Should Supreme Court Justices Retire Now?

The Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) insisted that any Supreme Court justice considering retirement do so immediately due to the upcoming midterm elections.

Partial transcript as follows:

HEWITT: You are also responsible for it, you and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are the hardest-working senators there. And I want to go through the Judiciary Committee record. Congratulations on it. I am genuinely impressed. Are you prepping for a Supreme Court vacancy this summer, Chairman Grassley?

GRASSLEY: Hugh, it doesn’t do any good to prep for that stuff. I just hope that if there is going to be a nominee, I hope it’s now or within two or three weeks, because we’ve got to get this done before the election, and there’s generally about 50, 60, 70 days between the time a president nominates somebody, and we get a hearing in committee, and then another two weeks before it gets to the floor. And this has to be done before the November election. So my message to any one of the 9 Supreme Court justices, if you’re thinking about quitting this year, do it yesterday.

HEWITT: Okay, received. Let me talk about the record for my audience. 1 Supreme Court justice nominated and confirmed, 16 Appeals Court judges have been confirmed by your committee and the whole Senate. An additional 14 have been nominated. 12 are awaiting nominees. 17 district court judges have been confirmed. 63 are nominated. Lots more vacancies there. Now to compare that overall, in two terms, Bill Clinton had 62 Appeals Court judges. You’ve already done 16. President Obama had 49 over two terms. W. had 61. You’ve already done 16. Of those 14 that have been nominated, how many of those 14 do you expect will get votes by the election?

GRASSLEY: Oh, I think all of them if they’re circuit court nominees. I’m, what I’m afraid of, we don’t get the district court people done. There’s about 30 district court people on the agenda right now, and I have pleaded with McConnell to work nights, to work Saturdays and weekends, and put the pressure on the Democrats. And we’ve got to have every Republican around and even cancel a recess so we can clear the calendar of these important nominees. Otherwise, all the hard work I’m doing in committee is for naught.

HEWITT: I agree. I want them, I would go round the clock, too, on this. Now there an additional 12 vacancies on the circuits. This is what concerns me the most – Supreme Court first, then the circuits. Do you expect that you will get a nominee for every vacancy in the circuit soon?

GRASSLEY: We, Hugh, listen. I have conversation fairly regularly with Don McGahn. And my staff has conversations with his staff on a regular basis. So we’re telling people that we’re going to process them just as fast as they get them up here. During January and February, we didn’t have enough to process. And I’ll give you our goal. Our goal is five district judges and at least one circuit judge and possibly two every other Wednesday between now and Christmas.

HEWITT: That is terrific.

GRASSLEY: And just as soon as they get, just as soon as they get them up here, we’ll process them.

  • Glenn Schantz

    Yes, some are in bad health and show retire if for no other reason!!!

    • RightWriter

      If you KNOW someone on the Court is in bad health, you know more than their DOCTORS do. Given that FOUR of them are over 80, they’re ALL in remarkably GOOD health. Justice Ginsberg dozes off during oral arguments, but she’s sharp as a tack during private deliberations in her chambers (or someone else’s).
      Let’s face it, living past 80 isn’t all that remarkable nowadays, and the justices on the Supreme Court have access to about the best medical care that exists. It’s also worth noting that, SINCE 1954, ONLY ONE JUSTICE HAS DIED WHILE SERVING. All the others (and there have been almost 40 of them) have RETIRED, when they damn well pleased, and died only after at least a short retirement.

      • Glenn Schantz

        Well Sotomayor comes t mind who is out with broken bones from falls as she is right now comes to mind first! She can’t even walk around her house any more with taking falls and being out of commision.

        • Truthteller

          she is a terrible justice

          • RightWriter

            True, but it has NOTHING to do with her falls, whether or not she breaks any bones. She HAS NOT HURT HER BRAIN, which is the organ on which judicial judgment is most likely to depend.

          • Truthteller

            she can’t even stay awake.. so she does not have info for her brain… there is no defending ginsberg remaining in her job

          • RightWriter

            Here you go again — MISTAKENLY thinking if a justice can’t HEAR every word spoken in oral arguments, he/she can’t do his/her job. NONSENSE!

            SOME justices PREFER reading the briefs, not hearing them (I suspect I would, because I take in info better that way than as words on a piece of paper). Others want to READ every word. If a justice were blind, he’d probably have everthing loaded into his Braille Reader or maybe, these days, a tablet. SO IT DEPENDS ON THE JUSTICE AND HIS/HER INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES. And there is NO basis for saying one is better than another.

            As for dozing off, each justice has a copy of each brief on paper in his/her office, or possibly these days it is on a computer or tablet. If the justice would like a copy in CHINESE CALLIGRAPHY, it might take a few hours, but it’d BE DELIVERED. ANY FORM THEY WANT, THEY GET. In most cases, it is from the written briefs, in whatever form or language, that the justices OBTAIN THE INFORMATION THEY NEED about each case, so DOZING OFF in oral arguments DOES NOT DENY THEM the information they need.

            Much as I dislike & disagree with Ginsberg, I DEFEND HER STAYING IN HER JOB ON ANOTHER BASIS ENTIRELY: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARTICLE III. It says that justices on the Supreme Court and judges on all the “inferior” federal courts “SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR,” which courts have ruled unless they are convicted of a high crime like treason. THAT means Mrs. Ginsberg, or ANY justice or judge, IS THERE UNTIL SHE DIES OR CHOOSES TO RETIRE. PERIOD. End of argument.

          • Truthteller

            there is no defense for someone not doing their job staying in there job
            say what you will about me, i hope she dies, for all our sake

          • RightWriter

            She IS doing her job! She hasn’t missed a case or a decision, EVER. THAT is her job. If she wants to READ cases instead of listening to lawyers drone on and on, SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO THAT (so would YOU if you lost your hearing, for instance).
            As for hoping she dies, I hope YOU die soon, too, and end up (AS YOU WILL) in HELL. Since i don’t believe God assigns billets in Heaven or Hell on the basis of politics, I suspect you WILL NOT see Justice Ginsberg there. NOW STOP BOTHERING ME!

          • Truthteller

            no she is not doing her job… what the h don’t you understand
            sleeping is not doing the job
            you are a jackazz rhino

        • RightWriter

          And WHAT, exactly, has THAT to do with her BRAINS? Based on what I’ve read and heard, she didn’t hit her HEAD in a single fall; her BRAIN is just fine, thanks very much.

          Do you put someone out to pasture (from a largely sedentary office job) because they BREAK THEIR LEG? Their ARM? Maybe because they are BLINDED in an accident (but quickly learn how to use all the Braille gizmos and other equipment that make it POSSIBLE for blind people to function normally)?

          Gosh, I thought we’d gotten past all THAT kind of discrimination a LONG time ago!

          I just turned 75;; . I have had several falls lately, none of them causing any serious injury, but I realize it’s possible. I’m finding a LOT of VICIOUS DISCRIMINATION against the disabled, even temporarily disabled, in your tirade against Sotomayor (whom I do not like and have rarely if ever agreed with on a legal issue). BUT HER FALLS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HER ABILITY TO SIT IN COURT, and YOUR lack of empathy has a LOT more evil to say about YOU.

          • Glenn Schantz

            I didn’t tirade against anyone, and mental ability is not the only health reason someone should retire and let fresh blood who can sit on the bench every session take over, I am 70 myself and disabled so don’t even come at me like that, your the one I see tirading against everyone who has given their thoughts on it, so DON’T BOTHER REPLYING, Thanks and good luck!

