SC Justice Breyer resists calls to retire.

[Fishking]

What is it with the liberal SC justices that keeps them from making the expedient choice? Is it ego? This came back to bite them in the butt when RBG didn't retire, even though we all saw her literally falling asleep all the time, among other health issues compounded by old age. This resulted in giving the GOP her seat. While I most definitely prefer a conservative SC, that doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be a balance. Beyond that, the integrity of the SC itself is under thread, as it stands, by the left with their continual court packing rhetoric.

He needs to step down and let a younger justice get appointed while the Democrats have enough control to make it happen or we'll see an acceleration of many of the issues we're witnessing today.

Progressives Want Justice Stephen Breyer To Retire. His Response? Not Yet

In an interview with NPR, the 83-year-old said: "When exactly I should retire, or will retire, has many complex parts to it. I think I'm aware of most of them, and I ... will consider them."

www.npr.org

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has said he will retire on his own terms amid calls from progressives for him to step down from the court so President Biden can name a younger liberal to take his place.

"I'm only going to say that I'm not going to go beyond what I previously said on the subject, and that is that I do not believe I should stay on the Supreme Court, or want to stay on the Supreme Court, until I die," he told NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg in an interview in Boston to promote his book, The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics. "And when exactly I should retire, or will retire, has many complex parts to it. I think I'm aware of most of them, and I am, and will consider them."

 

[Mr Person]

Talk of expanding the court to correct the 6:3 imbalance created by seat stealing shenanigans: a "thread [sic]" to the integrity of the court.

GOP stealing two seats, first by making up a rule that never existed to steal Garland's seat (while claiming it was justified by a speech Biden gave 40 years ago), second by violating the first rule (more bullshit involved) to rush Barrett on: merely something "com[ing] back to bite them in the butt".




At any rate, he really should have the sense to retire while the Democrats can put someone on the Court. That much is fair in the OP. But the even better reason is to stop the GOP from stealing yet another seat. And another. And another. Then just about every decision is bound to come down in the way the GOP likes; after all, appointments are based on a bet that a person whose descional outcomes they like will continue on that path.

 

[TurtleDude]

Talk of expanding the court to correct the 6:3 imbalance created by seat stealing shenanigans: a "thread [sic]" to the integrity of the court.

GOP stealing two seats, first by making up a rule that never existed to steal Garland's seat (while claiming it was justified by a speech Biden gave 40 years ago), second by violating the first rule (more bullshit involved) to rush Barrett on: merely something "com[ing] back to bite them in the butt".




At any rate, he really should have the sense to retire while the Democrats can put someone on the Court. That much is fair in the OP. But the even better reason is to stop the GOP from stealing yet another seat. And another. And another. Then just about every decision is bound to come down in the way the GOP likes; after all, appointments are based on a bet that a person whose descional outcomes they like will continue on that path.

stealing two seats? oozing bullshit

 

[bomberfox]

Talk of expanding the court to correct the 6:3 imbalance created by seat stealing shenanigans: a "thread [sic]" to the integrity of the court.

GOP stealing two seats, first by making up a rule that never existed to steal Garland's seat (while claiming it was justified by a speech Biden gave 40 years ago), second by violating the first rule (more bullshit involved) to rush Barrett on: merely something "com[ing] back to bite them in the butt".




At any rate, he really should have the sense to retire while the Democrats can put someone on the Court. That much is fair in the OP. But the even better reason is to stop the GOP from stealing yet another seat. And another. And another. Then just about every decision is bound to come down in the way the GOP likes; after all, appointments are based on a bet that a person whose descional outcomes they like will continue on that path.

They’re going to make up bullshit and stall that seat too.

 

[Mr Person]

They’re going to make up bullshit and stall that seat too.

Not if Breyer retires now. 50-50 senate. Dem House. Dem WH.


But if he doesn't and they lose just the one senator in 2022.... etc

 

[trixare4kids]

Talk of expanding the court to correct the 6:3 imbalance created by seat stealing shenanigans: a "thread [sic]" to the integrity of the court.

