[Mother Jones] What the Cult of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Got Wrong

Fair enough. Sounds like we are talking about a couple of things: a) lifetime tenure; and b) RBG's decision. And maybe overarching all of that is the premise that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be political.

On lifetime tenure, I haven't really thought about what might be the consequences of a set service time limit of some amount. Off the top of my head, I could see it taking away the difficult choice of when to retire, but it still leaves the balance of the Court to whichever side happens to be in power when the limits come up. That might seem more like the will of the people, but if we are talking about long service periods and recognize that the preference of the populace seems to swing ever four to eight years, I'm not sure that is better.

On RBG, I get that it was her decision. In hindsight, if she does end up needing to retire while the WH and Senate are red, it might have been a poor decision.

On the fact that the Court should be non-partisan, I think the Justices truly respect the institution and try to keep it non-partisan. (Perhaps that is your point re: RBG -- that she was respecting the process and not playing political games.) The problem is the Justices can reject partisanship, but if they are selected based upon their strongly held idealogical beliefs (the WH and Senate select in a partisan fashion), they may not be partisan or political, but their decisions may end up strongly conservative or liberal based upon core beliefs that may not change over time.

 

Republicans are defending 22 seats to the Democrats 12. Sure the Alabama seat will be lost by the Dems, but unlikely to win the Senate? I see Arizona, NC, & CO flipping if the Presidency is headed that way. One more seat to pickup and I know I'd have my eyes set on David Perdue. Look for party leadership to look towards Stacy Abrams to contest that seat.

 

I don't really disagree. I do think there were mistakes baked into that framework that we're now seeing the consequences of. And while the process to change should be hard, it is now really too hard at least for these big issues. The alternative doesn't have to be mob rule.

 

Kavanaugh was certainly a partisan pick, something he made clear during his confirmation, more clear that prospective SC nominees have dared to make in the past. It was outrageous at the time and his confirmation remains an outrageous act by the most partisan Senate majority in my memory, and I've seen a lot. Had Justice Ginsburg resigned early in Obama's first term, sure, we would have gotten a moderate judge along the lines of the imminent gentleman Obama nominated that McConnell wouldn't deign to even give a hearing. I just hope Justice Ginsburg can hang on until post-2020, when I expect to see a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate emerge. Fingers crossed.

 

I can understand that viewpoint even if I don't necessarily agree. As a libertarian, I end up arguing with both sides when their agenda seeks to go around that framework and I end up defending those I don't agree with quite often as a result. To me what it comes down to is if someone on the left wouldn't want Donald Trump re-writing the constitution or someone on the right wouldn't want Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez re-writing the constitution, then they don't have any business trying to do so themselves unless it's such a popular idea that such an overwhelming percentage of the public and the government agree that they can successfully amend the constitution using the current method for doing so. I mean, even with that being the case we have completely screwed it up in the past and had to go back and undo the mistake of prohibition.

If an issue can't be solved without going against that basic framework and there isn't sufficient support for scrapping the portion of the framework that interferes, then IMO it's just an issue that either needs more thought or it's an issue that simply must be dealt with.

 

I just don’t think it is likely. Sure it is possible but I think it is more likely that the Republicans hold onto the Senate. If the democrats take the WH and Senate, we could see 3 new Justices appointed. RBG and SB would likely retire and as morbid as it is, there is a decent chance another one will retire or die.

 

All justices should be able to leave on their own terms and not be pushed out however if RBG's health should get to the point she has to resign under Trump and a Republican Senate, I am sure she will regret not leaving under Obama.

 

Not saying RBG is decrepit or should resign but I would like to seed a mandatory retirement age..

The problems associated with life tenure are subtle but serious:

• Decrepitude. Some justices have remained on the Court until mentally debilitated or, at best, long past their prime. There will be more, given our increasing ability to keep people alive long past the point of mental incompetence. William Douglas, who set the record for Supreme Court tenure (almost 37 years), barely functioned during his last 10 months, after a debilitating stroke in 1975; colleagues informally agreed to nullify any decision in which Douglas cast the deciding vote. Hugo Black and Thurgood Marshall were shadows of their former selves years before retiring, at 85 and 83, respectively. "I'm getting old and falling apart," said Marshall on his last day.

• Court scholar David Garrow has described chilling scenes of William O. Douglas, returning to work after a debilitating stroke, “call[ing] people the wrong name and utter[ing] non sequiturs,” and falling asleep at oral argument.

 

her clerks can do her job for her

they just need to ensure there's no public evidence of her current mental state

 

The fact that Ginsburg has shown herself top be an unapologetic liberal all these years (a big no no on the Supreme Court) it would be fitting for her to be replaced by someone who doesn't share her views.

 

what the cult got wrong is they aren't interested in her legal reasoning, just the policy outcomes she brings about

 

Yeah, the Republicans on the S. Ct. are not purely interested in the outcomes.

WRT to Bader Ginsburg, she is great on women's rights and social issues, but is pretty corporate Dem when it comes to financial issues like anti-trust and what the corporations want.

As far as original intent the Framers the Constitution is silent wrt to a handful of unelected judges being able to nix laws passed by the people's elected representatives and signed by the president. never envisioned judges that would be on the bench for 30 plus years. The framers and the founders did not put twenty five year olds on the bench and most died by age 55 or less. Also most judges did not work till their last dying breath.

Except for a brief period during the late sixties and early 19070's the S. Ct has always functioned as a reactionary elitist institution to the right of US opinion, supporting slavery, Jim Crowe, the great trusts of the Gilded Age, opposing social security and unions and unemployment insurance etc. until overwhelmingly popular for many years or threatened with court packing.

The US is very burdened by the first and most ancient and least democratic of consitutions. Time for major changes.

 

20 yr terms sounds like more than enough

Rocket River

 

Back then people didn't live as long. If they put a number on it 20 years would have been considered a lifetime.

So its good they didn't limit it

 

The reason behind lifetime terms for SCOTUS justices is that you want stability on the bench. Lifetime appointments allows for that. It's the same reason why the senate get 6 year terms while the house only gets 2 year terms. You want more stability in the Senate while allowing for newer ideas quicker in the house. If the house and senate agree, then something gets done, if they don't, nothing gets done and you have the SCOTUS with the ultimate stability to check over the whole thing.

It's a system that works well and shouldn't be tampered with just to further short term goals....very similar to how some want to get rid of the electoral college for the same reason. Looking at short term gain at the cost of the stability of the entire system.

 

Why do you think Trump has a decent chance to be reelected and why is it unlikely the Democrats will not take back the Senate?

all trends seem to refute that?

 

Just because people live longer doesn't mean justices need limits. As upholders of the values of the constitution perspective is part of the job

In actual functionality i don't think age in terms of ailments associated with age have ever been an issue with justices. I say that because thats the only issue that should revolve around age and even mental issues with age are unique to individuals