• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should ruth bader ginsburg resign

Should ruth bader ginsburg resign

  • yes

    Votes: 5 19.2%

  • no

    Votes: 21 80.8%
  • Total voters
    26
99percenter

99percenter

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
10,660
Reaction score
3,785
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
To let obama appoint her successor?
 
Part of me says yes, because politically that would be smart for leftists. Another part of me says that that's not how the system is supposed to work, because justice should be impartial.
 
Has the cancer come back?
 
99percenter said:
To let obama appoint her successor?
Click to expand...

Too late. The only thing that would happen would be a protracted filibuster with both sides trying to turn the open SCOTUS position into a referendum. Its almost a no-win for the Dems, as if they win, the would have an open position to fill and if they lose, the Cons would have an open SCOTUS position once held by a more liberal justice to fill.

A very bad idea.
 
99percenter said:
To let obama appoint her successor?
Click to expand...

No. Hillary is just as "progressive" as Obama is, so basically it won't matter in the worst case scenario. If Sanders gets in, then someone who's as good as the notorious RBG could get into the court.

If Rubio snags the nomination and Hillary also, then she may want to resign to let Obama appoint her successor.
 
upsideguy said:
Too late. The only thing that would happen would be a protracted filibuster with both sides trying to turn the open SCOTUS position into a referendum. Its almost a no-win for the Dems, as if they win, the would have an open position to fill and if they lose, the Cons would have an open SCOTUS position once held by a more liberal justice to fill.

A very bad idea.
Click to expand...

She's a terrible justice, her opinions are made under the assumption the constitution is wrong and she's out to fix it, she should leave either way.

I personally wish the senate would simply filibuster a replacement, forever. Nothing says the court has to be 9 judges. Obama nor Hillary will pick a qualified replacement
 
That people consider partisan bent of a Supreme Court justice speaks volumes as to everything that is wrong with the court system.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
She's a terrible justice, her opinions are made under the assumption the constitution is wrong and she's out to fix it, she should leave either way.

I personally wish the senate would simply filibuster a replacement, forever. Nothing says the court has to be 9 judges. Obama nor Hillary will pick a qualified replacement
Click to expand...

You have to understand she's a feminist and non-observing jew. Throughout her life she was discriminated in her life because of her gender. She also harbors resentment towards the African American community. Remember she never hired 1 black clerk and her vehement support for abortion and Planned Parenthood is curious to say the least.

She is an extremely intelligent women but it is pretty clear, quite biased as a Supreme Court Justice.
 
upsideguy said:
Too late. The only thing that would happen would be a protracted filibuster with both sides trying to turn the open SCOTUS position into a referendum. Its almost a no-win for the Dems, as if they win, the would have an open position to fill and if they lose, the Cons would have an open SCOTUS position once held by a more liberal justice to fill.

A very bad idea.
Click to expand...

That was my first thought. The Notorious RBG missed this boat last year.
 
VanceMack said:
That people consider partisan bent of a Supreme Court justice speaks volumes as to everything that is wrong with the court system.
Click to expand...

:shrug: welcome to the Post-Bork era.
 
Rumor has it that four want to retire but, are waiting to see who the next POTUS will be.

Very unbiased of them. :roll:
 
WCH said:
Rumor has it that four want to retire but, are waiting to see who the next POTUS will be.

Very unbiased of them. :roll:
Click to expand...

Hopefully President Rubio gets to replace all of them.

I'm thinking a fitting replacement for RGB would be..... Senator Ted Cruz.


:mrgreen:
 
cpwill said:
Hopefully President Rubio gets to replace all of them.

I'm thinking a fitting replacement for RGB would be..... Senator Ted Cruz.


:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Oh. My. God.
 
VanceMack said:
That people consider partisan bent of a Supreme Court justice speaks volumes as to everything that is wrong with the court system.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this and consider Scalia her opposite. Roberts, while disagreeing with many of his decisions is someone I can respect in regards to being impartial.
 
notquiteright said:
I would say it shows what's wrong with the POLITICAL system... :peace
Click to expand...
There is literally no difference between the two these days. And that IS the problem.
 
akrunner88 said:
I actually agree with this and consider Scalia her opposite. Roberts, while disagreeing with many of his decisions is someone I can respect in regards to being impartial.
Click to expand...

Ahhh but the PUBs feel 'betrayed' by Roberts on the ACA issues brought before the court. Seems politicians expect the jurist to toe the line of whoever nominated them.
 
VanceMack said:
There is literally no difference between the two these days. And that IS the problem.
Click to expand...

I see it differently- that SOME of the jurists are sooo entrenched in a political philosophy they stand on their head to make their decisions. That some politicians demand a nominee swear allegiance to a political philosophy isn't on the Court system, after all Roberts 'stabbed conservatism in the back' over the ACA, it is on the highly partisan nature of politics these days.

Partisanship has always been a part of the nomination process but now it is the be all end all.
 
notquiteright said:
I see it differently- that SOME of the jurists are sooo entrenched in a political philosophy they stand on their head to make their decisions. That some politicians demand a nominee swear allegiance to a political philosophy isn't on the Court system, after all Roberts 'stabbed conservatism in the back' over the ACA, it is on the highly partisan nature of politics these days.

Partisanship has always been a part of the nomination process but now it is the be all end all.
Click to expand...
Partisanship defies the purpose of a lifetime appointment.

I put this on the justices. They should be responsible enough to not BE partisan, even if for no other reason than the sheer magnitude of the calling. If they lack even the integrity to do that, then the court has no credibility.
 
VanceMack said:
Partisanship defies the purpose of a lifetime appointment. I put this on the justices. They should be responsible enough to not BE partisan, even if for no other reason than the sheer magnitude of the calling. If they lack even the integrity to do that, then the court has no credibility.
Click to expand...

Now I see the Court as quite often non partisan, even as some use a philosophy you may or may not like. I can see where a Justice has a certain POV- like stasis, literalist, or living, but what the politicians demand is a litmus test opinion of issue that could be before the court- abortion, equal rights and federal jurisdiction.

That sort of partisanship is bad, shouldn't be allowed, but on the whole I see the Court as fairly even handed as Chief Justice Roberts showed in his votes on the ACA. He was a BushII appointee and was expected to toe the SoCon partisan platform- obviously he didn't.

I believe the Court has credibility, even if I feel the 'Citizens' decision was waaaay off the mark.... it wasn't partisan, it was flawed philosophy... :peace
 
No.

I'd prefer to have Obama appoint someone than a Republican do it, but the bottom line for me is that they should only resign from SCOTUS when they become impaired in doing the job, whether due to age or because they just really don't want to anymore (ie, Souter....who wanted to go back to NH. He still sits on panels in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals).




Exception: Thomas can resign any time he pleases, and the sooner the better.
 
Mr Person said:
No.

I'd prefer to have Obama appoint someone than a Republican do it, but the bottom line for me is that they should only resign from SCOTUS when they become impaired in doing the job, whether due to age or because they just really don't want to anymore (ie, Souter....who wanted to go back to NH. He still sits on panels in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals).




Exception: Thomas can resign any time he pleases, and the sooner the better.
Click to expand...

Quite telling you'd like the only black justice to resign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom