ClubPA Member? Be sure to to avoid seeing ads!

The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pancreatic cancer surgery: A SCOTUS thread

deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
edited February 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29036143/

She's pretty old and has already had other bouts with cancer. Pancreatic cancer is really deadly, and at best she faces some harsh chemo and probably only has a few years left.

Also there is finally a democrat in the White House. Is it time for her to step down? If so, any ideas for a new justice?

deadonthestreet on
«13

Posts

  • RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Someone who's both leftist and really, really good at browbeating would be choice, because Scalia and his ilk need to get pushed to the lower strata one way or another.

    What's going to happen if SCOTUS gets any cases when Ginsburg's out of commission, though?

    Rust on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I said in the other thread that from what I'm seeing the reports are that it was caught early so there's reason to be optimistic. Though I'd be surprised if we don't see at least her and Stevens retire in the next four years. And with any luck Scalia dies. I know I'm an awful person, but I hate that man so very much.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I hear Alberto Gonzales is having trouble finding a job...

    oldmanken on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Rust wrote: »
    Someone who's both leftist and really, really good at browbeating would be choice, because Scalia and his ilk need to get pushed to the lower strata one way or another.

    What's going to happen if SCOTUS gets any cases when Ginsburg's out of commission, though?

    They should be able to schedule around it, but theoretically it allows 4-4 decisions which I think get sent back to the Circuit decision from whence they came.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Link Obviously one hopes she recovers fully.

    If she is unable or unwilling to continue acting as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, I actually don't think the timing is bad as suggested in the other thread. President Obama has a lot of political capital right now, and maintains a near filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Add in at least four pro-choice Republican Senators....

    edit
    As far as nominees go, it would likely be a woman and resistance to a liberal jurist is likely to be less stringent since they'd be replacing one of the two liberals currently on the Court.

    PantsB on
    Spoiler
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    oldmanken wrote: »
    I hear Alberto Gonzales is having trouble finding a job...

    Well, he might be indicted for the US Attorney scandals based on scuttlebutt from TPM/New Mexico papers. So that problem would be solved.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29036143/

    Link for the OP if you want it.

    I wish her the best of luck. Odds were against her remaining on the bench through the end of the Obama administration anyway, but here's hoping she can step down in good health.

    Nobody jumps to mind in terms of a replacement. It's only a matter of time before someone shouts "Clinton" or "Edwards" in a crowded theater, though.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I'm just going to ask, but who is on the Supreme court now, and where do they fall on conservative-liberal lines? Are there any real moderates?

    oldmanken on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29036143/

    Link for the OP if you want it.

    I wish her the best of luck. Odds were against her remaining on the bench through the end of the Obama administration anyway, but here's hoping she can step down in good health.

    Nobody jumps to mind in terms of a replacement. It's only a matter of time before someone shouts "Clinton" or "Edwards" in a crowded theater, though.

    Adulterers both! And awful ideas. I'm sure our constitutional lawyer President has some ideas though and this is one thing I'm going to basically trust him with blindly when the time comes.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Oh god I was about to post this. I read the headline on Salon and audibly gasped in the middle of a crowded library. Slightly embarrassing.

    I hope she makes a speedy recovery.

    Hachface on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    oldmanken wrote: »
    I'm just going to ask, but who is on the Supreme court now, and where do they fall on conservative-liberal lines? Are there any real moderates?

    Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote.

    Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are the arch-conservatives.
    Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer are varying amounts of liberal but are pretty consistent votes.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Man first Swayze and now Ginsburg, damn you pancreatic cancer!

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited February 2009

    Adulterers both! And awful ideas. I'm sure our constitutional lawyer President has some ideas though and this is one thing I'm going to basically trust him with blindly when the time comes.
    The specific Clinton I'm talking about is Hillary.

    As far as all that, I'm basically just going to trust Obama for picks his picks too. I'm not informed enough on that sphere of American politics/law to really have any names that jump out. He, however, seems uniquely qualified to be making those appointments.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    oldmanken wrote: »
    I'm just going to ask, but who is on the Supreme court now, and where do they fall on conservative-liberal lines? Are there any real moderates?

    The most powerful justice on the Supreme Court right now is Anthony Kennedy. I would describe him as conservative, but since the court is by nature a conservative institution he seems relatively moderate. He's powerful because he is the only sitting justice whose vote cannot accurately be predicted according to the political party of the president who appointed him.

