More Libs calling for Breyer to Retire

[KCJones]

https://nypost.com/2021/06/14/calls-...mcconnell-vow/

Couple thoughts:

1) Well duh! If I were a liberal I'd be saying the same. You got a narrow window with the Dems holding (bare) Senate Majority and the White House. Man's 82. Big risk for libs if he stays: they lose the Senate in 2022 and then have to (at best) 'compromise' to get someone through. At worst Mitch just says no. Then in 2024 significant chance they lose the White House, IMHO. So it's a likely scenario that if Breyer doesn't go now, his next window to ensure his party gets the 'seat' is 2028 at which point he'll be 89...

2) However, I won't mind a bit if they do the usual wiffle-waffle-internal-dissent thing and leave him in place... Because per the above, reasonable chance he'll be sidelined unwillingly (illness, death, etc.) during a Republican period and we get to swap another one.

3) I'll put money where mouth is and say IF we get back White House/Senate in 2024 I'd be thinking much the same about Thomas. IIRC, he'll be 75 then & 79 by the end of "President 2024's" term. Basically if shoe is on the other foot (and much as I'd hate losing Thomas whom I think about the best on the court), I'm in the "thanks for your service, clear the road now" school in that situation.

I'm not a fan of term limits or mandatory retirement age for the Supremes. BUT from my side of things... If I got a justice staring down 80 and we control things, hell yes I say retire and make way for a solid ~50-ish candidate to step in to a (hopefully) nice long term.

[Walleye Hunter]

https://nypost.com/2021/06/14/calls-...mcconnell-vow/

Couple thoughts:

1) Well duh! If I were a liberal I'd be saying the same. You got a narrow window with the Dems holding (bare) Senate Majority and the White House. Man's 82. Big risk for libs if he stays: they lose the Senate in 2022 and then have to (at best) 'compromise' to get someone through. At worst Mitch just says no. Then in 2024 significant chance they lose the White House, IMHO. So it's a likely scenario that if Breyer doesn't go now, his next window to ensure his party gets the 'seat' is 2028 at which point he'll be 89...

2) However, I won't mind a bit if they do the usual wiffle-waffle-internal-dissent thing and leave him in place... Because per the above, reasonable chance he'll be sidelined unwillingly (illness, death, etc.) during a Republican period and we get to swap another one.

3) I'll put money where mouth is and say IF we get back White House/Senate in 2024 I'd be thinking much the same about Thomas. IIRC, he'll be 75 then & 79 by the end of "President 2024's" term. Basically if shoe is on the other foot (and much as I'd hate losing Thomas whom I think about the best on the court), I'm in the "thanks for your service, clear the road now" school in that situation.

I'm not a fan of term limits or mandatory retirement age for the Supremes. BUT from my side of things... If I got a justice staring down 80 and we control things, hell yes I say retire and make way for a solid ~50-ish candidate to step in to a (hopefully) nice long term.

Just like eagle-nose Ginsberg did?

[Bang]

If the supreme court fails to perform its original reason for existence, it amounts to an unelected oligarchy running the country. Nothing can correct that if there is no way to remove an offending justice.

[Didnotcomply89]

No that this is likely to happen, but I will put on my entertainment cap. With a twist.

If Donald Trump is re-elected in 2024 and Breyer kicks the bucket during his administration, and the GOP controls the Senate- I will giggle like a Japanese school girl.

[KCJones]

Just like eagle-nose Ginsberg did?

Yeah.

As to Ginsberg, I'm guessing she waited to retire in her certainty that Hillary would get elected, so the 'first female president' nominate her replacement.

Oops!

[win67]

I dunno, if they don't write a cut and dry "CCW is legal" opinion in a few months- then I'm much happier with Breyer staying where he is for the time being.

[ImminentDanger]

If the supreme court fails to perform its original reason for existence, it amounts to an unelected oligarchy running the country. Nothing can correct that if there is no way to remove an offending justice.

Despite Robert's BLIND & IGNORANT statement that the Supreme Court is not politically biased, it has been so for quite some time, with only a token facade of being objective. With almost universal interference by The Government in the lives of THE PEOPLE, the US Supreme Court has also abdicated it's responsibility to protect THE PEOPLE from The Government a long time ago. There is no longer Truly UnConstitutional Laws, only laws that the USSC disagrees with.

The SMALL GOVERNMENT that the founders, and most Americans, intended is not defended by the USSC, but rather, it has become a Super-Legislature, crafting laws, by action or inaction, that interfere in our lives every day! The Robert's Obamacare ruling, the denial of standing to every possible challenge to the UnConstitutional Election Law Changes and the recent refusal to review the Obamacare foundation are ONLY THE MOST RECENT examples of their abdication to protect THE PEOPLE from The Massive Government.

YEP - The court is clearly politicized and it is not surprising to see both parties working hard to install 'justices', if that description even still applies to biased judges, that align with their political agenda.

The politics of BIG GOVERNMENT is surging thru both major (and most all) parties with little likelihood that anyone can get elected who truly believes in SMALL GOVERNMENT --- OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE & FOR THE PEOPLE...

...

[57springer]

No that this is likely to happen, but I will put on my entertainment cap. With a twist.

If Donald Trump is re-elected in 2024 and Breyer kicks the bucket during his administration, and the GOP controls the Senate- I will giggle like a Japanese school girl.

Me too !