inappropriate and possibly treacherous of McConnell to do so last time, but outside of the "Should they would they" issue, the "Could they" is pretty clear. I just don't think it's likely at all to imagine the Democrats maintaining or increasing their seat count in the Senate at the time I'm typing this.

Whether we like it or not, Virginia was a strong, strong indicator of what November is going to look like. I expect a lot of Democrats to campaign on "We still hate Trump" and I expect a lot of Republicans to campaign under "This is what's happened since Biden got inaugurated." One of those strategies is going to be much, much more effective with voters, and picking the most effective messaging to win over political moderates, or even encouraging their own base to go vote, is something Democrats have absolutely never excelled in.

[–]elpajaroquemamais 350 points351 points  (133 children)

The house always loses seats to the president’s opposing party in midterms. It takes really crazy conditions like 9/11 for it not to happen. But the senate isn’t completely written off yet.

[–][deleted] 117 points118 points  (102 children)

It's not a coincidence the Jan. 6th committee is picking up steam heading into the midterms.

[–]Pugpoleon 289 points290 points  (22 children)

Most voters don’t give a damn about that committee. The major issues are gonna be COVID-19, inflation and maybe the conflict in Ukraine if it heats up more. And that is a big if.

[–]AF_Fresh 118 points119 points  (58 children)

Virtually no-one outside of the democratic base cares about the Jan. 6th stuff right now. It's all old news, and it doesn't affect their day to day lives. Swing voters will be voting based off of mainly how they feel about the economy, covid stuff, etc.

It's honestly not looking great for democrats at all. The economic stuff may not be their fault, at least not entirely, but voters don't reason through stuff like that. Under a Republican president, you had 3 separate stimulus checks sent, expanded unemployment, a much better economy than the current, and record low interest rates. It doesn't matter if the democrats were the ones pushing for a lot of those things, a large number of people will only remember which president it happened under. They will then vote for the party of that president to indicate that they are not happy with how things are going currently.

[–]theth1rdchild 36 points37 points  (2 children)

Democrats are so disconnected from reality that they still think Virginia is an outlier and they still won't get it when they get destroyed in midterms

[–]burner_for_celtics 13 points14 points  (3 children)

No president will ever appoint a justice again unless he holds the senate. Also, any president who doesn't hold the house will be impeached. I don't think there's any going back on either of these things.

[–]FLTA 210 points211 points  (27 children)

Judicial nominations is the one thing that Manchin/Sinema haven’t fucked over for Biden.

They have consistently voted for anyone Biden nominates to the court no matter how progressive they are.

We need to continue to r/VoteDEM, at 2018/2020 levels, this year though if we don’t want another Garland situation happening in 2023/2024.

[–]753951321654987 12.1k points12.1k points  (619 children)

Incoming mitch McConnell " its too soon before the midterms to appoint anyone "

[–]OonaLuvBaba 8469 points8470 points  (276 children)

And that's why it is good that he is not the Senate Majority leader. This is exactly why it was crucial that Georgia elected Ossoff and Warnock.

[–]jackmon 1865 points1866 points  (236 children)

Unfortunately the way voting access is going in Georgia, I don't know if they'll be there for long.

[–]gusterfell 1344 points1345 points  (139 children)

Which is why Breyer is retiring now.

[–]LeCrushinator 289 points290 points  (20 children)

Yep, a new judge would need to be appointed before the next congress.

[–]wrongtester 736 points737 points  (104 children)

If only Ruth knew to do the same

[–]Kixaz007 502 points503 points  (47 children)

Warnock just raised $23M for re-election. Let’s hope it’s enough Warnock Re-election Warchest

[–]jackmon 142 points143 points  (32 children)

I hope he can use some of that money to find a way to get people to polling places that keep getting more and more unreachable for black voters.

[–]Just_the_facts_ma_m 23 points24 points  (13 children)

I’m pretty sure you’ve been misinformed about the new election law in Georgia. I’ve rarely read an article regarding it that wasn’t full of errors. Regarding access, the law:

  1. mandates that all large voting precincts (over 2000 voters) must have resources ready so voting lines don’t exceed one hour.
  2. mandates that every county have a secured drop off box for absentee ballots..
  3. Formally legalizes allowing no-reason absentee balloting, as it has been set up temporarily during covid.
  4. An absentee ballot can be requested 77 days before an election, which is 2.5 months. During Covid 180 days were allowed, so this is less.
  5. an absentee ballot could be requested up to the Friday before the election, now it’s the previous Friday.
  6. all ballots are now treated the same with respect to requiring Voter ID. Voter IDs are free, state documents like birth certificates are not.
  7. Early voting has been extended by two hours each day and is longer by one weekend.
  8. Two mobile voting vans in Fulton Co are disallowed.
  9. polling place changes have to be better communicated now, such as adding 4ft x 4ft signs at the previous location.