          • RightWriter

            Sorry, but your thinking is so screwed up I can’t help myself. The CONSTITUTION — don’t we conservatives generally revere the Constitution of the United States? — SAYS federal court judges & Supreme Court justices “hold their offices during good behavior,” which means for their lifetime, or until they decide to retire, or are maybe convicted of treason. SO
            YOU DON’T HAVE TO LIKE WHAT I SAY; YOU ONLY HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT MESSRS. MADISON, JAY, AND HAMILTON HAD TO SAY on the subject. See Article III if you need guidance.
            I did NOT really intend to “come at you.” I have argued back with several people, because I feel strongly that we can’t just start TOSSING PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION into the trash because we’d PREFER to have it say something else. We head down THAT path, and we might as well be — will, in fact, BECOME — DEMOCRATS. (shudder!)

          • Truthteller

            but she can’t sit in court w/o falling asleep…. that is a problem
            and she is now simply playing politics… what does remaining in her job say about her

          • RightWriter

            IT IS NOT A PROBLEM, you IDIOT, if she can go back to her chambers (fancy word for a lawyer’s office) AND READ THE SAME MATERIAL ON PAPER, or on a computer screen. (Or if she can go to her chambers AFTER the oral arguments and do the same?) WHAT is the problem? Why do you PERSIST in the 20th Century notion that EVERYTHING HAS TO BE SPOKEN ALOUD for anyone to take it in?

            I understand you’re using this whole “has to HEAR it” argument because we’re talking about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, whom you don’t like. If CLARENCE THOMAS lost his hearing (he’s 70, could happen), you wouldn’t insist on HIM retiring because he needed to READ the material on a tablet rather than hearing the oral arguments. But then,, you LIKE Clarence Thomas (so do I). YOU’RE ONLY GOING TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A JUSTICE YOU HATE.

            So you’ve said your say, and I’ve told you (repeatedly) how STUPID your argument is. Obviously, I know what I’m talking about; equally obviously, you have NO idea how the Supreme Court WORKS. So please just SHUT UP and leave me alone!

          • Truthteller

            saying sleeping on the job is not a problem does not make it not a problem…yes it is a problem and she should be removed for not doing her job
            and how do you know ginsberg can still read? we should have a competency hearing and find out

      • Truthteller

        ginsberg’s blade is too dull to cut the grass at this point.. or to know whose grass to cut

        • RightWriter

          That’s a very clever comment, but it bears NO connection with FACT where Ruth Ginsberg is concerned. It’s you opinion, based on NOTHING but your dislike for Ginsberg as a liberal (which I share). But I recognize that there ARE competent liberal justices — far too many through history! — and I refuse to LIE about them by pretending they’re NOT competent. In short, I ARGUE ON FACTS, not on personal animus or bias against (or, for that matter, FOR) people I disagree with! That’s called being GROWN UP.

          • Truthteller

            it is a fact that she can not do her job at this point

          • RightWriter

            NO, it’s NOT a fact. Many justices prefer to READ the briefs rather than hear them read and discussed in the “oral arguments” period. That’s even ODD, much less inadequate or inappropriate. I suspect if I were on the Court (a job for which I have NEVER longed) I would do the same: I simply ABSORB THE WRITTEN WORD more easily than someone’s speech. She DOES her job, well enough that she BEATS US a good percentage of the time (unfortunately). If she were NOT doing her job, Breyer or maybe Sotomayor (or, if the situation was REALLY serious, the Chief Justice) would give a quiet word that maybe the time had come to quit…. Nobody HAS.

          • Truthteller

            no, it is a fact…. she can not and does not do her job
            she is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the court
            breyer and sotomayor are terrible justices btw… bunch of libtards trying to legislate lib poisen through the court

            which law school did you go to… they have about 50 in each state don’t they? real tough profession I take it

          • RightWriter

            No, it is NOT a fact, it is YOUR OPINION, based on nothing more than…your opinion.
            To say Sotomayor or Kagan or even Ginsberg are lousy justices has nothing to do with the case. I might well agree on the BASIS OF THEIR DECISIONS. That’s a different matter from basing it on their RIGHT TO REMAIN ON THE COURT. All ANY of them need for THAT is the CONSTITUTION (Article III, if you have trouble navigating it.)
            It’s none of your damn business, but I went to GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL in Washington, DC. And did a year at the University of Madrid, in Spain, and a semester program at Oxford University in England. YOU?

          • Truthteller

            it absolutely is a fact; she sleeps during work hours
            and yes soto kagan and ginsberg are lousy justices because of their decisions
            me… mba from nyu, corp exec
            i don’t have much respect for lawyers as a rule, just too easy to become one, though your background is impressive

          • RightWriter

            A LOT of people sleep during what you might call “working hours” and then work half the night…they’re called “nightowls.” I don’t like ANY of the justice you list, either, BUT ON THE BASIS OF THEIR LEGAL JUDGMENT, not because they sleep during oral arguments.
            You think it’s easier to become a lawyer than get an MBA? Boy, are YOU an idiot! First, law school is an intensive THREE YEAR program, while MBAs are issued in 1 or 2 years (depending on the school). EVERY graduate school in the Western world ranks a legal education as more difficult to obtain and much more difficult than a business degree.

            My late husband HAD BOTH, incidentally, from STANFORD, which is “the Harvard of the West Coast,” by the way. HE would have said — DID say — the MBA was a SNAP when compared with the law degree. I had thought about going to business school, but got a full ride for Georgetown, Law and a promised job after I graduated. Hated the job, but that’s another story!

            But thanks for your kudos to my “background.”

          • Truthteller

            are you for real?
            anyone.. i repeat anyone can become a lawyer…. I do respect law degrees from top 10 law schools though.. but anyone can become a lawyer
            law school is a joke…. some work and library time but no real intelligence is required
            you are clueless
            sleeping on the job is simply not acceptable

          • RightWriter

            Well, the LAWYERS and JUDGES I know would say that BUSINESS SCHOOL is a joke, and that ANYONE can get an MBA. I tend to support THEIR view, because I have known A LOT of DUNCES who got their business degrees but FLUNKED out of law school, even so-so law schools. And having earned BOTH degrees from the SAME “top ten” university (Stanford), my husband was firmly convinced that his LLD was MUCH more valuable, and had been MUCH harder to earn, than his MBA.
            You think you need REAL intelligence to earn an MBA but NOT a law degree? ARE YOU KIDDING? Anyone with an IQ of 80 or so can earn an MBA; GOOD law schools DEMAND at least a 125 IQ just to get IN, never mind graduate. I’m sorry, but you have it BACKWARDS., and EVERY authority on the subject will AGREE WITH ME (or my husband) on this.

          • Truthteller

            to be honest I don’t think either is very difficult; particularly at schools outside the top 10

            btw – obama is a 102 IQ, he is a Harvard Law grad

            my nephew could not find a job after college… b/c student.. went to law school bc it was an easy path to a job

  • Santiago Tello

    Those old dinosaurs should retire after abt 5 years on the job.

    • RightWriter

      Well, they’re not “old dinosaurs” after only 5 years on the job — they’re still wet behind the ears. The idea of no age limit (which is part of the Constitution) was intended to allow justices to AVOID POLITICAL PRESSURE (THAT idea hasn’t worked too well!) by protecting judges & justices from being fired for “voting wrong” — meaning not the way the President wanted. Otherwise we’d have had Barack Obama getting 9-0 approval on EVERY issue that went to the Court! (Remember, the same rules have to apply whether the president — or the justice — is a conservative or a nutty liberal!)

