SC Justice Breyer resists calls to retire.

[Lursa]

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.

Factually, his vote is the same no matter what his age. Then you just added a bunch of stuff I never even implied.

Just like many of us, he'll fight the good fight as long as he can. If you choose to disrespect that, I dont care. It's a stupid hypocritical thing to do tho, in this instance and then not every other time people do so in society.

 

[Lursa]

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.

I agree with this, my worry is that we dont have the majority to do so.

And the sooner the better. Can he announce a retirement contingent on a new justice already being confirmed? Or can the process not start until he's off the bench?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

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

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

Maybe. But the best way to ensure Republicans continue to abuse their political authority when they have it is to do nothing.

 

[bomberfox]

I agree with this, my worry is that we dont have the majority to do so.

And the sooner the better. Can he announce a retirement contingent on a new justice already being confirmed? Or can the process not start until he's off the bench?

We dont need a supermajority. McConnel cant filibuster.

 

[Mr Person]

I agree with this, my worry is that we dont have the majority to do so.

And the sooner the better. Can he announce a retirement contingent on a new justice already being confirmed? Or can the process not start until he's off the bench?

Huh.. that I don't know. Unless I'm forgetting, the constitution does not specify precisely enough to answer that. I don't think it's ever been tried. As far as I know, nominations have only been made once there is a vacancy.


I have to wonder. The contingent business would both protect from seat-stealing and could be read as meaning that the instant the new justice is confirmed Breyer is not, such that there's never 10 on at once. The GOP might try to challenge it, and perhaps SCOTUS would end up ruling on whether the nomination was proper. Given the unprecedented nature of the situation, they might make exceptions from other doctrines like standing that might ordinarily preclude such a case (I mean, who sues whom? Is the claim a political question the Court traditionally does not answer? Etc).

Perhaps nothing could be done to stop it within the normal operation of law. We can draw up and absurd hypothetical to make the point.

Say the Dems have the requisite power, go crazy, and fill the court with the biggest control advocates ever, and they say "we reverse Heller and find that the 2nd Amd. means simply that you cannot sell two pound hamburger patties." That would effectively be the law of the land. On the one hand, SCOTUS does not have an army, so it couldn't make anyone obey this. You'd have a constitutional crisis. A SCOTUS that issued a laughably unconstitutional and insane decision, but who can't enforce it, and our choice would be between acquiescing in it thus opening the door to SCOTUS truly behaving like a dictator using any case before it, or simply ignoring SCOTUS, opening the door to various officials/states ignoring other more legitimate decisions they don't like.

Perhaps there's something relevant in the standing version of the Judiciary Act.

 

[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.

stealing two seats? oozing bullshit

Wow, that's some insightful analysis right there.

No wonder I usually don't bother responding to your posts.