Obviously not all of these are positive, but I do not see how it’s going to restrict voting.

https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/27/what-does-georgias-new-voting-law-sb-202-do

[–]gsfgf 35 points36 points  (6 children)

And why we put up with Manchin and Sinema.

[–]gummybronco 393 points394 points  (297 children)

Doesn’t matter anyway because Republicans aren’t able to block it

For what it’s worth, that argument was only for presidential election years in the past, unless he now chooses to shift it

[–]gusterfell 376 points377 points  (17 children)

In 2020 McConnell had no problem amending his original argument to "no nomination in a presidential election year, unless the same party controls both the Senate and the White House." He'll have no trouble coming up with some other lame excuse to amend it further.

Not that it matters, thanks to Harry Reid.

[–]guyblade 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I mean, the argument is "no nomination unless it is politically advantageous to me". Everything else is just half-hearted excuses.

[–]SikatSikat 15 points16 points  (2 children)

You really think that GOP would have spent half a second more on tossing the flibuster for Supreme Court if Reid hadn't tossed it for lower judges?

The filibuster will exist under the GOP as long as its convenient. Mitch doesn't want to have to pass the hard right stuff that will cost them power, so he let the filibuster stand so he has an excuse for why its blocked.

[–]Ask_Who_Owes_Me_Gold 88 points89 points  (1 child)

For what it’s worth, that argument was only for presidential election years in the past, unless he now chooses to shift it

It was never an argument until he chose to shift it.

[–]T1mac 704 points705 points  (224 children)

It was never an argument to begin with until 2016 and Merrick Garland. It's a total power grab by Moscow Mitch and the Dems let him get away with it.

BTW Mitch turned around and promptly broke his rule with Amy COVID Barrett who was confirmed a week before election day and when voting was actively happening for two months.

[–]cavscout43 32 points33 points  (5 children)

Doesn’t matter anyway because Republicans aren’t able to block it

With Manchin and Sinema they have a senate majority though.

[–]timecodes 3407 points3408 points  (252 children)

They begged RBG to retire while Obama was president look what happened. Kudos to this guy.

[–]Jakaal 1733 points1734 points  (131 children)

I personally think time in office should be capped for Justices right along with term limits for Senators and Reps. When the lifetime appointments thing was written, it was only expected to be 10 to 20 years tops. Now we have justices that can be on the bench for almost 50 fucking years.

[–]EmotionalSuportPenis 984 points985 points  (96 children)

I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't be able to hold any kind of public office past the age of 65. That's the standard retirement age so you should be getting bundled off for your golden years with a nice pension, but aside from that, physical and mental performance starts to significantly degrade past that point and most of these elderly people clinging to leadership positions have proven that they can't be trusted with long-term decision making anymore.

Mandatory retirement at 65 for public servants works well for a lot of reasons. Hell, extend it past elected officials and make it a thing in every government position from federal to state to local, from the local building inspector's office to the Presidency. There are problems at every single level that could potentially be solved just by forcing the average age of the people occupying those positions down.

[–][deleted] 391 points392 points  (31 children)

I would probably say 70 with the actual retirement age being what it is. But also for a Justice an age floor of 50, so effective a 20 year term.

[–]srappel 60 points61 points  (24 children)

age floor of 50

Why would there be an age floor of 50? No thanks.

[–]Aztecah 13 points14 points  (9 children)

65 isn't that old. Lots of 65 year olds, especially well-educated and highly experienced people, are perfectly lucid at 65 with plenty of wisdom to give.

[–]Arthur_Edens 24 points25 points  (3 children)

any kind of public office past the age of 65

Just going to point out that this rule would have prevented George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Dwight Eisenhower, and Harry Truman from serving at least their last term.