  • draftinging

    I would like the two women Supreme Court Judge to retire, they were not qualify to be on the Supreme Court when Obama appointed them to the Court. We need 9 good Supreme Court Judge to hear the cases coming before the court.

    • RightWriter

      Well, they were confirmed and they’re there until they decide to retire (or DIE). That’s the way it works. And they’re YOUNG, by Supreme Court standards, so I wouldn’t look for death or retirement anytime soon. As to their qualifications, the Constitution doesn’t even require that Supreme Court or other federal judges be LAWYERS, never mind in any way especially qualified!
      It’s MUCH more likely that the two Bill Clinton appointees, Ruth Bader Ginsberg (age 86) and Stephen Breyer (age 82) take control of the Senate and force Trump to name liberal judges to their seats, but that’s NOT gonna happen: REPUBLICANS will GAIN seats in the Senate this fall, Chuck Grassley’s fears notwithstanding). Then there’s Anthony Kennedy (age 82), a moderate Reagan appointee (the Dems had control of the Senate). They’re ALL likely retirees this year or next. And of course, God might have something to say about “retirements,” even EARLY ones.

      What Grassley is overlooking is the “tit for tat” aspect of the appointment process. If somehow he (or someone else) were to force Ginsberg or Breyer or anyone else to retire, the next time Dems had control of the Senate (and it WILL happen, eventually), THE SAME THING WOULD HAPPEN TO THE REPUBLICAN JUSTICES: THEY would be forced out. The “good behavior” rule with NO age limit was a VERY WISE move by the authors of the Constitution, and we SHOULD NOT MESS WITH IT.

      • draftinging

        I hated to tell you, but I know everything you said, but I still can hope that those two worthless bitch’s would resign or retire. Is that okay with you?
        I hope the Democratic party will just go away, they are corrupt, murders, worthless, racist beaters, steal, pay for play, sell this country out for money,

        • RightWriter

          You can WISH anything you WANT, but you are WAY out of line in hoping your wishes regarding Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would come true.
          Think about this idea of the “Democrat party just going away,” though. Within THREE WEEKS the REPUBLICAN PARTY would be engaged in a FIERCE SQUABBLE, between Tea Partiers, run-of-the-mill conservatives, Traditionalists, Libertarians, Southern Partisans, religious groups, gun fanciers and the “please go AWAY, gun nuts!” crowd, pro-lifers who care about NOTHING else and anti-pro-life-zealots, and 100 other groups who, left without a common enemy (aka: DEMOCRATS). would find they had VERY LITTLE in common — nowhere NEAR enough to form a political party!
          You think not? Read through some Republican history and see how we almost fell apart when Theodore Roosevelt tried to remake the party in ways William Howard Taft didn’t like, how Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover saw eye to eye on almost NOTHING, how the only thing that kept the GOP in one piece in the 1930s was that they had to keep running against FDR, how the party almost dissolved over battles between Robert Taft and Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, then again between Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller in 1960, and on and on and on…right down to the present intercollegiate battles (some of the divisions indicated above). You REALLY want to go through all that AGAIN? AND not win an election for TWENTY YEARS or more because we’re TOO BUSY FIGHTING ONE ANOTHER to have time to fight the Democrats. Enjoy yourself!

          • Truthteller

            we disagree.. i do not feel i am out of line in any way
            trump has it right.. the swamp is our problem… but libtards are the worst of the worse

            to quote patten
            politicians are the lowest form of life, liberal democrats are the lowest form of politicians

            i honestly view liberals as our enemy and as the biggest threat to our country

            just watching their behavior the past year illustrates quite clearly that I am probably right about this

          • RightWriter

            Yes, we disagree (nothing lke stating the obvious). BUT THE CONSTITUTION — you know, that thing we conservatives are supposed to REVERE — is ON MY SIDE, not yours. And that matters more than what your “observation” of liberals’ behavior may say. (Come to think of it, their “behavior” has nothing to do with it, either.)

            BTW, If you’re going to quote WWII generals, AT LEAST LEARN HOW TO SPELL THEIR NAMES! It was PATTON, you moron, NOT “Patten.”

            NOW GO AWAY AND BOTHER SOMEBODY ELSE.

          • Truthteller

            your use of the constitution to defend the incompetence of ginsberg is unacceptable

          • RightWriter

            The Constitution applies to HER just as much as it does to you or me — even more, because SHE holds an Article III office and her LIFETIME tenure is SET by the Constitution, while somehow I doubt YOU have any such guarantee.

            Sorry you find defending the Constitution “unacceptable,” but you’d better go dig up James Madison, or maybe Alexander Hamilton or John Jay, because THEY wrote the thing I wasn’t there at the time. But yes, I DEFEND IT because — in case you didn’t know — IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, whether YOU approve or not. So once again, GO CLIMB A TREE. I don’t CARE what you think, because you obviously aren’t a conservative AT ALL: WE respect the Constitution. YOU DO NOT.

          • Truthteller

            you are mostly clueless

      • Truthteller

        agree somewhat but when someone .. i.e. ginsberg.. becomes “incompetent” and lacks the ethics to retire something needs to be done

        • RightWriter

          YOU think she’s incompetent. HER COLLEAGUES, whether liberal or conservative, INCLUDING THE CHIEF JUSTICE, DO NOT think she’s incompetent. And the Constitution says it doesn’t really even MATTER if they DO: SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO RESIGN UNTIL SHE’S DAMN GOOD AND READY, or the Grim Reaper makes a pickup.

          • Truthteller

            so you would argue that a justice in a long term coma should still serve…

            yes she is incompetent

          • RightWriter

            Interesting question. The answer is that if a justice (let’s stop picking on Ruth Ginsberg; make this one, oh, Clarence Thomas!) is in a long-term coma, the Court’s physician (it has one) and the Chief Justice would doubtless confer with the other justices and Thomas’s family. Thomas’s wife (Ginni) and son would be consulted, and together with the court physician would doubtless conclude the justice HAD to retire. As his next-of-kin and (presumably) the family member who would become his legal guardian (Ginni) would meet with their family attorney AND someone from the Chief Justice’s office and make the necessary arrangements.

            This IS an interesting issue because back in 1789, when the Constitution went into effect, people didn’t SURVIVE more than a day or so in a comatose state. They DIED, and of course there were no life-saving devices to KEEP them alive. I doubt they thought of the possibility of what would have seemed like “eternal life.”

            BUT GINSBERG IS NOT IN A COMA. She is CONSCIOUS and aware of her surroundings, and fully cognizant of what the Court is doing when it’s in session. So your theoretical “what if” scenario is just plain fiction.

          • Truthteller

            it is an interesting question

            and I do not think ginsberg is conscious all the time, or awake, or fully cognizant…

            but it is an interesting and relevant question

            justices should have a mandatory retirement age, just like others… or at least have to go through some sort of competency exam every so often

  • Truthteller

    at minimum someone like ginsberg that can’t do the job and is decrepid if not braindead at this point should be removed

    • RightWriter

      Hate to tell you, but she’s NOT decrepit or brain-dead. YES, she dozes off in the oral arguments (they DO get boring), but she READS EVERY CASE carefully in her chambers, asks good questions, and is ALWAYS well-informed on what’s going on. She makes those ultra-liberal decisions BECAUSE SHE’S AN ULTRA-LIBERAL, not because she’s doddering.