    Hachface on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Hachface wrote: »

    The most powerful justice on the Supreme Court right now is Anthony Kennedy. I would describe him as conservative, but since the court is by nature a conservative institution he seems relatively moderate. He's powerful because he is the only sitting justice whose vote cannot accurately be predicted according to the political party of the president who appointed him.

    That's not true, Stevens and Souter were both appointed by Republicans (Ford and HW, respectively)

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The specific Clinton I'm talking about is Hillary.

    As far as all that, I'm basically just going to trust Obama for picks his picks too. I'm not informed enough on that sphere of American politics/law to really have any names that jump out. He, however, seems uniquely qualified to be making those appointments.

    Oh OK, I figured you meant Bill since Hillary already has a job.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The specific Clinton I'm talking about is Hillary.

    As far as all that, I'm basically just going to trust Obama for picks his picks too. I'm not informed enough on that sphere of American politics/law to really have any names that jump out. He, however, seems uniquely qualified to be making those appointments.

    Hillary is already SecState! We are all out of Clinton! We have reached peak Clinton.

    I doubt many people will clamor for her election anyway, since she's already gotten a new position.

    What really gets to me about all this is that none of the conservative judges are likely to be incapacitated in the next decade, because the Bush GOP liked to make young and healthy SCOTUS appointments who can make horrible decisions forever and ever and ever.

    Rust on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Hillary Clinton is really not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. I'm sure there are plenty of excellent candidates in the circuit courts.

    Hachface on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Oh OK, I figured you meant Bill since Hillary already has a job.
    That she does. That won't stop some folks (I'm looking at you, CNN) from calling it a snub if she's not at least on the short list for the seat.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Rust wrote: »

    Hillary is already SecState! We are all out of Clinton! We have reached peak Clinton.

    I doubt many people will clamor for her election anyway, since she's already gotten a new position.

    What really gets to me about all this is that none of the conservative judges are likely to be incapacitated in the next decade, because the Bush GOP liked to make young and healthy SCOTUS appointments who can make horrible decisions forever and ever and ever.

    Scalia is 72!

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Rust wrote: »

    What really gets to me about all this is that none of the conservative judges are likely to be incapacitated in the next decade, because the GOP likes to make young and healthy SCOUTUS appointments who can make horrible decisions forever and ever and ever.

    This is not unique to conservatives. It's simply sound political strategy.
    Also, Antonin Scalia is no spring chicken. If people keep asking him embarrassing questions he might just pop a blood vessel.

    Hachface on
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009

    Scalia is 72!

    Relatively young and healthy.

    Maybe it's just me but most Supreme Court judges last in the job until they can technically qualify as fossil fuel.

    Rust on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    SCOTUS justice is a sweet gig. If know if I had it I'd only leave in a pine box.

    Hachface on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Scalia is 72!
    Conservative + Young = 68-76

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Hachface wrote: »

    This is not unique to conservatives. It's simply sound political strategy.
    Also, Antonin Scalia is no spring chicken. If people keep asking him embarrassing questions he might just pop a blood vessel.

    I still think the one guy asking him if he regularly sodomized his wife was a thing of beauty.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Could we maybe turn this into a more general Supreme Court thread? I have a lot of built-up invective to hurl at Scalia.

    Hachface on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Link to Wiki on Potential Obama nominees to the SCOTUS

    After a very quick review the Kathleen Sullivan seems like someone I would keep an eye on... with the added intrigue that she is a lesbian. Kim McLane Wardlaw (great judge name) seems another possibility. These are partially based on my belief that Obama will almost certainly pick a female.

    PantsB on
    Spoiler
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Damn, that sucks. Here's hoping for a speedy recovery, or at least not a pain wrenching one.

    moniker on
  • David_TDavid_T A fashion yes-man is no good to me. Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Rust wrote: »

    Hillary is already SecState! We are all out of Clinton! We have reached peak Clinton.
    "That's why it's an honor to introduce the next Supreme Court Justice... Chelsea Clinton. I think we can all agree that her work with the School Of American Ballet makes her uniquely qualified."

    David_T on
    13iepvv6o8ip.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Link to Wiki on Potential Obama nominees to the SCOTUS

    After a very quick review the Kathleen Sullivan seems like someone I would keep an eye on... with the added intrigue that she is a lesbian. Kim McLane Wardlaw (great judge name) seems another possibility. These are partially based on my belief that Obama will almost certainly pick a female.