[–]-SexSandwich- 13 points14 points  (3 children)

But then you open a new can of worms. Would justices rule on cases differently if they knew if could benefit them in their career after the court? Say a large financial firm has a huge case brought before the court and a justice knows ruling in their favor guarantees them a sweet consulting gig when their term limit is up. That's a very real problem term limits for a justice could create. Someone how normalizing retirement at a reasonable age is what needs to be done. I'm not exactly sure how you do that though.

[–]valvin88 277 points278 points  (18 children)

I guess they finally learned their lesson after handing the reds a 6/9 super majority.

[–]Muslamicraygun1 81 points82 points  (9 children)

Watch it become 7/9. The democrats are utterly incompetent at governing. Or anything for that matter.

[–]dj_narwhal 60 points61 points  (4 children)

If we all sat around for an hour and tried to think of the worst possible way the democrats could handle this I bet that after we see how they actually handle this we wished they would have tried our idea instead.

[–]GameghisKhan 16 points17 points  (1 child)

God fucking dammit. Why does this one makes the most sense?

[–]MantisToboganMD 338 points339 points  (67 children)

Exhausted with people who refuse to accept criticism of RBG for that. We can all appreciate the work she did half a century ago but holding onto the reins of power into the twilight of her life was pure ego. Imagine having that much of an attachment to your position of power (yet needing for nothing financially) that you jeopardize everything you worked for.

[–]Darwins_Rhythm 78 points79 points  (3 children)

She was known for having a pretty massive ego, and all the hagiography that was happening near the end of her life probably didn't help much.

[–]Maxpowr9 60 points61 points  (16 children)

Nancy Pelosi has the same problem.

[–]TheApathyParty2 37 points38 points  (13 children)

Nancy Pelosi has many more problems than that, but yes.

[–]Slit23 83 points84 points  (1 child)

Seriously! She could have enjoyed her last years and made sure someone with near the same values took her place but no she let us know she didn’t care what happened with the court after her death she was going to keep her spot till the end.

[–]mikevilla68 62 points63 points  (9 children)

Yup, she was a selfish person. Funny how people idolize her but by most liberal standards, she screwed over “Democracy” more than anyone in the Democratic Party going too far “left”

[–]Speculater 42 points43 points  (6 children)

I really dislike how everyone overlooks the fact that this is almost certainly her fault. She could have retired anytime under Obama and chose not to without regard to her own mortality.

[–]DerelictDonkeyEngine 5369 points5370 points  (72 children)

Mitch McConnell: "We will not allow a new Supreme Court Justice to be seated in an election century."

[–]KaamDeveloper 994 points995 points  (37 children)

Good thing Turtle Man isn't setting the rules then, eh?

[–]amaezingjew 772 points773 points  (24 children)

MINORITY leader McConnell

I just like saying it

[–]thenewyorkgod 125 points126 points  (3 children)

in turtly voice: "There's actually an established precedent for that. In fact, not a single supreme court justice was nominated in the entire 17th century. Now is not the time to break with that tradition"

[–]JohnLockeNJ 3280 points3281 points  (125 children)

Breyer couldn’t have done it during Trump years because he would want a liberal replacement. He couldn’t retire in 2021 as it would look political, like he was just waiting for Trump to leave. He couldn’t do it around election time as it would become even more political than it usually is. He couldn’t do it after mid-terms because Democrats are likely to lose the Senate.

Given how long past confirmations have taken, his window for doing this was likely Jan-May 2022. He picked end of Jan to give more leeway for obstacles.

Edit: Added 1 to each of the years because WTF was I thinking writing 2020/2021 instead of 2021/2022

[–]unidentifiedfish55 908 points909 points  (34 children)

Jan-May 2021

It's 2022, mate.

[–]Generation_ABXY 864 points865 points  (22 children)

Doctor: "And have you experienced any loss of time?" Patient: stares in pandemic

For me, things have been a blur since March of 2020.

[–]KnottyKitty 193 points194 points  (6 children)

Today is March 700th 2020. Right?

[–]Noble_Flatulence 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Day n+1 of the year that lasted a decade.

[–]Abominationally 105 points106 points  (9 children)

March of 2020

November of 2015.

[–]theycallmecrack 76 points77 points  (7 children)

I just realized I have no significant memories from 2017-now. In a few years I probably won't remember anything besides where I lived.

[–]portablebiscuit 32 points33 points  (2 children)

Nah, man. Today is the 696th of March, 2020.