      Let the woman alone: once she sees the Dems haven’t taken control of the Senate this Fall, she’ll retire — and the Dems WILL NOT take control of the Senate this Fall, Chuck Grassley’s fears notwithstanding: REPUBLICANS WILL PICK UP 4-6 SENATE SEATS

      The trouble with efforts to get justices you (or I) don’t like to retire sooner rather than later is that the minute control of the Senate switches, as sooner or later it MUST, THE LIBERALS WILL DO THE SAME THING TO US. And they won’t pick justices in their late 40s or early 50s: they’ll pick VERY young justices who will serve for 40 or 50 years before ANYONE can get rid of THEM.

      The founders chose a “life tenure” (the wording in the Constitution is that justices may serve “during good behavior” with no age limit) because they could SEE what would happen if one party could force the other to retire judges/justices for political reasons.

      • Truthteller

        With respect I stand fully behind the just of my comments. She is just playing politics n is disrespecting the court at this point. She is an embarrassment to us all. She is not doing her job n should have decency to retire

        • RightWriter

          With respect, READ ARTICLE III of the U.S. Constitution.
          She CANNOT be removed, and she needs to retire ONLY when SHE decides it’s time to retire (as she has no family, that might be awhile).
          It’s NOT “disrespecting the Court,” because her COLLEAGUES know that SHE IS 100% ON TOP OF WHAT’S HAPPENING. She naps during ORAL arguments (which REHASH what the JUSTICES have already heard in their discussions in chambers) because she KNOWS what they said in the arguments in chambers, and her memory is just fine: SHE DOESN’T NEED TO HEAR EVERYTHING AGAIN.
          Yes, she IS there “strictly for the politics” (or ,really, strictly for the LAW– in the sense that it’s all she HAS in her life now. (If you LIKED her, you would feel SORRY for a senior citizen whose life has diminished to that extent! But you DON’T like her (neither do I), and YOU don’t have the human decency to feel sympathy for a senior nearing the end of her life. OK, that’s YOU: I won’t stoop to that level.

          Think about this: if a brilliant thoroughly conservative lawyer was appointed to the Court, you and I would BOTH cheer. But what if a few weeks/months later, he/she was BLINDED in an accident? Now, blind people today have Braille, Braille writers, gadgets that translate Braille into written English, and also all sorts of gadgets on which they can HEAR anything they want to hear.

          Would YOU say that justice should resign from the Court, just because he/she had lost his/her EYESIGHT? IF THE JUSTICE IN QUESTION WAS ON YOUR SIDE? I doubt it — so why can’t you accept that a LIBERAL can have non-sensory abilities that YOU KNOW LITTLE ABOUT, but which make it possible for him/her to DO THE JOB? I think you just hate liberals — and lack the milk of human kindness or sympathy!

          • Truthteller

            she is incompetent at this point… and she is clearly disrespecting the court by remaining for purely political reasons
            she is a disgrace
            i can’t believe you are defending ginsberg
            i have no sympathy for ginsberg, she is hurting our country for personal politics
            if she wont retire, for our country’s sake, I hope she passes on very very soon (so call me what you will for this thought)
            btw, I also hope this mccain funeral I hear about happens very soon
            i feel no sympathy for people I view as trying to harm my country

          • RightWriter

            But she’s NOT trying to harm your country (or mine, or hers), least of all for “personal politics”! She’s DOING WHAT SHE BELIEVES TO BE RIGHT for her (our) country — NOT for herself! — and she’s hanging on to her position because she believes the current president would make a very bad appointment to replace her. (You, and I, may believe the opposite, but SHE STILL HAS A RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHAT SHE LIKES (We DO have an individual right to our own beliefs, no? I could have SWORN that is in the Bill of Rights!)
            You FORCE me to defend her because your perceptions are so totally SKEWED.
            I won’t bother to comment on your hope that she dies soon; except to say it’s unimaginable that ANYONE could say, or even THINK, such a thing of another human being. VILE is the word that comes to mind.
            I disagree with Ginsberg on EVERY LEGAL issue, but she is a HUMAN BEING who has done the best she knew how for the country she loves, and whether we agree with what she’s done or not, we ought to RESPECT her HUMANITY.

            PLEASE don’t message me again: you’ve made me SICK TO MY STOMACH. Your INHUMANITY is REVOLTING.

          • Truthteller

            again, you are nuts
            yes by staying in her job purely for politics she is trying to harm our country
            and… lib policies them selves harm our country
            so yes she is tying to harm our country by not resigning
            she, like most libby judges, do not understand their role and are trying to legislate from the bench (which is not their job)

            it is you who is inhumane .. and do not think of others with your excuses for this person……
            and I have never messaged you…… so if you are sick.. I would be kind of glad to be honest… i consider you sick… your fake concern and interpretation of humanity is truly revolting
            now go to bed little girl.. unless you can simply nap on your job like ginsberg

          • RightWriter

            Oh, so now I’m NUTS because I DARE to disagree with YOU. The HELL I am.
            I might even have agreed with you that Ginsberg was doing her country at least no GOOD by staying on the job too long. That would have been MY OPINION, though, and clearly the OTHER members of the Court (who have NOT suggested she retire) think otherwise. But after you told me that disagreeing with YOU makes me “NUTS.” BU**SH**!
            I wish you’d never messaged me, too. I’ve wasted a LOT of useful time on your crap tonight. NOW GO AWAY!

          • Truthteller

            you are nuts for defending someone who sleeps on the job as competent
            the others wanting to keep her are the libtards
            yes you are nuts

  • vladilyich

    It’s time to mow the Grassley.

    • RightWriter

      Cute, but meaningless. YOU CANNOT HAVE A POLITICAL PARTY MADE UP ENTIRELY OF PEOPLE WHO THINK EXACTLY THE WAY YOU DO. First off, that’d probably give you, what, SIX PEOPLE in the room? On a GOOD day?
      Political parties are ALL groups of people who come together because they SHARE certain BASIC PRINCIPLES, but NOT because they all think EXACTLY alike. We work with people who share MOST of our principles because the people on the OTHER “TEAM” don’t share many at all. So it’s a good idea NOT to get pissed off because someone — especially an elder statesman of the party — disagrees on Topic A or Subject B.
      So what has Grassley done/said that pisses you off so badly that you cast RUDE aspersions at something he probably can’t control (body odor), and which has NOTHING to do with politics, anyway?
      OR DO YOU JUST HATE PEOPLE, or maybe OLD people?

  • JCWS1

    Grassley is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. He smells like a decaying John (Songbird) McCain from every angle.

    • RightWriter

      Well, I have to admit I haven’t been close enough to SMELL him in a long time. I’ve never been crazy about Grassley, but since he took over as Chairman of Judiciary he has behaved himself pretty well. I wouldn’t call him an “embarrassment” to the Republican party, but to each his own. I don’t like John McCain, either, for reasons having little to do with his politics and NOTHING to do with the alleged “songbird” business, which I have heard on VERY good authority isn’t true, anyway. (I can’t stand McCain because of the despicable way he treated his first wife when he got back from Nam, after all she had done to TRY to get him — and the other POWs — released.)

      But where Grassley is concerned, I don’t see your problem. He’s a long way from my favorite Senator, but heck, nobody suggested we get MARRIED.

  • Richard Row

    Ginsberg probably started her resignation a number of times, but couldn’t remember where she put it, or she fell asleep during the dictation.