    Almost? I don't think that there would be any tolerance for an all-male SCOTUS.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Link to Wiki on Potential Obama nominees to the SCOTUS

    After a very quick review the Kathleen Sullivan seems like someone I would keep an eye on... with the added intrigue that she is a lesbian. Kim McLane Wardlaw (great judge name) seems another possibility. These are partially based on my belief that Obama will almost certainly pick a female.

    He almost has to. The Court has been a sausage fest since O'Connor left to take care of her husband and promote civics. Plus it would lose a lot of legitimacy on any ruling over women's issues without a single woman on the bench.

    moniker on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Link to Wiki on Potential Obama nominees to the SCOTUS

    After a very quick review the Kathleen Sullivan seems like someone I would keep an eye on... with the added intrigue that she is a lesbian. Kim McLane Wardlaw (great judge name) seems another possibility. These are partially based on my belief that Obama will almost certainly pick a female.

    Look sexual identity should have no bearing on whether someone is selected or not and it's insulting that it gets brought up. It has no bearing on being a supreme court justice who you lay down next to at night (as long as its legal).

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • s3rial ones3rial one Registered User regular
    edited February 2009

    Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote.

    Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are the arch-conservatives.
    Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer are varying amounts of liberal but are pretty consistent votes.

    Thomas, Roberts, and Alito irk me. But I'd like to think that there is a special level of hell for people like Scalia.

    The man isn't just an arch-conservative. He's intellectually dishonest. I hated my Criminal Procedure class for two reasons: I was going to read cases where rights were eroded in favor of police search and detention because of drug paranoia, and those cases were going to be written by Scalia, who would justify them with the most obtuse and irrational arguments imaginable.

    Scalia's favorite method of doing so seems to be torturing language, and the guy routinely sacrifices his judicial approach for the sake of preserving his politics. He's not just a bad justice. He's a terrible human being.

    s3rial one on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Link to Wiki on Potential Obama nominees to the SCOTUS

    After a very quick review the Kathleen Sullivan seems like someone I would keep an eye on... with the added intrigue that she is a lesbian. Kim McLane Wardlaw (great judge name) seems another possibility. These are partially based on my belief that Obama will almost certainly pick a female.

    I'd keep my eye on Elena Kagan. She and Obama are tight, and even though she already has a job in his administration it'd be a mistake not to consider her a serious contender.

    Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is a good pick is loony.

    Hachface on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Roberts seems 'meh' to me. But then I don't really follow the Court all that much. I wonder if he'll have to step down relatively soon, given his age, due to the whole epilepsy thing. One of the reasons he got picked, after all, is because his age means he gets to head the Court for a number of decades.

    moniker on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Ginsberg will be replaced by a female if she resigns during his term. That's just a political reality.

    And yes, Scalia is a gigantic dick, but he was asking about the ideological makeup of the Court and I didn't think "gigantic dick" really qualifies as an ideology.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Also just to point out ages:
    Liberal coalition:
    Stevens is 88 (mostly liberal/minds precedents)
    Souter is 69 (left of center, aligns with Stevens and liberals most of the time)
    Ginsburg is 75
    Breyer is is 70

    Conservatives:
    Alito 58
    Thomas 60 (D:)
    Chief Roberts is 54
    Scalia 72

    Swing vote/conservative
    Kennedy 72

    If Obama were to win a second term it is likely he will need to replace every member of the left coalition, Kennedy (who I think will retire so he can travel the world) and Scalia is he can't stubborn his way through and potentially Thomas (or Roberts/Alito if something unforeseen were to occur) due to old age or death. The Court has never been as static as it has been since Reagan.
    Hachface wrote: »

    Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is a good pick is loony.

    PantsB on
    Spoiler
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Ginsberg will be replaced by a female if she resigns during his term. That's just a political reality.

    And yes, Scalia is a gigantic dick, but he was asking about the ideological makeup of the Court and I didn't think "gigantic dick" really qualifies as an ideology.

    You'd think so, but Scalia tries his best.

    I still think a little piece of the floor dropped out of my world when he wrote up that '24' pro-torture advocacy.

    Rust on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Yeah, Thomas being that young is mind boggling. How the hell was he confirmed by a Democratic Senate? He was never viewed as being all that smart, was an obvious token, the Anita Hill thing happened, and he was what, 42? So couldn't have been experienced.

    enlightenedbum on
    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wait, Thomas is 60? Christ, what the hell happened to him? He looks like my grandpa did a decade ago, and he's 88.

    moniker on
Sign In or Register to comment.