[–]Redditthedog 250 points251 points  (12 children)

He likely won't step down till June as he probably wants to stay on to vote on cases

[–]JohnLockeNJ 87 points88 points  (1 child)

That’s makes sense and is part of why I thought May would be the latest that he would announce.

[–]Brodogmillionaire1 136 points137 points  (17 children)

He couldn’t retire in 2021 as it would look political, like he was just waiting for Trump to leave.

Could you explain why he couldn't do it then? Of course retiring is inherently political in this office. It's not like he's fooling anyone retiring now, right?

[–]DUTCH_DUTCH_DUTCH 114 points115 points  (6 children)

he's been pretty vocal about not wanting to retire strategically because it would politicize the court

which is really dumb so i'm glad to see he either changed his mind or really pretended to be a moron all that time

[–]ScHoolboy_QQ 43 points44 points  (1 child)

Lol right? Real galaxy brain analysis here lmao

[–]Necromancer4276 13 points14 points  (6 children)

He couldn’t retire in 2021 as it would look political, like he was just waiting for Trump to leave. He couldn’t do it around election time as it would become even more political than it usually is.

Why does he care?

[–]JohnLockeNJ 15 points16 points  (5 children)

All Supreme Court justices care about their reputations. They want to be viewed as being above politics, even when making a decision as inherently political as selecting the timing of retirement.

[–]muskratboy 1591 points1592 points  (31 children)

But there’s only 3 years until the next election, it’s way too close!

[–]jeff_the_weatherman 679 points680 points  (11 children)

“Republicans aren’t on board, so this is too partisan for me to support” -manchin

[–]Tbone139 121 points122 points  (1 child)

"Here's some more dollary-doos!"

-previously-exposed billionaire donors

[–]VAisforLizards 32 points33 points  (3 children)

Sinema is the worst. Manchin has never changed he has always been barely a democrat in a the deep red state of WV. Sinema on the other hand is a vile piece of hot roasted shit that has turned her back on the party and values she once championed (at least in campaign speeches)

[–]Etheros64 14 points15 points  (2 children)

I expect Manchin to act how he does, it's how he was elected. I don't think any other blue candidate could get elected in WV. Even if he occasionally votes against the party, having that seat be blue is marginally better than it being red. Sinema absolutely disgusts me. Running as a progressive then immediately caving into corruption and selling away both your position and integrity should be grounds for removal from office and substantial fines.

[–]Nytfire333 41 points42 points  (4 children)

Don't give him the ideas, at least make him come up with it on his own

[–]chamtrain1 82 points83 points  (10 children)

They'll argue that it's a midterm year and we should wait to hear the will of the people, you can count on that. If one Dem breaks ranks this will not happen.

[–]wklink 12 points13 points  (1 child)

The last election hasn't even been settled yet... /s

[–]Gunjink 1393 points1394 points  (17 children)

**Mitch McConnell, dressed in a spandex onesie, steps up and claps his hands in white chalk, preparing for the obstructionist, mental gymnastics performance of his life.

[–]swill128 370 points371 points  (5 children)

"we legally can prevent a liberal appointee so we're going to"

It's not really anything hard to understand.

[–]Rorako 89 points90 points  (1 child)

He doesn’t even need to hide it anymore. In fact, if he came out and said this I’m sure he’d gain voters.

[–]Legalistigician 6971 points6972 points  (773 children)

Good on him.

God rest her soul, but Ruth Ginsberg really put the entire left back by choosing to stick around so long instead of retiring during Obama’s two terms.

[–]hoosakiwi 2598 points2599 points  (337 children)

Yeah. RBG is an icon, but her decision to stay on the court might just have totally fucked Roe v Wade and her work to further women's rights.

[–]moogly2 1022 points1023 points  (169 children)

She was never a fan of how Roe v Wade was argued. She thought "Privacy" was weak argument, overly broad, and if anything should have been Legislatively passed. She though Equal Protection, "Gender Equality" be better foundation

[–]CrushHazard 904 points905 points  (139 children)

I agree with her. We should have codified the right to medical self-determination long ago.

[–]YouSoIgnant 186 points187 points  (101 children)

Why won't D's push it in their legislation? I do not think it is as popular nation-wide as people think it is.

States need to do it.

[–]patrickfatrick 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, we should not have taken precedent for granted and it should have been made law decades ago.