    • RightWriter

      Yuck, yuck. I can only assume YOU are in your 20s, certainly not much more. OLD FOLKS FORGET THINGS, which is why — this being the Computer Age — they use laptops or slates or some other gadget as what the French call an “aide-memoire.” (Look it up!)
      That said, Justice Ginsberg is NOTABLE for NOT having memory problems, or at least none that impact her professional life. Maybe she uses an aide-memoire, maybe she uses that old-fashioned device known as a “secretary,” but she DOES NOT FORGET the facts of a CASE which the Court is considering.
      Making nasty jokes is LOTS of fun, at least for people who don’t have age-related problems, but it PROVES NOTHING AT ALL. Ginsburg is RESPECTED by her colleagues — even those who disagree with her on legal issues — partly because she IS ALWAYS ON TOP OF THE ACTUAL WORK. YOU should be so efficient, even at YOUR current age.
      I don’t agree with Ruth Ginsberg on ANY legal issues, but I respect her and YOU SHOULD, TOO. We can oppose her without trying to make her out to be an ancient, deluded moron. She is NOT. I begin to think maybe YOU ARE (at least the ‘:deluded moron” part.

      • Truthteller

        she should resign immediately, she is selfish, unable to do her job, and just playing politics… she is a damn disgrace

        • RightWriter

          I would be delighted if Justice Ginsberg DID “resign immediately,” but she IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT, and there isn’t anything YOU can do to FORCE her to do it. And as I have said (and said and said…) SHE IS UNDER NO COMPULSION or even pressure from anyone who MATTERS (fellow justices, for instance) to follow YOUR advice. So maybe YOU, having FAILED to DISMALLY to put an end to Ginsberg’s service, SHOULD FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO BITCH ABOUT. You’re like a stupid dog with a very old, dried up bone that he just won’t stop chewing…it’s NOT doing either the dog or the bone any good, just leaving tooth marks on both and annoying the neighborhood with its barking! SO SHUT UP, ALREADY!

          • Truthteller

            I stand by and fully believe every one of my comments… ginsberg situation disgusts me.. but I acknowledge your views

            I do not favor acceptance however… there should be outrage at ginsberg remaining on the court.. it should not be accepted as a given, nor should we be nice to her

            i will keep chewing

          • RightWriter

            You can think what you damn well please. The CONSTITUTION says (in effect) that she doesn’t HAVE to retire, and obviously she doesn’t want to do so. So PLEASE stop BOTHERING me about it!

          • Truthteller

            sorry bud… no intention of stopping…. guys like you would have us still paying taxes to the queen…
            she is incompetent and has no class

          • RightWriter

            BTW, I’m a WOMAN.
            But that’s beside the point. I SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION, not some monarch, thank you very much, but the Constitution has held up pretty damn well for more than 2 centuries, and I think MORONS like YOU should be careful about trying to replace it (fortunately, the Framers made it VERY hard to amend, just so idiots (like you) wouldn’t be able to mess it up). NOW GO AWAY!

          • Truthteller

            you are wrong

          • mrpoohead

            Well it’s worked very well for the plutocracy, not so much the people.

  • regulus30

    DARTH VADER ginsberg and kennedy are holding on to keep the court left leaning.

    • RightWriter

      It’s NOT Kennedy who’s keeping the Court leaning left: it’s Ginsberg, right, and Stephen Breyer (Why does everyone FORGET about HIM? He’s at LEAST as liberal as Ginsberg!)

      Kennedy is the Court’s one true “centrist” or moderate; he swings one way on one issue and the other on another according to his OWN BEST JUDGMENT. That’s what justices were originally SUPPOSED to do, but nowadays very few (on either side) DO.

      • regulus30

        He is tagged as a ‘moderate liberal’ ; there is no such thing;; he is a left leaning judge. Lgbt/abortion/equal protect rights/first amendment rights.

  • Pauls1

    If any are going to retire in the next 4 years now would perhaps be the best time to retire, but I would hope that especially Justice Thomas would not be thinking of retirement.

    • RightWriter

      Thomas plans to stick around for awhile. My bet is, if Trump is NOT re-elected, Thomas will retire before the end of 2020 so Trump, not the liberal who replaces him, can fill his seat. The problem there is the Dems will almost certainly try to do what WE did in 2016-17, when McConnell (WISELY) refused to accept Obama’s 8th-year nominee and let Trump name Gorsuch instead. That WAS a good move, but it could come back to haunt us if the next President is a liberal. 🙁

  • Jeff

    Yes there needs to be an age limitation, at some point, the mind just isn’t what is was in your youth, I cannot say what that year is as I’am no expert, with that said you sure would think at age 80 that’s sure seems a bit extreme, in all honesty it doesn’t mean that at age 80 some individuals may not be sharp and be able to make these monumental descisions but if we’re being honest we have to admit not all individuals are the same and their mental capacity may not be the same across the board, in short set a retirement age and make it just that and not about ones ability at that stated age….

    • RightWriter

      The problem is, senility can set in (for some people) at 50 and for others, not until they’re WAY past 80, or NEVER. That’s one of the reasons the Framers of the Constitution didn’t specify a retirement age.
      What usually happens is that when a justice can REALLY no longer keep up with his/her work, mentally, his/her colleagues will gently suggest that maybe it’s time to retire. And generally, they take their colleagues’ advice. Wives or husbands, grown children, and other family members have been known to weigh in, as well.
      As for Ginsberg, she dozes off in the (often BORING) oral arguments, but she is COMPLETELY in command of what’s involved in each case. She votes liberal because SHE IS a liberal, not because she’s confused or misguided. And she DOES NOT want to leave it to President Trump to name her successor, although if the Republicans keep control of the Senate this year she will likely HAVE to do that (her chances of living another 2 years are, statistically, slim, and if Trump is RE-ELECTED, even those 2 years wouldn’t help. Poor Ruthie. She should have retired while Obama was still in office. 🙁

      • Jeff

        Well stated, I can’t agree with you more and as you pointed out in Ruth’s case, it begins to be an issue when they refuse to retire for fear of there replacement and their party line view, which may not align with their own and lastly as I stated previously and this is just my opinion, set the age limit and make it just that and not about their mental state, which may be in tact or not.

  • rtryon

    Ginsberg is not ‘brain-dead’. She will not retire unless the President helps the GOP survive in November by accomplishing so much good that the media either dies or recognizes that the voters like what is happening! She probably prefers dying in office to being accused of leaving to allow Trump to nominate her successor. She is not the only one. Kennedy is the other. Sotomayor and Kagan are liberals with some willingness to conform to law, less to the Constitution. They will all be on-life support with back-up power before Dems will let them retire!

    • RightWriter

      You’re absolutely right about Ginsberg: if the Republicans keep control of the Senate, she will be gone by the end of November. But Kennedy is another matter: he’s a TRUE CENTRIST, liberal on some issues and conservative on others, but basically a moderate Republican. He really IS trying to time his retirement so that Trump (a) is still in the White House and (b) is NOT in such bad political shape that anyone he named to the Court as a replacement would be DEAD ON ARRIVAL in the Senate. Kennedy was GOING to retire last June, but he was concerned that with all the legal (Mueller, Comey) crap Trump wouldn’t be able to name a good (read: reasonably conservative) replacement.

      Sotomayor and Kagan are way too young to be thinking about retirement, and would certainly prefer to do so when there’s a Dem/liberal in the White House.

      You left out Clarence Thomas, who WAS the “young conservative” justice when he was appointed but is 70 this year (that’s NOT “old” for a Supreme Court justice, but no longer young, either.) Time passes for us all: Even Sam Alito is 68 this year. That essentially leaves Chief Justice Roberts and the one Trummp appointee, Neil Gorsuch, as the “youngsters.”