GOP stealing two seats, first by making up a rule that never existed to steal Garland's seat (while claiming it was justified by a speech Biden gave 40 years ago), second by violating the first rule (more bullshit involved) to rush Barrett on: merely something "com[ing] back to bite them in the butt".




At any rate, he really should have the sense to retire while the Democrats can put someone on the Court. That much is fair in the OP. But the even better reason is to stop the GOP from stealing yet another seat. And another. And another. Then just about every decision is bound to come down in the way the GOP likes; after all, appointments are based on a bet that a person whose descional outcomes they like will continue on that path.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

What is it with the liberal SC justices that keeps them from making the expedient choice? Is it ego? This came back to bite them in the butt when RBG didn't retire

I have no earthly clue. The democratic party in generally often seems painfully incompetent at wielding political power.

Beyond that, the integrity of the SC itself is under thread, as it stands, by the left with their continual court packing rhetoric.

I would argue that it is just as threatened by the prospect of another conservative justice.

He needs to step down and let a younger justice get appointed while the Democrats have enough control to make it happen or we'll see an acceleration of many of the issues we're witnessing today.

Would you be in favor of term/age limits? This serving for life BS seems to be the source of many of these problem.

 

[bomberfox]

Not if Breyer retires now. 50-50 senate. Dem House. Dem WH.


But if he doesn't and they lose just the one senator in 2022.... etc

Since the filibuster is out you could be right.

 

[Mr Person]

Since the filibuster is out you could be right.

Oh, I don't think there's any chance that the GOP will approve a Dem nomination if it can possibly block it, not even a nomination made on the first day of a Dem president's term.

The Trumpists (idiotically) tried to steal the last election and the GOP is nationwide laying the groundwork to improve the power of every trick in the book to rig or perhaps even steal the next ones. That's a whole lot farther than not playing fair with nominees.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Yes, Breyer should retire. The sooner the better.

And do away with lifetime appointments.

 

[Blue Dog]

Not for anything, but the lesson should have been learned with Justice Ginsburg.

If the GOP takes the Senate, there will be a vacant seat until the next republican gets into the WH.

 

[mrjurrs]

Yes, Breyer should retire. The sooner the better.

And do away with lifetime appointments.

That would likely require a Constitutional Amendment. I'd prefer to impeach Thomas (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2011-jan-22-la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122-story.html) and Justice Kavanaugh (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-truth-facts-senate-failed-column/1455241002/)

 

[Lursa]

What is it with the liberal SC justices that keeps them from making the expedient choice? Is it ego? This came back to bite them in the butt when RBG didn't retire, even though we all saw her literally falling asleep all the time, among other health issues compounded by old age. This resulted in giving the GOP her seat. While I most definitely prefer a conservative SC, that doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be a balance. Beyond that, the integrity of the SC itself is under thread, as it stands, by the left with their continual court packing rhetoric.

Sense of duty, sense of responsibility to not leave court in lesser qualified hands, sense of balance.

You even answered your own question...desperate not to leave the justice system of the US in the hands of conservatives they may feel they cant trust. (that last part is my own, because of course there would be some you can...it's the extremism that concerns)

 

[Fishking]

Talk of expanding the court to correct the 6:3 imbalance created by seat stealing shenanigans: a "thread [sic]" to the integrity of the court.

GOP stealing two seats, first by making up a rule that never existed to steal Garland's seat (while claiming it was justified by a speech Biden gave 40 years ago), second by violating the first rule (more bullshit involved) to rush Barrett on: merely something "com[ing] back to bite them in the butt".

Actually, no actual/real rule was made up or broken. Appointment of SC justices comes with the advance and "consent" of the Senate. Obviously the Senate didn't consent.

At any rate, he really should have the sense to retire while the Democrats can put someone on the Court. That much is fair in the OP. But the even better reason is to stop the GOP from stealing yet another seat. And another. And another. Then just about every decision is bound to come down in the way the GOP likes; after all, appointments are based on a bet that a person whose descional outcomes they like will continue on that path.

Nothing was stolen. Tools that are specifically available were used. That aside, I still didn't think they did the proper thing there, either. I made a post about it at the time as well, to show my consistency.