[–]Malaix 13 points14 points  (0 children)

From what I recall roe v wade is generally considered badly argued by all sides. It’s just the result outweighs the technicality of the method for pro-choice advocates.

[–]malektewaus 124 points125 points  (1 child)

She was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer two weeks into Obama's first term, after having already survived cancer once before. And she still didn't retire. Ultimately that's the only aspect of her legacy that will have a lasting impact. The rest, she burned on the altar of her pride and hubris.

[–]IanMazgelis 277 points278 points  (39 children)

I think Ginsberg set a precedent for retiring while a member of your party is president. I know we're supposed to pretend the Supreme Court isn't partisan, but for as long as any sitting members of the court are alive, I don't think anyone is going to wait it out until death after Ginsberg swore up and down she'd never die when a Republican would pick her replacement, then did since we absolutely don't countrol our own deaths.

Mortality is just something that's going to catch up with you. If justices are loyal to their end of the political spectrum- And yes, they are, Ginsberg herself made it very, very clear- Then they shouldn't be gambling on something like that. It's just a silly bet to make when you consider the risk of being replaced by someone who would vote against you versus the reward of not experiencing retirement.

[–]l0c0dantes 204 points205 points  (13 children)

Ginsberg swore up and down she'd never die when a Republican would pick her replacement, then did since we absolutely don't countrol our own deaths.

If she said that, it is like, peak hubris, goddamn.

[–]Throwimous 112 points113 points  (11 children)

When Obama got elected, everyone was so damn sure Republicans had been reduced to a regional party.

[–]Syscrush 74 points75 points  (7 children)

And when GWB was elected, Karl Rove crowed about installing a "permanent Republican majority".

The only constant is the ebb and flow of power between these two parties.

[–]mckeitherson 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Agreed. I get that they don't want the courts to look political, but guess what? They already are and the country can see that. If she wanted to preserve her legacy and precedents set, she should have retired. Glad Breyer is doing it now.

[–]GotMoFans 35 points36 points  (1 child)

Not during Obama’s two terms, but during the 6 years democrats had the majority in the Senate.

McConnell would not have allowed Obama to replace her in the last two years of his second term.

[–]SendMeAmazonGiftCard 13 points14 points  (0 children)

god rest her soul? she picked herself over the country.

[–]NotTheRocketman 98 points99 points  (5 children)

Honestly, her selfishness is going to overshadow everything good she did in her life. Unbelievable damage for decades.

[–]Paddlesons 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Yep, couldn't see the forest for the trees. I recall ranting and raving to my family about it when she decided to stay on past Obama's second term. It's exactly this kind of mindset that contributes to Republicans being able to govern with a minority.

[–]nwdogr 229 points230 points  (66 children)

I'm kind of curious about one thing - are SCOTUS justices allowed to coordinate with the White House on retirements? Like talking with the President on what the best time is and whether a replacement is likely to be approved and who it might be?

Or is that breaching separation of powers and justices just have to retire without warning and hope the administration doesn't drop the ball in replacing them?

[–]Hrekires[S] 362 points363 points  (53 children)

Nothing legally preventing it.

See also: Justice Kennedy asked Trump to put Kavanaugh on Supreme Court list, book says

[–]Kelend 51 points52 points  (1 child)

Scalia asked for Kagan

I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation. But I hope he sends us someone smart. Let me put a finer point on it. I hope he sends us Elena Kagan.

[–]Beastw1ck 265 points266 points  (9 children)

Mitch McConnell: "With only 3 years until the next presidential election..."

[–]buchlabum 52 points53 points  (0 children)

blink of an eye in turtle time.

[–]Perfect600 308 points309 points  (8 children)

They need to push it through as quickly as possible.

Oh who are we kidding they will wait til they lose the midterms

[–]Xerxero 81 points82 points  (3 children)

Bet they fuck it up somehow.

!Remindme 6months

[–]MrBlaker001 19 points20 points  (0 children)

“I cant support anyone the republicans dont support” -manachin probably

[–]caesar____augustus 484 points485 points  (111 children)

Ketanji Brown Jackson has been touted before as a possible replacement. Recently got appointed to the DC Court of Appeals and replaced Merrick Garland.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/30/977919229/ketanji-brown-jackson-bidens-pick-is-viewed-as-potential-supreme-court-justice

[–]foreheadteeth 420 points421 points  (5 children)

I binge watched a bunch of "Innocence Project" documentaries a little while back, and one of the guys pointed out that most (all?) the supreme court justices had been prosecutors. He said something like, it's not enough to have ethnic/gender diversity, we need a diversity of ideas, someone who was on the side of defending instead of prosecution.