      In sum: Kennedy is waiting until Trump gets past all the legal crap and seems to be in stable enough condition to be able to name a solid conservative replacement. Ginsberg and Breyer are HOPING the Dems will take the Senate this year, in which case the new Senate can block Trump nominations, but that’s not gonna happen, so they’ll probably retire later this year (after the election). Those are the likeliest retirements.

      • rtryon

        Thanks for your words save for one that I key to for obvious reason. I am 86 and going strong at tennis and inventing! So, Justice Thomas at 70 is way behind my schooling or thought of not working! I hope he is like me as he is a clear thinker and lover of the Constitution.

        • RightWriter

          Good for you! I just hit 75 and for the first time in my life, I’m feeling — well, aware of — my age. Clarence Thomas is indeed a clear thinker and lover of the Constitution (as is Sam Alito). I don’t know if George W. intended it, but I think we got another Kennedy-like “centrist,” not really a conservative, with Chief Justice John Roberts, but Neil Gorsuch is as straight an arrow as they come.

          What it comes down to is that we HAVE to hold onto the Senate this year so that any appointments Trump makes in the next two years will be CONFIRMABLE. (I’m assuming Trump will weather this ongoing legal storm.)

          Although, come to think of it, if the worst happened and we lost President Trump, President PENCE would probably give us even BETTER justices! HE knows them personally, whereas to Trump they’re names on the Federalist/Heritage list.

          • rtryon

            The Trump/Pence ticket is a great combination. I think they like and respect each other and it shows how Trump makes many picks and a number are rather extra good! But, its not easy to bat .400 in anything! I pray that American voters will be as pleased in November as they are today and will vote to avoid upsetting the winning ways. The Iranian mess is really a thorny one in scale and the volatility of religious opponents. The Sunni-Shariia division is profound and 8 yrs of war with Iraq vs Iran show it. If Trump can defuse it he is a magician. Its one thing to get Xi in China to tell Kim the facts of life, after Trump helped all learn that he plays to win, not to get elected, even though winners to win elections too! Let us pray that a middle East solution is next…

    • Truthteller

      if not legally brain dead she is absolutely incompetent and not capable of doing her job

      i think of bernie from weekend at bernies when i think of ginsberg

  • Kate

    Ginsberg referenced Lindsey Graham recently as a woman during a speech. She falls asleep during meetings. I think it’s time to go!

    • RightWriter

      Ginsberg doses off during oral arguments, but she’s sharp as a tack in the behind-the-scenes discussions. She votes far left because she IS far left, not because she doesn’t know what she’s doing. She knows EXACTLY what she’s doing.
      If the Republicans do keep control of the Senate this year (and we WILL: we’re going to pick up 406 seats!), Ginsberg (and Breyer) will have retired by Christmas. If we end up with a bunch of TERRIBLE candidates (too conservative to win their general elections, or just plain STUPID), Ginsberg and Breyer will wait until the New Year and hope Schumer can FORCE President Trump to accept a couple of liberal nominees. So it’s UP TO US to give Trump a Senate that won’t screw him out of his Court nominees.

      • Truthteller

        she is incompetent at this point.. well beyond being a libtard

        • RightWriter

          A “libtard” (what’s wrong with the word “liberal”?) she definitely IS (I SAID THAT). But she IS NOT — by any means — INCOMPETENT, and all conservatives do by calling her incompetent is prove that WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT.
          You may not believe it, but HER MIND IS SHARP. If she dozes off in the oral arguments (all the audience gets to see, unfortunately), it’s because SHE HAS ALREADY HEARD the arguments and know EXACTLY where they’re strong and where their weak points, if any, lie. That makes her ANYTHING BUT “INCOMPETENT.”
          I say this as someone who dislikes the woman intensely and has probably NEVER agreed with her on ANY legal issue. But I believe in being both FAIR and ACCURATE, and anyway, WE WON’T BRING HER DOWN BY CALLING HER “INCOMPETENT.” Not gonna happen, so forget about it.

          • Truthteller

            i prefer libtard.. the term liberal does not adequatly convey my disgust for these people
            ginsberg is absolutly incompetent – you try showing up at your job and napping and see what happens

          • RightWriter

            YOU have no idea how the Supreme Court works. If you’d ever BEEN to even just ORAL arguments, you’d know the lawyers drone on and on for an hour (or more) rehashing the arguments the justices have ALREADY HEARD, READ, and LEARNED THOROUGLY. The justices aren’t 20-somehtings on some company payroll, dummy, they’re more like lawyers or doctors who work independently or collaborate when necessary. They CAN doze off in oral arguments, and NOBODY will say anything because it’s NOBODY ELSE’s BUSINESS. If they prefer WRITTEN arguments, they READ the briefs and get bored in the oral recitation. They’re INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, in a manner of speaking, and NOBODY will say “don’t you DARE go to sleep” — not, anyway, if they ever want to WIN a case in front of the Supremes. The comparison with my job or yours is TOTALLY USELESS and IRRELEVANT, and just PROVES you don’t know WHAT you’re talking about. Believe me, I’ve sat through enough oral arguments to KNOW whereof I speak.

          • Truthteller

            just stop.. your excuses are pathetic
            in your last trip to the sc did you happen to notice that the other justices stayed awake and listened
            and it is the justices duty to stay awake and listen…. people do care…
            and why don’t you try napping on your job and see if it matters

            side point – do you know how easy it is to become a lawyer…. it is not like most professional schools with limited schools or tough requirements… heck, pretty soon community colleges will have law schools

            just stop the crap… ginsberg is a disgrace and is not competent to do her job

          • RightWriter

            Let me think, in my last trip to the Supreme Court Ginsberg DID NOT fall asleep, but Justice Breyer DID. And NOWHERE in the Rules of Procedure for the Court does it say “justices must stay awake and listen.” As I said, SOME people — perfectly normal, intelligent adults — ABSORB INFORMATION BETTER from READING, not hearing it. You want to make a rule that THEY can’t be justices? Why on earth do YOU care so much that they HEAR the arguments, instead of READING them? Apart from any other point, you’d be REQUIRING DISCRIMINATION against people with hearing impairments. Tsk, tsk!

            As I explained, my job and that of a Supreme Court justice or federal judge, are VASTLY different (as I expect yours are). You seem to read (or understand) only what you WANT to, and IGNORE everything else. Some lawyer you’d make!

            Yes, I know how “easy” (or not so easy) it is to become a lawyer. It really depends on the State’s bar. And if you were suggesting that lawschools are proliferating, I agree completely, but GOOD lawschools are NOT proliferating. They’re even RARER than they used to be.

            Ginsberg’s colleagues (the best judges), whether liberal or conservative, think she IS competent to do her job. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO IMPOSE YOUR JUDGMENT OVER THEIRS?

            Now YOU stop the crap. If the other justices and her own conscience say she is qualified, she IS QUALLIFIED. Period.

          • Truthteller

            none of the libtard justices follow the law but use position to largely impose their warped political views
            btw – no one absorbs info better by sleeping
            do you understand what the judicial branch is supposed to do.. it is not to legislate or use forum for political purposes
            she is absolutely not qualified at this point and is basically holding on to position for politics… the country be damned… and I have zero respect for her because of this (libtard or not)

          • RightWriter

            Yes, having been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court since 1978, I have a pretty damn good understanding of what the Judicial Branch is supposed to DO. No, it’s NOT there to legislate or be used as a political forum — THAT’S WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO, change their rules of procedure BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE THEM. On the other hand, I am defending the continued use of the Rules AS THEY STAND.