A win isn't always a win: Opinion on RBJ replacement.

So for those who have been here a while know that I'm by no means a liberal, so I'm not coming at this from that perspective. My thoughts on this are the following: When you bring up quotes from Democrats in 2016 saying that the appointment/vote should happen even in the last year of the...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Fishking]

They’re going to make up bullshit and stall that seat too.

If they (Dems) do it before the next election they (GOP) can't stall it.

 

[Fishking]

I would argue that it is just as threatened by the prospect of another conservative justice.

I can't fully disagree with that.

Would you be in favor of term/age limits? This serving for life BS seems to be the source of many of these problem.

Term limits are one of those things that intuitively sounds like it would fix a problem but, when studied, it's actually been shown to make the problem worse. It makes it so people have less to lose therefor push to the extremes even more.

Beware of Candidates Selling Term Limits

Limiting lawmakers’ time in office only exacerbates the problems with our government.

slate.com

 

[Fishking]

Yes, Breyer should retire. The sooner the better.

And do away with lifetime appointments.

That makes the problems worse.

 

[Fishking]

Not for anything, but the lesson should have been learned with Justice Ginsburg.

If the GOP takes the Senate, there will be a vacant seat until the next republican gets into the WH.

That's what I don't want to have happen. I mean, I wish I could say that I could be pleasantly surprised and that they would seat someone Biden picked but I don't have any faith in that statement.

 

[Fishking]

Sense of duty, sense of responsibility to not leave court in lesser qualified hands, sense of balance.

You even answered your own question...desperate not to leave the justice system of the US in the hands of conservatives they may feel they cant trust. (that last part is my own, because of course there would be some you can...it's the extremism that concerns)

That's what I'm saying. That's why he should step down now.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

He believes in the institution. What choice does he have?

As far as the "stealing two seats" canard, what Republicans did to gain political advantage on the Court was perfectly in keeping with the Constitution.

Just like packing it would be should the Democrats grow some balls.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Term limits are one of those things that intuitively sounds like it would fix a problem but, when studied, it's actually been shown to make the problem worse. It makes it so people have less to lose therefor push to the extremes even more.

That is something to consider, but think about if we already had term limits and were arguing for changing to having the position for life. You'd be able to present a fair bit of evidence for life limits being bad.

By term limits, I mean very long limits. Like 20 years. Either that or an age limit so we don't have people going senile on the bench.

Is there a third alternative solution you are in favor of?

 

[Fishking]

That is something to consider, but think about if we already had term limits and were arguing for changing to having the position for life. You'd be able to present a fair bit of evidence for life limits being bad.

By term limits, I mean very long limits. Like 20 years. Either that or an age limit so we don't have people going senile on the bench.

Is there a third alternative solution you are in favor of?

3. Rational adults being able to make reasonable decisions and compromise where and when it is needed.

The problem goes beyond the SC, but to our entire system, which is why I don't think term limits are really the answer. We need to elect better leaders, and I don't know how to make that happen. If we continue to elect who we have, then no system/rule/regulation will fix it.

 

[Lursa]

That's what I'm saying. That's why he should step down now.

Of course it's not. If he doesnt feel that the bench is in good hands, then why would he? I named several reasons why duty would supersede health, etc.

 

[Fishking]

He believes in the institution. What choice does he have?

As far as the "stealing two seats" canard, what Republicans did to gain political advantage on the Court was perfectly in keeping with the Constitution.

Yes...it wasn't "stolen" in the sense that any real rule was broken but....(finishing my point below)...

Just like packing it would be should the Democrats grow some balls.

...this is just a recipe for the self-destruction of our nation via political divide even more than what we have.

 

[Fishking]

Of course it's not. If he doesnt feel that the bench is in good hands, then why would he? I named several reasons why duty would supersede health, etc.

He's 83. If his ego is so big that he thinks that him being there for whatever few years he has left is the lynchpin of the current SC dynamic then it's even more of a cause for him to step down. He's a Supreme Court Justice, not an immortal.