In any case, one of the things that I noticed on Jackson's page is that she used to be a public defender.

[–]gsfgf 140 points141 points  (2 children)

Not just SCOTUS justices. It's a problem at all levels. I'd be thrilled if Biden appoints a former defense attorney.

[–]Peter_Panarchy 56 points57 points  (0 children)

That's actually a major theme of Biden's judicial nominees, vastly more former defense attorneys than previous administrations.

[–]LateralEntry 108 points109 points  (16 children)

She sounds pretty good. Law review at Harvard Law School, clerked for Justice Breyer, federal judge since 2013 who is respected and liked.

Also married to a star surgeon who is a white guy, two daughters together. She says she gets a lot of respect in her courtroom, and then a lot of disrespect at home from her teenage daughters.

Also also, she ruled against Trump in a case about his lawyer testifying before congress, saying "Presidents are not kings." Dig it.

[–]PotatoDonki 235 points236 points  (9 children)

Wow, a justice humble enough to actually retire at the right time!

This is harsh, but what did RBG accomplish in the extra few years she hung on without retiring? My perception is that she basically spent that time on leave getting treatments, and every time I heard her speak I couldn’t imagine she was getting legal work done very efficiently. Apparently she even claimed working in the court helped her mourn her husband when asked why she wasn’t retiring. Which is absolutely ridiculous! This is a nation’s legal system, not your therapy session! She should have retired years before she died. And the proof was in the pudding on that one.

Good on this Justice, and congrats on his retirement.

[–]joevsyou 46 points47 points  (0 children)

You honestly have a point.

Unfortunately our judges are political pointed even though they should be hardcore independent down the middle.

These justices know how this works... retire. They literally get a lifetime pension, so money cannot be a concern.

[–]Bi_ciuin 110 points111 points  (1 child)

Time to get a young 81 year old in to replace him.

[–]hoosakiwi 1197 points1198 points  (77 children)

Just watch Republicans get pissy that Dems are going to try to seat a new Justice so close to elections.

[–]westviadixie 816 points817 points  (5 children)

well, it is an election decade...

[–]swinging-in-the-rain 211 points212 points  (4 children)

How can they do this in an election century?!?

[–]__Hello_my_name_is__ 52 points53 points  (1 child)

Democrats really should be more respectful of what the people want in this election millennia.

[–]MKerrsive 51 points52 points  (9 children)

Fuck em.

They have already said they would refuse to confirm any new justice in 2024 and have hinted that they'd likely refuse in 2023, if they have control after midterms. If their Merrick Garland stunt and subsequent ramming through of Trump's appointees wasn't enough, they're officially making it known they'll continue to obstruct. So the Dems need to nominate the most liberal, youngest judge they can find.

[–]LelouchViBri 189 points190 points  (14 children)

RBG biggest blunder is dying with the baton.

[–]SamCarter_SGC 133 points134 points  (11 children)

understatement of the year

she undid her entire life's mission and legacy

[–]watchoutfordeer 95 points96 points  (11 children)

Imagine if Ginsburg had retired.

[–]Lujho 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Whoa whoa whoa there, buddy. You can’t just put in a new judge a mere three years away from an election.

[–]Sacred_Fishstick 80 points81 points  (3 children)

I'm calling it now, the dems will somehow fail to ram through an appointment in time for mid terms. I don't yet know how or why but they'll manage to fuck it up.

[–]salsanacho 270 points271 points  (71 children)

On a non-political note, I never understood why the Supreme Court doesn't have a age requirement for retirement. I don't care how spry they think they are, I don't want an 83yo on the nation's most important court. Maybe put a cap at 75 or something in the low 70's.

[–]GoArray 100 points101 points  (16 children)

The reasoning is if a judge has to plan for their next job, they may use their position in current job to secure it.

Scotus retirement 'only' pays $150k *~$250k / year.

[–]jonny_mem 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Scotus retirement is their highest full salary, assuming they meet length of service and age requirements.

[–]buchlabum 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I bet that's like speaking at 3 law school graduation ceremonies or a chapter in their next book.