            (As for the “political forum” charge, I’d agree you have a point, except THAT problem has been with us since FDR tried to pack the Court in 1937. It has become ROUTINE for presidents of both parties and ALL philosophies to use Court appointments to bolster THEIR OWN POLITICAL POSITIONS. I agree that shouldn’t BE; but it IS, and retiring Ruth Ginsberg WILL NOT CHANGE A THING.)

            Again: YOU think she is “absolutely not qualified.” HER COLLEAGUES, including the CHIEF JUSTICE, think otherwise. THEY have the right to tell her when they think it’s time for her to go: YOU DO NOT (nor do I, but I’m not TRYING to!). And even if her colleagues SAY “Ruth, it’s time to go,” SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO LISTEN. She has LIFETIME TENURE, and if you don’t like that fact (which is IN THE CONSTITUTION, Article III), YOU will have to go find ANOTHER COUNTRY. Good luck. (MOST countries have adopted the same “lifetime tenure” rule for judges of their high court that WE have, so you won’t be happy anywhere else, either.)

            I can’t demand you find another country, of course, but I CAN AND AM GOING TO STOP READING YOUR POSTS. You’ve said everything you know (or THINK you know), and I have RESTATED THE TRUTH over and over again. I’m DONE with you. READ THE DAMNED CONSTITUTION, or just GO TO HELL.

          • Truthteller

            you are clueless

          • RightWriter

            You think MY “excuses” are “pathetic” (they’re NOT excuses, because I HAVE NOTHING TO EXCUSE, and if they’re “pathetic” then the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS PATHETIC. I don’t think it IS.

            The Constitution says what it says, and it’s not up to ME to excuse anything about it. If YOU don’t LIKE what the Constitution says, GO FIND ANOTHER COUNTRY with one you like better (if you CAN).

          • Truthteller

            yes your excuses are pathetic

          • RightWriter

            Read my lips, one more time: THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SHE HAS LIFETIME TENURE, whether YOU like it or not. She is apparently determined to SERVE her life tenure, or anyway not to retire while Donald Trump is President of the United States. Unfortunately, SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO (or NOT do) exactly what she WANTS in that respect. YOU have no right to try to push her out the door, which you can’t do even if you try.
            I do not defend Ginsberg because of who or what she is (an extreme liberal). As I have said, I can’t think of a single issue on which I agree with her. BUT I BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, and IT, not me, not you, not even Ruth Ginsberg, gives her the RIGHT to remain in office until she chooses otherwise, or dies.
            THAT is the basic law of this country. If you don’t like it, I think they’re grabbing new citizens in Canada (they have so few people, but lots of polar bears).

          • Truthteller

            she should resign .. period
            and if she wont something needs to be done
            you would argue that a justice in a long term coma should still serve….. just dumb

  • Kate

    Kennedy has wanted to retire for quite a while now but the left must be paying him to stay on to prevent Trump from placing another conservative.

    • RightWriter

      You’re half right: Kennedy has wanted to retire for quite awhile now. BUT NOBODY IS PAYING HIM TO STAY — he didn’t want to leave while Trump was having so many legal problems (Mueller, Comey, talk about impeachment), because that kind of think makes it hard for a president to name SOLID justices. (That’s how we got idiots like John Paul Stevens, appionted by Gerald Ford because the pardon of Nixon had “weakened” Ford and he didn’t think he could get a conservative confirmed; also another fool, David Souter, named by George H.W. Bush because he was just too nervous to name even a good moderate!)
      Kennedy has stayed on (extending his tenure a couple of times) in the hopes that Trump would get clear of all the legal crap and be in a better position to name another conservative like Gorsuch from his Federalist Society list.

  • what recovery

    There has to be an age limit for the SCOTUS Justices. Ginsberg can’t remember where she is, Kennedy can be swayed by ant B/S and a falling leaf. We the people want a court that can stay awake and have a meaningful dialogue. No life time appointments.

    • RightWriter

      An age limit is a TERRIBLE idea. some people start going senile at 50, others not until they’re WAY past 80, some NEVER. Ginsburg dozes off, but she DOES NOT forget where she is: she votes very liberal because she IS very liberal.

      You misunderstand Justice Kennedy. He’s the ‘swing vote” on the Court, sometimes voting with the liberals and sometimes with the conservatives, but at heart he IS moderately conservative (he WAS named to the Court by President REAGAN, you may recall (or maybe you don’t)).

      Anyway, Kennedy WANTS to retire, but he is TRYING to time his departure so that President Trump WILL NOT BE TOO WEAK TO PICK ANOTHER VERY GOOD NOMINEE like Gorsuch. If Kennedy left when the President was still in the middle of all this legal crap with Mueller and Comey and all the rest breathing down his neck, Trump would probably have to SETTLE for some “moderate” who would appeal to the DEMOCRATS in the Senate. (Of course, if we lose control of the Senate this November, the same problem will arise.) Kennedy’s HOPE is that all the nonsense will be sorted out this year, so that he can leave in June or November and Trump can pick a conservative replacement. That may or may not work, but it’s what he WANTS.

  • Name

    When you start thinking it is time to retire you better retire, cause if you don’t you could regret it. You could end up like Ginsberg- to old to do anything but wanting to do things and mentally incapable of doing anything.

    • RightWriter

      It will surprise you, but that is EXACTLY what happens. When a justice (or judge) starts feeling like it’s time to retire, he/she usually DOES — may stay around long enough to TIME his/her retirement so that the president appointing the new justice/judge is of the right party, but no longer. When a justice starts to go senile, his/her colleagues will usually take him/her aside and say, “Hey, Bill (or Jane), don’t you think maybe it’s time to call it a day?” And usually, they DO.

      You have also badly misunderstood Justice Ginsberg. I probably have NEVER agreed with er on a single issue, but she’s NOT senile. She falls asleep during the (often boring) oral arguments, but she knows EXACTLY what’s going on because she has READ EVERY WORD of the briefs from both sides, and she asks sharp questions in discussions in chambers. She VOTES very liberal because she IS very liberal, not because she’s confused. Her brain is still functioning very well, believe it or not.

      But her politics are SO liberal that she HATES the idea of being replaced on the Court by a Trump appointee. She was desperately hoping (and expecting) Hillary would win — in which case she, Justice Ginsberg, would have retired by the end of 2016. NOW all she can do is hope the Dems take over the Senate this year, so that Schumer can block any Trump attempt to name a really conservative replacement. If the Republicans keep control of the Senate (and we WILL), Ruthie will either have to give up and retire or hope she can survive another two years (and that Trump isn’t re-elected!)

  • sargentrage

    Get rid of all Democrat Judges

    • Truthteller

      now we are talking

      imagine .. a world w/o dems… it would be a beautiful place

      • RightWriter

        No, it wouldn’t, not really. Within a couple of WEEKS we’d find ALL KINDS of issues to fight about among ourselves, and before long we’d have SPLIT into AT LEAST TWO political parties. Maybe three.

        • mrpoohead

          Exactly – what’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Squat!

          • Truthteller

            not really… dems enable the libs and vote for the libs and

        • Truthteller

          but shedding our worst would be a nice chance to restart and at least cull the herd of the weak links

          • RightWriter

            THAT is the DUMBEST statement I’ve heard all night — and I’ve heard some beauties.

            Political parties develop because people with similar views GET TOGETHER. They DO NOT develop because those people “cull” one another. Don’t you SEE? EVERY PERSON YOU “CULL” IS ONE LESS PERSON VOTING FOR YOUR PARTY, OR YOUR CANDIDATES, ON ELECTION DAY.

            You enjoy very much success at “culliing the heard” and you will have the party down to a local CAUCUS that could hold its annual convention in … I was gonna say a PHONE BOOTH, but since we don’t HAVE any of those anymore, let’s say in a LINEN CLOSET.

            Do you EVER want to WIN another ELECTION? I’d strongly suggest you NOT do any “culling.” To say NOTHING of the fact that you MIGHT be culling people somebody ELSE thinks are VERY important to the party’s future.

            All I can say is, DON’T! EVER! CULL! ANYONE! They are JUST as important to your party as YOU are, and in fact if THEY are NOT trying to “cull,” and thus not DESTROYING THE PARTY, they’re MORE important than YOU are. All YOU are is DESTRUCTIVE.

          • Truthteller

            i know english is new to you but you make no sense

            do you not agree that liberals are our worst? if you at least recognize this, they how would getting rid of them not help our country

            you sound like on of dem sanders commies that crawled out of your hole and for some reason can’t find his way back

          • RightWriter

            I’ve been speaking English all my life, and in school (and college) I never got less than an A+. It sure as hell is NOT “new to me,” and if you don’t understand what I’m saying, MAYBE IT IS YOU WHO HAS THE PROBLEM.
            YES, I detest the liberals on the Court. BUT THEY WERE DULY APPOINTED AND CONFIRMED, and they are covered by EXACTLY THE SAME RULES as the conservatives (or moderates). THEY HAVE LIFETIME TENURE, though of course they may RETIRE whenever they wish. WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO GET THIS SIMPLE FACT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL?
            “Getting rid of” the liberals WOULD probably help the country, BUT UNLESS YOU’RE CONTEMPLATING MURDER, THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN DO THAT until they DECIDE to retire or the Good Lord takes them from us. If they were all subsumed into outer space tomorrow, I’d cheer; BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, and I believe that THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW OF THE LAND even when it produces results i don’t much like.

            MAYBE that’s the difference between being a LAWYER (me) and a BUSINESSMAN (you). YOU don’t worry so much about the law. I DO. Or, as in this case, I worry about the CONSTITUTION, without which WE HAVE NO LAW and YOU have no structure for conducting business. For WHOM is THAT good?

          • Truthteller

            would you support someone remaining a justice if they were in a long term coma… i’m curious

  • maxovrdriv

    I can think of about 5 that should go now and a few that should never have been selected. And here is to the party not in the White House. You LOST, look at qualifications, and not ideology and stop playing games. As old big ears said, elections have consequences when the told all the white folk to get in the back of the bus. Welcome to turnabout.

  • Steve Walker

    Ginsburg and Kennedy need to go, RIGHT NOW.

    • RightWriter

      Kennedy’s HALF on OUR side! He IS basically moderately conservative, though on legal issues he can come down on either side: he’s a TRUE “SWING VOTE,” exactly the kind of justice the Framers of the Constitution HOPED (and believed) we would get most of the time. They did NOT want justices who were firmly in one party’s camp or the other’s.

      Right now, Kennedy is DOING TRUMP A FAVOR, believe it or not. He is trying to TIME his retirement so that it won’t leave Trump WEAKENED by this ongoing battle over all the legal crap — Mueller and Comey and the rest. Kennedy is HOPING that will END so that Trump will be stronger and can fill a vacancy (the one created when Kennedy retires, or any other) with someone good, someone from the Heritage/Federalist Society list that produced Gorsuch’s name. So don’t be QUITE so quick to push him out the door.

      As for Ginsburg, dream on! SHE has no life other than her work on the Court, which when you think about it is kind of sad. She WAS planning to retire the day after President Hillary Clinton took office (they probably had a replacement all picked out!), but, well, that didn’t work out too well. So since Jan. 2017 Ginsberg has been waiting in the hope that the voters would elect a liberal Senate, so that Schumer and the new Dem Senate could at least BLOCK a really BAD Trump appointee. Which is why Ruthie is going to be VERY disappointed when the Republicans GAIN seats in the Senate in November. It remains to be seen if she’ll try to stay on the job in the hope that Trump will LOSE in 2020.

      You forgot Stephen Breyer, who is only two years younger than Ginsberg (though he LOOKS much younger) — and is just as liberal as Ginsberg. HE should probably be thinking about retirement, too, though his health is apparently fine.

      Just keep in mind when you start thinking about age limits (I KNOW that’s what you’re thinking about!) — they’d apply to OUR guys/gals, too. Coming up behind Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer in age are two solid conservative justices: Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. We really don’t want to push EITHER of THEM into retirement, and fortunately they’re both healthy.

      • Steve Walker

        Age limits is NOT what I’m thinking about. I did not mention Breyer simply because we know how he’ll vote. We need another Thomas, Alito or Scalia that we KNOW how they’re going to vote, regardless of how YOU feel the framers wanted it, which is pure speculation. You obviously forgot about Thurgood Marshall who did the exact same thin Ginsburg is doing right now, and it certainly isn’t their jobs, because of their HEALTH. At least you knew how those two blazing liberals were going,to vote. With Kennedy, we have no idea. Get rid of him.

  • RightWriter

    Much as I would like to see Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy retired, it’s a TERRIBLE precedent that will only come back to haunt the next batch of conservative justices when THEY reach their senior years.
    The life-tenure of Supreme Court & other federal judges (they “shall hold their office during good behavior”) meaning they can’t be fired or forced to retire. This was not established casually. The idea was to avoid situations in which judges could be FORCED to retire BECAUSE THE CURRENT PRESIDENT DIDN’T LIKE THEIR POLITICAL POSITIONS.
    Unfortunately, that’s EXACTLY what Sen. Chuck Grassley would be DOING if his “retire NOW” rule was (or could be) adopted. And do you REALLY think the Dems/liberals wouldn’t TURN AROUND AND DO IT TO JUSTICES ALITO AND GORSUCH (and any other conservatives Trump may yet appoint) first chance they GET?
    What goes around, comes around, and sooner or later everyone who tries to remake the rules gets skewered for EXACTLY the same “sins” they tried to blame on someone else. NOT a good idea. Besides, REPUBLICANS ARE NOT GOING TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE SENATE THIS YEAR — we’re going to PICK UP 5-6 SEATS — so there’s NO NEED. Grassley is a well-meaning but DELUDED idiot!

  • Truthteller

    more dem hypocrisy
    these cretins asked our president to take a competency test
    absolutely the sc justices should be required to take a competency test when they reach certain age and/or when they show signs that bring this in to question

    we need protected from selfish political types like ginsberg…. the woman sleeps when she should be working and gives all signs of being “incompetent” and/or “compromised”

    it is wrong to appoint justices for life … some, like ginsberg, have proven to not do the right thing and retire when warranted.. for pure political purposes

  • Truthteller

    Gen Patten said it best…
    politicians are the lowest form of life, liberal democrats are the lowest form of politiciians

    imo, liberals w/in are our country’s greatest threat and the biggest enemy of our country….. don’t see how anyone observing happenings from this past year could disagree

    and the dems enable and vote for the libtards, so they are right there with them

    we need to get ginsberg off the court and appoint a conservative…. to negate the obsurdity of kagan, breyer and sotomayor