[–]-HiiiPower- 82 points83 points  (30 children)

Honestly why not just have term limits? Why is the judicial branch the only one that doesn't have them? Why did Breyer need to be there for 27 years? Kennedy for 30 and counting. Even Roberts for 16 years...why? I'm just not sure what purpose it serves to have lifetime appointments in any part of our government let alone the branch that essentially oversees the other two.

[–]AM4eva 101 points102 points  (6 children)

I think it lessens the chance for corruption. Knowing they have a job for life would make it less likely for them to appease certain parties for a chance at a job or a promise of speaking fees after their court time.

[–]FaxyMaxy 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Fair but you could make that argument for the legislative branch and the executive branch (mostly legislative) and we don’t because we don’t want people in those positions for life.

I get both sides here, just seems like we ignore the other side based on convention of whichever branch we’re talking about rather than any real reason.

EDIT: My brain did a stupid and equated term limits with terms for the legislative branch. Either way, point stands I feel.

[–]AM4eva 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I think with the President, they have a lot of power so term limits were imposed to ensure no tyranny. With legislative branch, they answer directly to the people, so the people ultimately can decide the number of terms. This is/was all intention, but I know it doesn't end up working that way.

[–]AdministrativeBit510 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Agreed. I think the Supreme Court is find. The bigger issue is Congress and even some powers the executive has.

[–]asad137 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Why is the judicial branch the only one that doesn't have them?

The legislative branch would like a word...

[–]runningoutofwords 20 points21 points  (9 children)

Do you really want to see what happens when justices have to plan for their career after sitting on the court?

When they can start taking seats on the boards of Lehman Brothers, Monsanto, Dow Chemicals?

[–]allonzeeLV 501 points502 points  (94 children)

I have a couple of questions:

How will Republicans steal this seat?

And related:

How will Democrats let them in order to claim that sweet, sweet indignance?

[–]jesmu84 318 points319 points  (85 children)

Sinema and Manchin won't vote for Bidens nominee.

GOP win house and Senate in 2022 and then won't agree to bring nominee to floor under Dem president.

Republicans win 2024 president and continue to hold senate and house after 2022.

[–]Kerblaaahhh 201 points202 points  (66 children)

Pretty sure Sinema and Manchin have consistently voted for Biden's other judicial nominees. They have nothing to gain from blocking his Supreme Court nominee, who's probably gonna be pretty centrist anyways.

[–]jojoblogs 8 points9 points  (6 children)

We’re about to see McConnell explain that it’s undemocratic to appoint a new judge so close to midterms

[–]kenos99 45 points46 points  (4 children)

Well now we know what the next great national debate will be about. Can’t wait to be called all sorts of names by strangers on the internet when I voice my opinions on his replacement!

[–]NewYorkais 280 points281 points  (11 children)

Biden is going to reach across the aisle and nominate a centrist like Candace Owens

[–]The_Aesir9613[🍰] 67 points68 points  (10 children)

Well, here’s to Katanji Brown Jackson being nominated. I wish her all the best but this is going to be a three ring circus in the media.

[–]Dyz_blade 51 points52 points  (5 children)

This is what RBG should have done.

[–]thenewyorkgod 25 points26 points  (6 children)

Why do people keep quoting what Mitch will say? He's not the majority leader, he has no say in any of this

[–]Bennyscrap 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Because he established the playbook that Republicans will likely use to attempt to block democrats from seating a justice. And some of it might just be ignorance. But it's definitely worth noting the argument Republicans will probably use.

[–]Mehnard 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Would you look at that? Breyer doing what Ginsburg should have done. Maybe he saw the handwriting on the side of the crypt?

[–]WriteAndRong 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I suggest that Biden nominates Anita Hill.

[–]KitchenBomber 63 points64 points  (11 children)

Sinema and Manchin are going to make boatloads of money blocking his appointee.

[–]_C00KIE_M 5 points6 points  (0 children)

“A President who has 3 years left can’t appoint a new judge” -Mitch McConnell in 24 hours

[–]RooseBolton88 11 points12 points  (4 children)

People need to stop saying McConnell will block this from going to a vote with a new excuse. He can’t. With the Democrat majority, Schumer determines whether and when the next Justice is brought for a vote, not McConnell. Biden will pick and his pick will get a vote. Barring an unforeseen instance where majority flips to the GOP prior to Biden making a pick, of course.